Accessed 18 Nov 2011 EC: Regulation 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 (2011b) EC-JRC (European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Environment and Sustainability): International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) handbook. Retrieved 26 Nov 2012, from http://lct.jrc.ec.europa.eu/assessment/publications (2010–2012) EC-JRC (European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Environment and Sustainability): Supporting Environmentally Sound Decisions for Waste Management A technical guide to Life Cycle Thinking (LCT) and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) for waste experts and LCA practitioners. European Union, Luxembourg, JRC Scientific and Technical Reports 65850; ISBN 978-92-79-21017-4 (PDF) (2011a) EC-JRC: Supporting Environmentally Sound Decisions for Bio-Waste Management


European Union, Luxembourg, JRC Scientific and Technical Reports 65850; ISBN 978-92-79-21017-4 (PDF) (2011a) EC-JRC: Supporting Environmentally Sound Decisions for Bio-Waste Management. A practical guide to Life Cycle Thinking (LCT) and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). European Union, Luxembourg, JRC Scientific and Technical Reports 65851; ISBN 978-92-79-21019-8 (PDF) (2011b) EC-JRC: Supporting Environmentally Sound Decisions for Construction and Demolition (C&D) Waste Management. A practical guide to Life Cycle Thinking (LCT) and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). European Union, Luxembourg, JRC Scientific and Technical Reports 65852; ISBN 978-92-79-21021-1 (PDF) (2011c) EC-JRC: Life Cycle Indicators Framework: Development of Life Cycle Based Macro-Level Monitoring Indicators For Resources, Products and Waste For the EU-27. European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Environment and Sustainability, European Union, Luxembourg, JRC Technical Report 73336 (2012)

18 Life Cycle Thinking and the Use of LCA in Policies Around the World

Hauschild et al., LCA: Theory and Practice


European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Environment and Sustainability, European Union, Luxembourg, JRC Technical Report 73336 (2012). ISBN: 978-92-79-25937-1 EC-JRC (European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Environment and Sustainability): Sustainability assessment of future-oriented scenarios: a review of data modelling approaches in Life Cycle Assessment, draft, submitted to internal review (2013) FAO: The Global Bioenergy Partnership Common Methodological Framework for GHG Lifecycle Analysis of Bioenergy. GBEP Secretariat, Rome, Italy (2009) FAO: New effort to harmonize measurement of livestock’s environmental impacts, News Article. http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/150555/ (2012). Accessed 1 Aug 2013 FAO: The Global Bioenergy Partnership


http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/150555/ (2012). Accessed 1 Aug 2013 FAO: The Global Bioenergy Partnership. GBEP Secretariat, Rome, Italy (2013) French Ministry of Ecology, Sustainable Development and Energy: Le Grenelle Environnement— Grenelle 2 law, Paris, France (2010) Life Cycle Thinking and the Use of LCA in Policies Around the ...


French Ministry of Ecology, Sustainable Development and Energy: Energy Transition for Green Growth Act: User Guide for the Act and its Attendant Actions, Paris (2015) Güereca, P.L., Ochoa, R., Gilbert, H., Suppen, N.: Life cycle assessment in Mexico: overview of development and implementation. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 20(3), 311–331 (2015) Indigo Development: China seeks to develop a circular economy. http://www.indigodev.com/ Circular1.html#refs (2009). Accessed 29 July 2013 ISO (International Organization for Standardization): ISO 14040. Environmental Management— Life Cycle Assessment—Principles and Framework. ISO, Geneva, Switzerland (2006) ITU: Toolkit on environmental sustainability for the ICT sector. http://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-t/ oth/4B/01/T4B010000060001PDFE.pdf (2012). Accessed 17 Dec 2013 MAVDT: Política Nacional de Producción y Consumo Sostenible de Colombia. www


http://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-t/ oth/4B/01/T4B010000060001PDFE.pdf (2012). Accessed 17 Dec 2013 MAVDT: Política Nacional de Producción y Consumo Sostenible de Colombia. www. minambiente.gov.co/index.php/component/content/article?id=155:plantilla-asuntosambientales-y-sectorial-y-urbana-8#pol%C3%ADtica-y-criterios (2010). Accessed 25 Apr Mercosur: Política de Promocíon y Cooperacíon en Produccíon u Consumo Sostenibles en el Mercosur (2007) MIIT/MEP/NRDC: Eco-design of industrial products guidance. Published in 2013 by the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology and the Ministry of Environmental Protection of the People’s Republic of China, and the National Development of Reform Commission (NDRC). www.indigodev.com/sepa_eip_guideline.html (2013). Accessed 28 Feb 2015 MinAm: Guía Conceptual y Metodológica de Compras Públicas Sostenibles de Colombia. Ministerio de Ambiente y el Centro Nacional de Producción más Limpia de Colombia. www


Accessed 28 Feb 2015 MinAm: Guía Conceptual y Metodológica de Compras Públicas Sostenibles de Colombia. Ministerio de Ambiente y el Centro Nacional de Producción más Limpia de Colombia. www. minambiente.gov.co/index.php/component/content/article?id=155:plantilla-asuntosambientales-y-sectorial-y-urbana-8#gu%C3%ADa (2010). Accessed 25 Apr 2016 MMA: Politica Nacional de Resíduos Sólidos – Ministério do Meio Ambiente. Lei no 12.305/2010, Decreto No. 7.404/2010. www.abdi.com.br/ (2010). Accessed 28 Feb 2015 Mungcharoen, T.: LCA applications in Thailand. In: Proceedings of the 2014 Chinese Conference on Life Cycle Management (CLCM), Beijing. www.clcm.org.cn/ 2014 (2013) NMX: Norma Mexicana NMX-AA-164-SCFI-2013: Edificacion Sustentable – Criterios y Requerimientos Ambientales Minimos (Sustainable building—minimum environmental criteria and requirements). http://biblioteca.semarnat.gob.mx/janium/Documentos/Ciga/agenda/ DOFsr/DO3156.pdf (2013)


http://biblioteca.semarnat.gob.mx/janium/Documentos/Ciga/agenda/ DOFsr/DO3156.pdf (2013). Accessed 28 Feb 2015 Norwegian Ministry of Environment: Oslo Symposium (1994) OECD: Environmental Claims—Findings and Conclusions of the, Committee on Consumer Policy, Paris (2010) OECD: Sustainable Materials Management: Making Better Use of Resources. OECD, Paris (2012) ORDER PRE/116/2008: [Thai] Green public procurement plan of the state general administration and its public bodies, and the managing bodies of the social security. Published on 21 January. www.measures-odyssee-mure.eu/public/mure_pdf/transport/SPA44.PDF (2008). Accessed 28 Feb 2015 Pennington, D., Wolf, M., Bersani, R., Pretato, U.: Overcoming barriers to the broader implementation of life cycle thinking in business and public administration. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 12(7), 458–460 (2007)


Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 12(7), 458–460 (2007). doi:10.1065/lca2007.07.355 Sala, S., Pant, R., Hauschild, M., Pennington, D.: Research needs and challenges from science to decision support. Lesson learnt from the development of the international reference life cycle data system (ILCD) recommendations for life cycle impact assessment. Sustainability 4(7), 1412–1425 (2012) Sonnemann, G., Vigon, B., Broadbent, C., Curran, M.A., Finkbeiner, M., Frischknecht, R., Inaba, A., Schanssema, A., Stevenson, M., Ugaya, C., Wang, H., Wolf, M.-A., Valdivia, S.: Process on “global guidance for LCA databases”. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 16(1), 95–97 (2011) SQCB: Legislation and certification schemes for biofuels, sustainability quick check for biofuels. http://www.sqcb.org/ (2013). Accessed 25 Mar 2013 The White House: Camp David Declaration, G8 Summit (2012)


Toepfer, K.: Editorial for Int J LCA on the launch of the UNEP-SETAC life cycle initiative. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 7(4), 191 (2002) UNCSD: The future we want, Rio+20 outcome document, Rio de Janeiro (2012a) UNCSD: 10-Year framework of programmes on sustainable consumption and production patterns, A/CONF.216/5 adopted document, Rio de Janeiro (2012b) UNDA National Agricultural Library: LCA digital commons project. http://www.lcacommons.gov (2013). Accessed 31 July 2013 UNEP: Final Report of the Fourth Government Experts Meeting on Sustainable Consumption and Production for Latin America and the Caribbean, Sao Paulo (2008) UNEP: final draft mission document. International panel for sustainable resource management— UNEP. http://www.unep.org/resourcepanel/Portals/24102/PDFs/Mission%20Document.pdf (2010a). Accessed 19 Dec 2013 UNEP: Assessing the environmental impacts of consumption and production: priority products and materials


Accessed 19 Dec 2013 UNEP: Assessing the environmental impacts of consumption and production: priority products and materials. In: Hertwich E., van der Voet E., Suh S., Tukker A., Huijbregts M., Kazmierczyk P., Lenzen M., McNeely J., Moriguchi Y.A. (eds.) Report of the Working Group on the Environmental Impacts of Products and Materials to the International Panel for Sustainable Resource Management. Paris (2010b) UNEP: Global Outlook on SCP Policies: Taking Action Together. UNEP, Paris, France (2012a) UNEP: The 10 Year Framework of Programmes on Sustainable Consumption and Production, 4p. UNEP, Paris, France (2012b) UNEP: Responsible Resource Management for a Sustainable World: Findings from the International Resource Panel. UNEP, Paris, France (2012c). 36 p UNEP: Resource efficiency and sustainable consumption and production. http://www.unep.org/ roa/Programmes/resourceefficiency-old/tabid/7180/Default.aspx (2013a)


UNEP, Paris, France (2012c). 36 p UNEP: Resource efficiency and sustainable consumption and production. http://www.unep.org/ roa/Programmes/resourceefficiency-old/tabid/7180/Default.aspx (2013a). Accessed 8 Mar UNEP: Life cycle thinking and the use of life cycle assessment in sustainable consumption and production policies: exchange of experiences and the need for quality data availability and capacity building. Unpublished draft report including presentations from the 2nd intergovernmental dialogue on LCA, Paris (2013b) UNEP/SETAC: Global Guidance Principles for Life Cycle Assessment Databases—A Basis for Greener Processes and Products. UNEP/SETAC, Paris (2011) UNEP/SETAC: Greening the Economy through Life Cycle Thinking—10 Years of the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative. UNEP/SETAC, Paris, France (2012)


UNEP/SETAC, Paris (2011) UNEP/SETAC: Greening the Economy through Life Cycle Thinking—10 Years of the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative. UNEP/SETAC, Paris, France (2012). 60 p UNEP/SETAC: Opportunities for National Life Cycle Network Creation and Expansion Around the world with a Special Focus on Mainstreaming and LCA Database Development in Emerging Economies, Based on a Global Survey. UNEP/SETAC, Paris, France (2016) UNESCAP: Report of the Ministerial Conference on Environment and Development in Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok, Thailand (2005) UNIDO: Joint UNIDO-UNEP Programme on Resource Efficient and Cleaner Production in Developing and Transition Countries. http://www.unido.org/fileadmin/user_media/Services/ Environmental_Management/Contacts/Contacts/RECP%20Programme%20Flyer%20April% 202010%20(2).pdf (2010). Accessed 17 Dec 2013 UNIDO/UNEP: Joint UNIDO-UNEP Programme on Resource Efficient and Cleaner Production in Developing and Transition Countries


Accessed 17 Dec 2013 UNIDO/UNEP: Joint UNIDO-UNEP Programme on Resource Efficient and Cleaner Production in Developing and Transition Countries. http://www.unep.fr/scp/cp/pdf/RECP%20Programme% 20Flyer%20April%202010.pdf (2013). Accessed 10 Dec 2013 Verbruggen, H., Kuik, O., Bennis, M.: Environmental Regulations as Trade Barriers for Developing Countries: Eco-Labelling and the Dutch Cut Flower Industry, CREED Working Paper No 2, Institute for Environmental Studies, Amsterdam (1995) Life Cycle Thinking and the Use of LCA in Policies Around the ...


Disclaimer The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication does not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative and the European Commission concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Moreover, the views expressed do not necessarily represent the decision or the stated policy of the European Commission, UNEP or SETAC, nor does citing of trade names or commercial processes constitute endorsement. Author Biographies Guido Sonnemann Involved in LCA development and promotion in the word since the mid-1990s. Has led the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative Secretariat and publications such as the Global Guidance Principles on LCA Databases. Main LCA interests are chemistry and resources, integration with criticality and risk, plus LCM and public policy


Main LCA interests are chemistry and resources, integration with criticality and risk, plus LCM and public policy. Eskinder Gemechu LCA expert since 2009 with a background in chemical, environmental and process engineering. Recent research focus was resource impact assessment modelling, working towards methodological integration of LCA and resource criticality assessment under the LCSA assessment framework. Serenella Sala LCA expert focusing on environmental and ecological modelling since 2001. Main areas of research are related to models, methods and indicators for integrated impact assessment and sustainability assessment, including their role in the science-policy interface. Erwin M. Schau Expert in LCA. Has a background in industrial economics and technology management. He has been involved in LCA for industry and academia since 2000, from 2012 stronger focus on the policy side with the European Union Environmental Footprint. Main interests are feed, food and fibre


He has been involved in LCA for industry and academia since 2000, from 2012 stronger focus on the policy side with the European Union Environmental Footprint. Main interests are feed, food and fibre. Karen Allacker LCA expert focusing on the construction sector since 2001. Research focus on quantitative sustainability assessment of the built environment from a life cycle thinking perspective. When working for the EC-JRC, she was involved in the development of the Environmental Footprint. Rana Pant LCA expert with experience in industry and the Joint Research Centre (JRC) of the European Commission. Topics covered are applying Life Cycle Thinking to solid waste management, Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA), the International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook and Environmental Footprint. Naeem Adibi Currently working as Managing director of WELOOP in northern France. He has a multidisciplinary background in engineering, environmental sciences and management


Naeem Adibi Currently working as Managing director of WELOOP in northern France. He has a multidisciplinary background in engineering, environmental sciences and management. He holds a PhD degree in civil engineering from French Ecole Centrale de Lille. He has been coordinating numerous LCM and LCA projects in building construction, automotive and recycling, as well as in a range of industrial sectors.


Sonia Valdivia Co-chair of the capacity building area of the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative and Co-coordinator of the Social Life Cycle Alliance. As UNEP officer, she managed the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative between 2005 and 2014. Her areas of interest include life cycle management, social LCA and LCA based policies. Life Cycle Thinking and the Use of LCA in Policies Around the ...


Chapter 19 Globalisation and Mainstreaming of LCA Arne Wangel Abstract The chapter describes how a globalised economy exacerbates the need of a mainstreaming of LCA, in particular the emergence of long, complex and geographically highly dispersed global value chains (GVCs). In documenting the three phases of the UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle Initiative, a conventional roadmap for global mainstreaming of LCA is drawn. However, the questioning by some South governments of the rationale and a North methodological bias of LCA draws attention to the significance of national and local contexts in developing countries. The chapter argues a more elaborate concept for building capacity for LCA in developing countries and suggests how to strategize national LCA agendas


The chapter argues a more elaborate concept for building capacity for LCA in developing countries and suggests how to strategize national LCA agendas. Learning Objectives After studying this chapter the reader should have a clear understanding of the importance of the context of globalisation for the development of LCA methodology, its dissemination of and the capacity building for LCA, in particular with regard to the adoption of LCA in developing and industrialising countries. 19.1 Introduction: The Global Challenge for LCA The greenhouse effect spans the entire globe causing disruption of livelihood for millions of people across continents. The pattern of climate gas emissions mirrors the last century of human civilisation, when mass production and consumption emerged and became internationalised. Thus, mitigating as well as adapting to these environmental impacts constitutes a global challenge. A


Thus, mitigating as well as adapting to these environmental impacts constitutes a global challenge. A. Wangel (&) Division for Quantitative Sustainability Assessment, Department of Management Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark e-mail: arne.wangel@gmail.com © Springer International Publishing AG 2018 M.Z. Hauschild et al. (eds.), Life Cycle Assessment, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-56475-3_19


The organisational forms of internationalisation of production have changed from exchange of goods across borders by trading companies, to include foreign investment in overseas territories, and to establish subsidiaries of multinational corporations after the Second World War. Supported by improved information and transport technologies, selected segments have been outsourced or offshored to locations offering low tax regimes, low labour cost, same or better quality, delivery on-time and other advantages. More recently, some corporations are transforming from vertically integrated wholly owned companies into sliced up global supply chains organised by lead firms, e.g. branded manufacturers or major retailers. The lead firms cross national borders and combine value-added activities by a range of suppliers into global value chains (GVCs) for the manufacture of a final product


The lead firms cross national borders and combine value-added activities by a range of suppliers into global value chains (GVCs) for the manufacture of a final product. The growth of emerging economies (first of all in BRIC countries: Brazil, Russia, India and China) is to a significant extent a result of this new form of internationalisation of production, as “GVCs began to concentrate in these giant countries that offered seemingly inexhaustible pools of low-wage workers, capable manufacturers, abundant raw materials and sizeable domestic markets. Thus, China became the ‘factory of the world’, India the world’s ‘back office’, Brazil had a wealth of agricultural commodities, and Russia possessed enormous reserves of natural resources plus military technologies linked to its role as a Cold War Superpower” (Gereffi2014)


Looking at trade statistics, the increasing importance of global production chains is reflected in the rising trade in intermediate inputs, which now represent more than half of the goods imported by OECD economies and close to three-fourths of the imports of large developing economies, such as China and Brazil. This phenomenon poses new challenges, because “imported inputs also account for a significant chunk of exports, blurring the line between exports and imports as well as between domestic products and imports. As part of global production chains, products at different stages of value added may be imported and re-exported multiple times, increasing the size of reported exports and imports relative to global and national value added” (World Economic Forum 2012). The centre of gravity in world trade is shifting from West to East, as the financial and economic crisis in US and EU drags


The centre of gravity in world trade is shifting from West to East, as the financial and economic crisis in US and EU drags. The crisis has not “reversed globalization, but accelerated two long-term trends in the global economy: the consolidation of GVCs and the growing salience of markets in the South” (Cattaneo et al. 2010). However, inequalities among developing countries may increase. Conventional trade statistics on gross trade flows between nations reflect the dispersed production process in quite imprecise terms. Thus, recently, an alternative measure, GVC income, which is defined as the income generated in a country by participating in global manufacturing production, has been suggested (Timmer et al. 2015). This will allow a detailed analysis at product level on the distribution of activities in a global value chain among suppliers and the amount of value added with each supplier


2015). This will allow a detailed analysis at product level on the distribution of activities in a global value chain among suppliers and the amount of value added with each supplier. The World Input–Output Database (WIOD 2012) enables an analysis of the implications of production fragmented across borders, e.g. for A. Wangel


shifting patterns in demand for skills in labour markets, or for local emissions of pollutants to the environment. Life cycle assessment of GVCs is confronted with a similar data problem. Making use of generic databases developed in industrialised countries may produce imprecise or invalid results for processes and materials in developing countries, whose different properties and conditions of operation may cause a high degree of uncertainty. 19.2 Global Product Life Cycles Thus, the length, complexity and geographical location of life cycle segments in GVCs, often in very diverse socio-economic contexts, present challenges for conducting LCA. The following three examples illustrate why an inventory of valid and precise site-specific data is crucial and why this objective may be hard to achieve. The farming of pangasius in Vietnam and its processing into frozen fillets for export to industrialised countries have brought tremendous growth to the national economy


The farming of pangasius in Vietnam and its processing into frozen fillets for export to industrialised countries have brought tremendous growth to the national economy. However, aquaculture involves serious environmental problems such as fish feed containing zinc, copper, cadmium and mercury; water pollution due to uneaten feed or faeces and improper discharge of wastewater from the ponds; loss of mangrove forest causing loss of biodiversity and natural barriers against tsunamis; and antibiotics residues in wild fish around farms. Nonetheless, the strong competition in international markets, first of all from China, motivates a prime concern about compliance with health and food safety standards in Vietnamese aquaculture management. To perform a life cycle assessment of pangasius production is hampered by difficulties in getting site-specific data


To perform a life cycle assessment of pangasius production is hampered by difficulties in getting site-specific data. A Dutch-Vietnamese research team conducted what they termed as a ‘stakeholder-based screening life cycle assessment up to the exit-gate of the fish farm’. The study identified two critical processes: (1) feed ingredient production, transport and milling; and (2) pond effluents in grow-out farming. For the first process, a generic inventory had to be used, as only five out of 30 feed producing companies in the Mekong delta provided data for the team. The team suspected that producers use secret formula, do not meet sanitary standards and are reluctant to provide information out of fear of government authorities (Bosma et al. 2011)


The team suspected that producers use secret formula, do not meet sanitary standards and are reluctant to provide information out of fear of government authorities (Bosma et al. 2011). Concerning the second critical process, which requires data to be collected from the farmers, the experience of food traceability systems shows that keeping records on inputs and outputs is an extra work task, for which no manpower can be spared during peak production (Yong 2008). Farmers are also concerned about data security, as some may use prohibited drugs in the ponds (own interviews 2009). Globalisation and Mainstreaming of LCA


While feed producers’ secrecy, out of fear of negative sanctions from public authorities and lack of capacity for record-keeping with primary producers, bar the access to local data in Vietnam, an example from Ghana shows that the final segments of the life cycle of some products may be completely hidden. The export of second-hand computers to Ghana, some of which is illegal, extends the use phase of the life cycle of these products to meet needs of cheap computing for consumers in Africa. When the life time of the recycled product comes to a definitive end, final disposal is often performed under hazardous conditions, e.g. by open fire, causing severe problems for the environment and for the occupational health and safety of workers exposed. Only data collection on-site will be able to capture the processes in this and other informal sectors of the national economy


Only data collection on-site will be able to capture the processes in this and other informal sectors of the national economy. In Malaysia, emerging capacity for assessing environmental impacts of a product having strategic importance for the national economy illustrates that the validity of foreign LCA studies based on generic data is being contested by local studies based on local data. Palm oil production in Malaysia is a natural resource sector of strategic importance. The sector has developed over four decades and contributes 5–6% to GDP. In 2011, palm oil and palm oil-based products, ranked as the largest exports revenue earner with a total combined value of RM 80.30 billion, contributed 61.8% to total exports (MPOB 2011). Crude palm oil production accounts for app. 3.5% of the total environmental impacts in Malaysia (Yusoff and Hansen 2007). The country accounts for 39% of world production and 44% of world exports (MPOB 2014)


3.5% of the total environmental impacts in Malaysia (Yusoff and Hansen 2007). The country accounts for 39% of world production and 44% of world exports (MPOB 2014). Palm oil is sold on the world market in fierce competition with other vegetable oils and subjected to frequent price fluctuations. The rationale of the strong R&D efforts is to safeguard the export revenue from this strategic commodity. This includes science-based arguments for the healthier properties—in terms of cholesterol content—of palm oil (MPOC 2016) as compared to soya bean oil. As a contested product, industry-driven research is directed to investigate the environmental concerns about palm oil production. LCA is adopted as a tool to drive back opposition from environmental, non-governmental organisations and from competitors and prove that palm oil has comparatively less environmental impact than other vegetable oils


In the scientific discussion, several Malaysian researchers claim that European databases are not representative for processes in Asia; thus in LCAs, according to them, palm oil appears to be worse than it really is. These three examples point to the limitations involved when relying on generic databases only. Conditions in developing countries may be very different, when it comes to climate, habitats and natural resources characteristics and also with regard to the socio-economic and regulatory context. In the globalised economy, it is evident that a vibrant, strong and internationally well-connected LCA research community in any country is needed to produce relevant and valid LCAs of products and services. This is part of a general challenge of mainstreaming the use of LCA (Rebitzer and Schäfer 2009). A. Wangel


19.3 The UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative for Global Mainstreaming of LCA The origin of capacity support specifically targeting LCA was the framework programme on Sustainable Consumption and Production established by UNEP DTI as part of its follow-up of the World Summit on Sustainable Development 2002. The 10-year framework programme focuses on SMEs as reliable suppliers, regional life cycle networks, and training programmes targeted at National Cleaner Production Centres (NCPCs) (De Leeuw 2006). Joining with the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC), the UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle Initiative focused on forming a focal point, i.e. a community of practitioners and stakeholders, and defined the following three objectives for its first phase 2002–2006: 1. Global representation in the various bodies of the initiative 2. Organisation of activities around the world 3


Global representation in the various bodies of the initiative 2. Organisation of activities around the world 3. Organisation of capacity building material and of activities aiming at developing countries as well as small and medium enterprises (SMEs). Thus, international outreach and capacity building was clearly targeted (Udo de Haes 2003). During this period, three regional networks were formed in Africa (Ramjeawon et al. 2005), Asia and Latin America; also an open forum with more than 1000 members from all over the world has been established. A range of awareness workshops, scientific conferences and outreach activities to cleaner production centres have been conducted. Practical tools in the form of training manuals and guides have been produced and disseminated covering Life Cycle Impact Assessment, Life Cycle Inventories, Social Life Cycle Assessment, Life Cycle Management and a Life Cycle Database Registry (Sonnemann 2003, 2004)


The First Edition of the LCA Award 2006–2007 acknowledged pioneering works and individual commitment to Life Cycle Assessments in developing countries, e.g. research to assess the environmental impact of sugar production in South Africa, newsprint paper production in Zimbabwe and new approaches to assess impacts on biodiversity in Brazil (Sonnemann and Valdivia 2007). The mission for the second phase 2006–2010 of the Life Cycle Initiative was to bring science-based Life Cycle approaches into practice worldwide, thus explicitly setting capacity development on the agenda. The UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative served as an umbrella for a number of separate projects with different forms of affiliation to the Initiative. The Life Cycle Awards for projects using Life Cycle approaches in developing countries were being continued (Sonnemann and Valdivia 2007). A number of training and scientific events have been conducted


A number of training and scientific events have been conducted. In the Asia Pacific Region, the National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST), Research Centre for Life Cycle Assessment, Tsukuba, Japan, was organising LCA workshops, e.g. focussing on food and waste chains in the region (Inaba et al. 2001, 205–206). Also, a survey has been completed, which compares levels of LCA implementation between nations in using indicators such Globalisation and Mainstreaming of LCA


as numbers of seminars, workshops, case studies, the establishment of a LCA Forum or Society, LCI Database development, LCIA methodology development, the extent of application by industries and worldwide technology transfer. A regular LCA event in Asia Pacific was reflected in the Seventh International Conference on EcoBalance. The third phase 2012–2016 targeted the mainstreaming of the use of life cycle approaches, including better accessibility to cost-effective, robust methodologies and tools based on reliable data, transfer of scientific knowledge to the wider society and improved global communication channels of the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative via a number of flagship projects: • Environmental life cycle impact assessment indicators • LCA of Organisations • Data and database management • Global Principles and Practices for Hotspot Analysis • Global capability development


The flagship project on Global capability development (UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative 2016) had the aim to strengthen and consolidate the life cycle work in the regions, including documentation of local consultants and databases available. Focal points at Governmental offices (including national statistic offices for data management aspects) and chambers of commerce were identified and linked to the national networks. Some deliverables identified for this flagship include the following: • Establishing a baseline on the level of Life Cycle Thinking worldwide, assessing the current capabilities on Life Cycle issues in non-OECD countries, with updates planned for every 3 years to trace the evolution. • Life cycle tools (i.e. on life cycle management, life cycle based footprinting indicators and eco-design) spread across the emerging and rapidly growing economies via the Life Cycle Initiative’s or local platforms. • South–south (e.g


• South–south (e.g. in Latin America) cooperation for increased implementation and North–South cooperation for methodologies’ enhancement, data generation and exchange. • Life cycle experts’ and practitioners’ network established in each region. • Online tools, if possible, translated into several languages including English, Spanish, Chinese and Portuguese. In 2001, LCA capacity constraints were documented for Argentina (Arena 2000). In 2006, UNEP DTI took stock of the situation in developing countries (Sonnemann and de Leeuw 2006). In 2007, the need for LCA of globalsupply chains of food products and transboundary movement of waste was highlighted (Inaba et al. 2007). In 2012, an analysis by Toolseeram Ramjeawon of the status of LCA in developing countries and of the need to build LCA capacities (Ramjeawon 2012) pointed to the lack of technical expertise and the absence of awareness as main barriers for improving beyond a very limited or non-existent level of A. Wangel


implementation of LCA. A mapping based upon a six criterion definition, which resulted in a total of one hundred local, regional and global LCA networks around the world, confirms this situation. The survey received a response from only six networks in developing countries, primarily in South America and Southeast Asia, leaving Africa and Central Asia almost unrepresented. The analysis by Ramjeawon (2012) suggested that joining global value chains provides one avenue for improvement with producers in developing countries, because the foreign lead firms will require LCA-based documentation of environmental performance from their suppliers to facilitate entry to markets in Europe and US (Ramjeawon 2012). Domestically, the key recommendation is for the government to create effective demand for LCA by launching national sustainable consumption and production action plans (Ramjeawon 2012)


Domestically, the key recommendation is for the government to create effective demand for LCA by launching national sustainable consumption and production action plans (Ramjeawon 2012). However, closing the enormous gap between levels of implementation in developing countries and industrialised countries calls for a wide range of capacity building activities to be adopted in developing countries. A roadmap was proposed with the following progressive steps (Ramjeawon 2012): 1. Introduction of life cycle topics in educational programmes and research activities; 2. Networking; 3. Setting up a national inventory database and development of tools to set up, maintain and disseminate data; 4. Development of national life cycle impact assessment methodologies; 5. Capacity development to apply LCA in industry and in public decision-making; 6. Promotion of LCA applications and creating a stock of success stories and dissemination; 7. Policy development


Capacity development to apply LCA in industry and in public decision-making; 6. Promotion of LCA applications and creating a stock of success stories and dissemination; 7. Policy development. In 2011, global guidance principles for LCA databases were launched (Sonnemann et al. 2013). In 2015, the status of life cycle management in emerging economies was assessed (Valdivia et al. 2015). As one of few countries, Malaysia has launched a comprehensive plan for implementation of LCA. In 2006, the National Initiative to Develop the Lifecycle Inventory Database for the Development of Eco-Friendly Products and Services (SIRIM 2016) was initiated under the NinthMalaysia Plan. The initiative is hosted at SIRIM Berhad with support from the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) for a number of the activities under the project. The main objective is to develop the National Life Cycle Inventory Database asthe basis for LCA studies


The main objective is to develop the National Life Cycle Inventory Database asthe basis for LCA studies. Thiswill support the National Eco-labelling Programme and facilitate compliance with environmental standards in international trade. The specific objectives are as follows: – To develop the national life cycle inventory (LCI) database; – To develop a critical mass of local LCA practitioners; – To develop eco-labelling criteria documents for the National Eco-labelling Programme; Globalisation and Mainstreaming of LCA


To create awareness among industry and consumer groups on the importance of LCA in today’s manufacturing and procurement practice. Thus, the national LCA initiative intends to roll out basic resources for LCA practices by sourcing data on relevant processes in Malaysia, by supplying definitions of eco-labelling criteria, by initiating broad-based effort to create awareness the significance of LCA among stakeholders, and by supporting the creation of a pool of LCA resource persons. In 2008, SIRIM completed a project under the EU Asia Pro Eco Programme Sustainable Production and Consumption as the Long-term Solution to Reduce Urban Environmental Degradation—Developing a Reference Framework for Electrical and Electronic Products, establishing a reference framework that links the roles and contribution of all stakeholders in the supply demand chain of electrical and electronic products, i.e. manufacturers, retailers and consumers


manufacturers, retailers and consumers. All five major public universities, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Universiti Malaya, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Universiti Putra Malaysia and Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, have rather limited LCA research activities—currently there is no permanent research group specialising in LCA. Results are not communicated beyond those researchers, who are producing them, except as training modules produced for staff training within the Department of Environment (DOE). Once completed, the national life cycles inventories (LCIs) will be made available to industry on a subscription basis. SIRIM has conducted an extensive outreach effort, in particular to SMEs; however, attendance to awareness and training workshops has been low. Only the plastic manufacturers have adopted LCA thinking and methods to highlight the environmental impact of the plastic bag product chain as compared to that of products with a similar function


Only the plastic manufacturers have adopted LCA thinking and methods to highlight the environmental impact of the plastic bag product chain as compared to that of products with a similar function. Environmental non-governmental organisations (NGOs) are not concerned with LCA thinking, except for the Business Council for Sustainable Development— Malaysia (BCSDM 2016). The Environmental Management and Research Association of Malaysia (ENSEARCH 2016), the membership of which is primarily drawn from environmental professionals in industry, is not introducing LCA thinking as such. Some years back, ENSEARCH widely publicised the concept of cleaner production. More recently, ENSEARCH supports the application of green technologies with a focus on energy efficiency and waste minimisation


More recently, ENSEARCH supports the application of green technologies with a focus on energy efficiency and waste minimisation. As one of the rapid industrialising countries in Asia, Malaysia benefits from transfer of knowledge on environmental management systems by transnational companies as a part of corporate policy in their overseas subsidiaries. However, the small- and medium-scale companies with local ownership, which constitute the majority of enterprises in most sectors, are unable to allocate resources or staff for improving environmental performance. Universities may be in a position to include research on life cycle assessment, possibly triggered by the availability of a foreign research grant, which is specific in scope and has a limited duration. The effort to develop a national LCA knowledge base, also servicing the private sector, may encounter financial and capacity constraints of the national research infrastructure. A. Wangel


19.4 LCA and South Policy Agendas Global inequalities in resource distribution between the North and a number of developing countries in the South are the cause of serious capacity constraints also in the area of environmental management, in particular with regard to life cycle assessment. This has motivated some governments to assert the position that LCA is part of a ‘green protectionism’ agenda in trade policies of the North. Such agenda is seen as a push for industrial modernisation denying developing countries a growth potential, which countries in the North have enjoyed during a more than one-century long process of industrialisation. Thus, stakeholders in developing countries originally adopted an altogether critical stand of confronting the rationale of LCA


Thus, stakeholders in developing countries originally adopted an altogether critical stand of confronting the rationale of LCA. In response to the influence of retail buyers, purchasing departments, product development teams, as they present their long ‘arm’ of environmental audits of suppliers in developing countries, delegates from the Third World claimed a ‘one-sided focus on environment’ at an LCA workshop during the World Summit on Sustainable Development, Johannesburg, September 2002. They argued that LCA tools are (1) too complicated for practical use; (2) too focused on environmental problems as defined by industrialised countries; (3) one-sided in terms of ignoring costing and social issues such as work environment, human safety and employment. The delegates further observed that life cycle indicators will select against old-fashioned, polluting industries, thus not help to protect employment in developing countries (Udo de Haes 2004, 8)


The delegates further observed that life cycle indicators will select against old-fashioned, polluting industries, thus not help to protect employment in developing countries (Udo de Haes 2004, 8). In response, the need for simplification of LCA tools was recognised; an increased focus on soil erosion, water scarcity, and regional conditions was encouraged. Efforts to include consequences with regard to soil erosion, water scarcity, other regional conditions and land use into life cycle assessments have been recommended and in some cases practiced. Most prominently, land use consequences with regard to biofuel have been extensively analysed and discussed (Dallemand et al. 2010) and the enlargement of the scope of life cycle indicators to cover occupational health and safety, working conditions and other social issues was promoted. Nonetheless, life cycle approaches aim to stimulate modernisation of industry favouring the development of modern, less-polluting industry


Nonetheless, life cycle approaches aim to stimulate modernisation of industry favouring the development of modern, less-polluting industry. The environmental burdens in developing countries are typically higher than those in industrialised countries per functional unit (Udo de Haes 2004). This line of argument corresponds to the recommendation of Aid for trade as needed to effectively dissolve perceptions among developing countries that environmental and social standards are equivalent to green protectionism. Financial support to facilitate trade is considered to pave the way for long-term alliances between developing and developed countries linking trade and sustainable development. Udo de Haes Globalisation and Mainstreaming of LCA


outlined several options for combining environmental (or social) requirements as calculated by LCA with real financial support: “(1) the costs of such schemes could be funded by industrialised countries, because it is these countries that— justly!—ask for these schemes; (2) technical assistance could be given for the functioning of such schemes, including validation as to whether the respective criteria have been met; (3) funds may be provided for the transition into more modern, efficient technology” (op.cit., 10). A range of intergovernmental programmes to support the diffusion of climate mitigation are now in existence (de Coninck and Puig 2015). The criticism that LCA methods are quite demanding in terms of time spent, data, software and analytical skills is raised when considering strategies to improve the livelihood of small producers (Riisgaard 2010, 10)


Instead of conducting the time-consuming and costly exercise of a full LCA, several types of simplified LCA have been suggested (e.g. Hochschorner and Finnveden 2003; Hur et al. 2005; Xiaoming and Yi 2007). One approach is a stripped down version based on product categories (‘product families’, cf. Lenau et al. 2002). The effort is to focus on a few essential indicators, while maintaining the substance of environmental aspects. Another approach is to conduct a preliminary assessment in the format of a Life Cycle Check to identify ‘hotspots’ and the need for more detailed analysis (Wenzel et al. 2001). An alternative, pragmatic approach combines LCA, risk analysis and scenario analysis into a systematic screening process prompting go/no go decisions (Klöpffer et al. 2007). Basically, the environmental concerns in developing and industrialised countries have a different origin


2007). Basically, the environmental concerns in developing and industrialised countries have a different origin. While non-governmental organisations in industrialised countries have played a major role in alerting the public to the hazards of industrial pollution for human health and nature and pushing for regulation, trade policy conditionalities for entry into export markets currently provide the main motivation for complying with environmental standards in developing countries. This kind of regulation is driven by consumers in industrialised countries giving preference to, e.g. eco-labelled products. Also, many subsidiaries of multinational corporations operating in developing countries are directed to adopt corporate policies on environmental standards. However, for other companies, particularly those which are locally owned, efforts for improving eco-efficiency of products and services are driven as part of optimisation targeting cost savings to be gained


Furthermore, in many developing countries, the scope for civil society is restricted leaving environmental non-governmental organisations (NGOs) with few avenues for addressing policy agendas and public debate at large. Thus, strategies for the mainstreaming of LCA worldwide need to consider how the LCA agenda of improving eco-efficiency of products and services relate to policy positions of the government, the private sector and public discourse. A. Wangel


19.5 Building Capacity for LCA in Developing Countries The mere availability of relevant tools and trained professionals does not create transition. For a comprehensive strategy of mainstreaming LCA in developing countries, the concept of capacity development needs to be elaborated. In 2002, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) reviewed decades of technology transfer and observed “Donors can ship out four-wheel-drive vehicles, or textbooks, or computers; they can dispatch expatriate experts, whether on long-term secondment or on short-term consultancies. But they have not really appeared to transfer knowledge—or at least not in the catalytic way that might ignite a positive chain reaction throughout developing societies” (Fukuda-Parr et al. 2002, 3). Numerous cases of mismatch between ready-made technology packages and a different socio-economic and political context, into which the package was parachuted, have been documented in the history of technical assistance


On this basis, the UNDP report called for a complete change of paradigm, as “foreign experts ... can run multiple seminars and courses that improve the individual skills of thousands of people. However, the capacity of local institutions and of countries as a whole has still not appeared adequate to meet the challenges of development” (ibid). The report identified three levels of capacity development: (1) the training of individuals which is only meaningful when jobs are available in relevant; (2) local institutions operating as well-functioning organisations and interacting with a conducive; and (3) enabling environment of related institutions, regulations and policies. Accordingly, the new paradigm goes far beyond a simple identification of a relative absence of, e.g


Accordingly, the new paradigm goes far beyond a simple identification of a relative absence of, e.g. a critical mass of LCA experts in developing countries: “Rather than starting from a mail-order catalogue of standard parts to be forced into likely looking slots, the challenge instead should be fully to understand the local situation and move forward from there—step by step” (op.cit., 13). The concept of capacity can be further elaborated to include five core capabilities: 1. The capability to self-organise and act. Actors are able to mobilise resources (financial, human and organisational); create space and autonomy for independent action; motivate unwilling or unresponsive partners; and plan, decide and engage collectively to exercise their other capabilities. 2. The capability to generate development results. Actors are able to produce substantive outputs and outcomes (e.g


2. The capability to generate development results. Actors are able to produce substantive outputs and outcomes (e.g. health or education services, employment opportunities, justice and rule of law); sustain production over time; and add value for their clients, beneficiaries, citizens, etc. 3. The capability to establish supportive relationships. Actors can establish and manage linkages, alliances and/or partnerships with others to leverage resources and actions; build legitimacy in the eyes of key stakeholders; and deal effectively with competition, politics and power differentials. 4. The capability to adapt and self-renew. Actors are able to adapt and modify plans and operations based on monitoring of progress and outcomes; proactively anticipate change and new challenges; and cope with shocks and develop resilience. Globalisation and Mainstreaming of LCA


The capability to achieve coherence. Actors can develop shared short- and long-term strategies and visions; balance control, flexibility and consistency; integrate and harmonise plans and actions in complex, multi-actor settings; and cope with cycles of stability and change (Morgan 2006, 8ff). Ortiz and Taylor have further suggested assessing whether capacity development is supporting the development of ‘standing capacities’ that result in an organisational readiness to respond to new and unforeseen challenges. “Standing capacity’ requires intangible qualities such as relationship leverage, programme design capabilities, innovative culture, autonomous self-motivation and agile, adaptive management response-ability” (Ortiz and Taylor 2008). At the level of planning and implementing specific capacity development projects, several approaches have been proposed. One attempt is the Results-oriented approach to capacity development and change (ROACH)


One attempt is the Results-oriented approach to capacity development and change (ROACH). It was launched at the request of the Danish International Development Agency (DANIDA) following their evaluations of capacity development components in existing projects. ROACH stresses these dimensions when embedding interventions into existing structures, enabling ownership and facilitating organisational learning: • Both functional–rational and political aspects of change must be addressed. Moreover, they must be addressed inside and outside the organisation. Inside, capacity development in a functional–rational sense must ensure that ‘the job is getting done’, as this is supplemented by ‘political’ activities, e.g. to force change in internal power relations


to force change in internal power relations. Outside the organisation, the capacity development activities of the functional–rational kind will seek to create an ‘enabling environment’ for the organisation for getting its job done, while political activities will strive to get power relations right and accommodate the interests of stakeholders involved. • The context of the target organisation is given full consideration, as both factors within the influence of the project and those beyond are identified and addressed (Boesen and Therkildsen 2005). 19.6 Outlook Mainstreaming of LCA cannot be assumed to be completed as a straightforward and linear process. A conventional sequence of interventions, Transferring tools, building knowledge bases and training professionals, focusing on inputs (e.g. free software) to make the system work, will produce only limited results


free software) to make the system work, will produce only limited results. Handing down the torch to national stakeholders with an ambition to build consensus and long-term knowledge networking needs to be followed up by local processes to integrate the inputs into the specific national and corporate context of environmental management. A. Wangel


In short, a national agenda must target ‘home grown’, demand-driven specific opportunities for the implementation of LCA according to existing capacities and enabling environment parameters, as determined by the authorities for civil society and the private sector. Considering the basic North–South asymmetries, specific tasks include the following: 1. Adapting LCA methodology to conditions of developing economies both in terms of life cycle inventory data that are representative of the conditions of the country and impact assessment for regionally relevant impact categories and resource-based impact categories like land use and water use. 2


2. Strategizing the adoption of LCA in developing countries—at least these capacity constraints and opportunities must be explored: (1) causes of data insufficiency; (2) current constraints in organisational capacity of key stakeholders; (3) types of relationships between actors within the product chain; (4) gaps in institutional capacity of the enabling environment; and (5) strategy options through extensive dialogues with stakeholders. 3. Reconfiguring the relationship between ‘sender’ and ‘recipient’ in international development cooperation on LCA: a. In relation to government policy, LCA methodologies need to respond to the specific context of developing countries to fully incorporate socio-economic concerns of the private and public sector, and policy makers in developing countries. Also, programmes of action for LCA in developing countries must be strategized to integrate with the current level and scope of environmental management in a given country. b


Also, programmes of action for LCA in developing countries must be strategized to integrate with the current level and scope of environmental management in a given country. b. In relation to company practices, research on simplified tools for small producers must be stepped up, and manuals for application must build upon examples relevant to production and services in developing countries. Data representing regional conditions must be made available for both inventory and impact assessment. c. In relation to the actors in domestic and export markets, the application of LCA in developing countries must produce immediate and tangible benefits as a contribution to transition towards national objectives of sustainable production and consumption, and as enabling steps to maintain or access positions in global value chains


Examples of public and private sector actors pioneering such effort within the context of real economic flows of aid, trade and investment, are as follows: • Joint capacity building at South partner universities facilitating LCA research, teaching, assessment of local products and contributions to a national life cycle inventory database, e.g. as facilitated by the Danish programme ‘Building Stronger Universities’ (BSU 2016). Globalisation and Mainstreaming of LCA


• Transnational companies exploring business options for shared value projects targeting improved environmental performance and socio-economic benefits (Porter and Kramer 2011). Arena, A.P.: Spreading life-cycle assessment to developing countries. J. Ind. Ecol. 4(3) (2000) BCSDM: BCSDM. http://www.wbcsd.org/regional-network/members-list/asia/bcsdmalaysia.aspx (2016). Accessed 8 June 2016 Boesen, N., Therkildsen, O.: A Results-Oriented Approach to Capacity Change. Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Danida, Copenhagen (2005) Bosma, R., Anh, P.T., Potting, J.: Life cycle assessment of intensive striped catfish farming in the Mekong Delta for screening hotspots as input to environmental policy and research agenda. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 16(9), 903–915. doi:10.1007/s11367-011-0324-4 (2011). Accessed 6 June 2016 BSU: Building Stronger Universities in developing countries. http://dfcentre.com/research/ building-stronger-universities-bsu/ (2016)


doi:10.1007/s11367-011-0324-4 (2011). Accessed 6 June 2016 BSU: Building Stronger Universities in developing countries. http://dfcentre.com/research/ building-stronger-universities-bsu/ (2016). Accessed 8 June 2016 Cattaneo, O., Gereffi, G., Staritz, C.: Global value chains in a postcrisis world: resilience, consolidation, and shifting end markets. In: Cattaneo, O., Gereffi, G., Staritz, C. (eds.) Global Value Chains in a Postcrisis World: A Development Perspective, pp. 3–20. World Bank, Washington (2010) Dallemand, J.F., et al.: Biomass for transport, heat and electricity: scientific challenges. Manag. Environ. Qual. Int. J. 21(4), 523–547 (2010). http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/ 14777831011049142. Accessed 9 June 2016 De Coninck, H., Puig, D.: Assessing climate change mitigation technology interventions by international institutions. Clim. Change 131(3), 417–433 (2015)


Accessed 9 June 2016 De Coninck, H., Puig, D.: Assessing climate change mitigation technology interventions by international institutions. Clim. Change 131(3), 417–433 (2015). doi:10.1007/s10584-0151344-z De Leeuw, B.: Life cycle management in developing countries: state of the art and outlook. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 11(1), 123–126 (2006) ENSEARCH: ENSEARCH. http://ensearch.org/ (2016). Accessed 8 June 2016 EU Asia: EU Asia Switch. http://www.switch-asia.eu/policy-support-components/rpsc/policydialogue/ (2016) Fukuda-Parr, S., Lopes, C., Malik, K.: Capacity for Development: New Solutions to Old Problems. Earthscan Publications Ltd, London (2002) Gereffi, G.: Global value chains in a post-Washington Consensus world. Rev. Int. Polit. Econ. 21 (1), 9–37 (2014) Hochschorner, E., Finnveden, G.: Evaluation of two simplified life cycle assessment methods. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 8(3), 119 (2003) Hondo, H., et al.: Designing our future society using systems thinking


Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 8(3), 119 (2003) Hondo, H., et al.: Designing our future society using systems thinking. November 25–27, 2006, Tsukuba, Japan. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 12(1), 66–69 (2007) Hur, T., et al.: Simplified LCA and matrix methods in identifying the environmental aspects of a product system. J. Environ. Manag. 75(3), 229–237. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/B6WJ7-4FR8PTN-1/2/de380d30525f74b7da63b9ca0ab6e87a (2005) Inaba, A., Grant, T., Moriguchi, Y.: Developing a research network for life-cycle assessment in the Asia Pacific Region. J. Ind. Ecol. 5(3), 6–8 (2001) Inaba, A., et al.: LCA of global supply chains—from production through to end of life management. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 12(3), 205–206. http://www.springerlink.com/index/10. 1065/lca2007.04.321 (2007). Accessed 26 July 2016 A. Wangel


Klöpffer, W., et al.: In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Nanotechnology and Life Cycle Assessment (October 2006). ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/nanotechnology/docs (2007) Lenau, T., et al.: Environmental Design in Product Families. Danish Environmental Production Agency, Copenhagen (2002). (in Danish) Morgan, P.: The concept of capacity, Maastricht and Brussels, the Netherlands. The European Centre for Development Policy Management (ECDPM) (2006) MPOB: Malaysian Palm Oil Board. http://www.palmoilworld.org/sustainability.html (2011). Accessed 8 June 2016 MPOB: Malaysian Palm Oil Board. http://www.mpoc.org.my/Malaysian_Palm_Oil_Industry.aspx (2014). Accessed 8 June 2016 MPOC: Malaysian Palm Oil Council. http://www.palmoilhealth.org/tag/cholesterol/ (2016). Accessed 8 June 2016 Ortiz, A., Taylor, P.: Emerging Patterns in the Capacity Development Puzzle. Why, What and When to Measure? Institute of Development Studies (IDS) (2008) Porter, M.E., Kramer, M.R.: Creating Shared Value


Why, What and When to Measure? Institute of Development Studies (IDS) (2008) Porter, M.E., Kramer, M.R.: Creating Shared Value. How to Reinvent Capitalism—and Unleash a Wave of Innovation and Growth. Harvard Business Review (January–February). https:// archive.harvardbusiness.org/cla/web/pl/product.seam?c=8062&i=8064&cs= 1b64dfac8e4d2ef4da5976b5665c5540 (2011) Ramjeawon, T., von Blottnitz, H., Kituyi, E., Mebratu, D.T.: LCA knowledge network in Africa (ALCANET). Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 10(6), 449 (2005) Ramjeawon, T.: Building capacity for life cycle assessment in developing countries. In: Curran, M. A. (ed.) Life Cycle Assessment Handbook a Guide for Environmentally Sustainable Products. Wiley, Hoboken (2012) Rebitzer, G., Schäfer, J.H.: The remaining challenge—mainstreaming the use of LCA. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 14(S1), 101–102 (2009). http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11367-009-0077-5


Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 14(S1), 101–102 (2009). http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11367-009-0077-5. Accessed 26 July 2016 Riisgaard, L.: Integrating poverty and environmental concerns into value-chain analysis: a strategic framework and practical guide. Dev. Policy Rev. 28(2), 195 (2010) SIRIM: LCA Malaysia. http://lcamalaysia.sirim.my/ (2016). Accessed 8 June 2016 Sonnemann, G.: Int J LCA and the initiative collaborate to enhance global capacity of LCA and LCM. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 8(5), 306–306 (2003). http://link.springer.com/10.1007/ BF02978924. Accessed 26 July 2016 Sonnemann, G.: Corner: UNEP/SETAC life cycle initiative. Strengthening capacity building through regional networks. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 9(5), 334 (2004) Sonnemann, G., et al.: Global guidance principles for life cycle assessment databases: development of training material and other implementation activities on the publication. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess


Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 18(5), 1169–1172 (2013) Sonnemann, G., de Leeuw, B.: Life cycle management in developing countries: state of the art and outlook. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 11(S1), 123–126 (2016). http://www.springerlink.com/ index/10.1065/lca2006.04.020. Accessed 26 July 2016 Sonnemann, G., Valdivia, S.: Corner: UNEP/SETAC life cycle initiative. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 12(7), 544 (2007) Timmer, M.P., et al.: An illustrated user guide to the world input–output database: the case of global automotive production. Rev. Int. Econ. 23(3), 575–605 (2015). doi:10.1111/roie.12178 Udo de Haes, H.A.: The UNEP/SETAC life cycle initiative—a personal view of the results after one year. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 8(5), 307–309 (2003). http://link.springer.com/10.1007/ BF02978925. Accessed 3 Aug 2016 Udo de Haes, H.A.: Life-cycle assessment and developing countries. J. Ind. Ecol. 8(1–2), 8–10 (2004). http://doi.wiley.com/10.1162/1088198041269436


Accessed 3 Aug 2016 Udo de Haes, H.A.: Life-cycle assessment and developing countries. J. Ind. Ecol. 8(1–2), 8–10 (2004). http://doi.wiley.com/10.1162/1088198041269436. Accessed 8 June 2016 UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative: http://www.lifecycleinitiative.org/activities/phase-iii/globalcapability-development/ (2016). Accessed 8 June 2016 Valdivia, S., et al.: Mainstreaming life cycle sustainability management in rapidly growing and emerging economies through capacity-building. In: Sonnemann, G., Margni, M. (eds.) Life Cycle Management. LCA Compendium-The Complete World of Life Cycle Assessment, Globalisation and Mainstreaming of LCA


pp. 263–277, Springer, Dordrecht, Netherlands . doi:10.1007/978-94-017-7221-1. http://link. springer.com/10.1007/978-94-017-7221-1 (2015) Wenzel, H., et al.: Product Life Cycle Check. A Guide (1st Draft). Institut for Produktudvikling, Danmarks Tekniske Universitet, Kgs. Lyngby (2001) WIOD: World input–output database. http://www.wiod.org/new_site/home.htm (2012). Accessed 8 June 2016 World Economic Forum: The Shifting Geography of Global Value Chains: Implications for Developing Countries and Trade Policy. World Economic Forum (2012) Xiaoming, X., Yi, D.: A simplified and practical life-cycle design system based on feature-based modeling. In: 2007 Chinese Control Conference, pp. 166–169 (2007) Yong, A.: M-FIT Results (Malaysia Food Information and Traceability (M-FIT) Project). FoodReg Malaysia, Mimeo, Ho Chi Minh City (2008) Yusoff, S., Hansen, S.B.: Feasibility study of performing an life cycle assessment on crude palm oil production in Malaysia. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess


Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 12(1), 50–58 (2007) Author Biography Arne Wangel Sociologist studying international technology transfer and capacity building in South countries. Since 2008 involved with LCA with main interests in application of LCA in global value chain analysis, strategies for building LCA capacities in South countries, and development of a methodology for Social LCA. A. Wangel


Chapter 20 Organisational LCA Julia Martínez-Blanco and Matthias Finkbeiner Abstract The most applied and widespread approaches for environmental assessments at the organisation level have only recently extended their view beyond the factory gates. Even if they now consider the full value chain, they still mostly concentrate on a single environmental aspect like greenhouse gases (GHGs). While LCA was originally developed for products, its benefits and potential can be extended to the assessment of organisations. Organisational LCA is built on the principles, requirements and guidelines of ISO 14040 and ISO 14044, but requires some adaptations in the scope and inventory phases, when the unit of analysis and the system boundaries are defined. Also, the approach for data collection needs to be fixed


Also, the approach for data collection needs to be fixed. Organisational LCA is a compilation and evaluation of the inputs, outputs and potential environmental impacts of the activities associated with the organisation adopting a life cycle perspective. It includes not only the facilities of the organisation itself, but also the activities upstream and downstream the value chain. This methodology is capable of serving multiple goals at the same time, like identifying environmental hotspots throughout the value chain, tracking environmental performance over time, supporting strategic decisions, and informing corporate sustainability reporting. Several initiatives are on the way for the LCA of organisations: the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative published the ‘Guidance on organizational LCA’, using ISO/TS 14072 as a backbone; moreover, the European Commission launched a guide for the organisation environmental footprint


Learning Objectives After studying this chapter, the reader should be able to, • discuss the difference between product LCA and organisational LCA, • explain the objective and utility of organisational LCA for an organisation, J. Martínez-Blanco (&)  M. Finkbeiner Chair of Sustainable Engineering, Department of Environmental Technology, Technische Universität Berlin, 10623 Berlin, Germany e-mail: julia.martinezblanco@campus.tu-berlin.de; julia.martinez@uab.cat © Springer International Publishing AG 2018 M.Z. Hauschild et al. (eds.), Life Cycle Assessment, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-56475-3_20


• give a general overview of the existing methodological frameworks, • implement the key elements of the organisational LCA methodology, • understand the links between organisational LCA and other environmental tools. 20.1 The life cycle approach was originally developed for products and is internationally accepted as the best tool available for assessing the environmental impacts of products (both goods and services). While product LCA can be used to support product decisions, e.g. as part of an ecodesign process (see Chap. 23), many environmental issues and aspects are rather managed on the organisational level, e.g. as part of an environmental management system. To support organisational management and decision-making, the application of LCA to another object, i.e. for the assessment of organisations, seems meaningful. The benefits and the potential of the LCA approach do definitely apply to organisational LCA as well


for the assessment of organisations, seems meaningful. The benefits and the potential of the LCA approach do definitely apply to organisational LCA as well. However, the evaluation of the environmental performance of an organisation can be even more demanding than that of products. The value chain of an organisation involves not only one chain of suppliers and other partners, but a network of them, which may be rather complex in big organisations. The central element of this chapter is the so-called organisational LCA or LCA of organisations. This still relatively new member of the LCA family is defined as the compilation and evaluation of the inputs, outputs and potential environmental impacts (considering a multi-impact approach) of the activities associated with an organisation adopting a life cycle perspective. The chapter provides an overview of the state of the art of organisational LCA


The chapter provides an overview of the state of the art of organisational LCA. It discusses the need and features of the LCA of organisations, digs into the differences with product LCA, presents several leading initiatives that promote the concept, and finally provides some hints for the successful application of the methodology. 20.1.1 The Way Towards Organisational LCA Organisations, including companies, corporations, firms, public institutions, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) etc. have a key responsibility to reduce their environmental impacts. A crucial step on the way to improve environmental performance is the quantification and the consideration of environmental aspects within the organisation’s strategy and operation. There are already some methodologies for quantifying the environmental performance of organisations and they are widespread among organisations J. Martínez-Blanco and M. Finkbeiner


(Fig. 20.1). Most common approaches for the assessment at the organisational level are environmental management systems (EMS), which usually follow ISO 14001 or EMAS in the European context, schemes for carbon footprinting like ISO 14064 and ISO 14069 and the well-known GHG Protocol Initiative. The latter, together with product LCA, and derived approaches like Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) of the European Commission and Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs), constitute the set of tools which include the life cycle or value chain concept (see Chap. 24). Product LCA, PEF, EPDs and EMS include more than one environmental aspect, thus could be tagged as multi-impact tools


24). Product LCA, PEF, EPDs and EMS include more than one environmental aspect, thus could be tagged as multi-impact tools. Although existing approaches at the organisation level (like EMS and corporate carbon footprinting) consider the assessment of the value chain only optionally and/or focus mostly on a single aspect (like GHGs), their application and discussions have prompted and steered the future use of an LCA of organisations. The first efforts in the life cycle community on organisational footprinting took place in the 1990s (Taylor and Postlethwaite 1996; Finkbeiner et al. 1998; Clift and Wright 2000). They were continued by combining input–output analysis with LCA (Huang et al. 2009). In the last years, several initiatives have further developed the concept (see Sect. 20.4). PEF EPDs LCA (ISO 14044) EMS (ISO 14001 & EMAS) GHG Protocol ISO 14064 & ISO 14069 Product carbon footprint CSR (GRI) OBIA Finkbeiner et al. (1998) IO & LCA Fig


20.4). PEF EPDs LCA (ISO 14044) EMS (ISO 14001 & EMAS) GHG Protocol ISO 14064 & ISO 14069 Product carbon footprint CSR (GRI) OBIA Finkbeiner et al. (1998) IO & LCA Fig. 20.1 The organisation’s environmental toolbox: precursory approaches. Source adapted from Martínez-Blanco et al. (2016) Organisational LCA


20.1.2 Underlining Organisational LCA Features Organisational LCA is the first approach that analyses all the three dimensions shown in Fig. 20.1 in a comprehensive way. Therefore, unlike existing methods, organisational LCA: • assesses the organisation, not a product (organisational dimension) • assesses the value chain of an organisation, not only the own facilities (life cycle dimension) • assesses a set of relevant environmental impacts and aspects, not just one (multi-impact dimension). The management of organisations requires facts and figures for a better informed environmental decision-making and for setting effective improvement strategies. For this purpose, information and data are needed on the level at which the decisions are taken, i.e. on the organisational level. Organisational LCA draws a comprehensive picture of the environmental performance of an organisation and reveals the environmental hotspots (e.g. operations, facilities, suppliers, brands)


Organisational LCA draws a comprehensive picture of the environmental performance of an organisation and reveals the environmental hotspots (e.g. operations, facilities, suppliers, brands). This helps the organisation to prioritise targets, actions, programmes, efforts and budget in a more efficient and effective way than in the conventional gate-to-gate corporate environmental management view. Previous studies and discussions about the environmental performance of organisations and their value chains, which focused mostly on GHG emissions, revealed that the upstream and downstream activities often significantly influence the overall environmental performance of organisations (WRI and WBCSD 2011; Downie and Stubbs 2013; Makower et al. 2014). As examples, only 2% of the corporate carbon footprint of the consumer goods company Unilever or 8% for the cosmetic company Natura originate in the manufacturing steps within the companies’ boundaries


The remaining 98 and 92%, respectively, are emitted over the life cycle, i.e. throughout the value chains (Natura 2014; Unilever 2015). Because the management and decisions of an organisation affect the environmental impacts of its supplier network, as well as the use stage and end-of-life of the products in the portfolio, organisations need to focus environmental inquiries beyond their own facilities. Here it is proposed to do it by adopting the life cycle perspective for the organisation that will shed light on and support the management of the value chain. Land, water and air are intricately influencing ecosystems and humans. Decisions made in the name of protecting one environmental ‘medium’ can result in the detriment of another, and even lead to consequences for human health (UNEP 2012). Therefore, as promoted by product LCA, a holistic approach is needed in organisational LCA in order to prevent trade-offs or the shifting of burdens. J. Martínez-Blanco and M. Finkbeiner


20.2 Organisational LCA Versus Product LCA As product LCA is the basis of organisational LCA, this section summarises the connections between the two methodologies. Furthermore, Sect. 20.5 provides an outline of the main elements in the scope and inventory phases. For further detail on the topic of this section, see Annex D in UNEP (2015) and Martínez-Blanco et al. (2015a). 20.2.1 Complementarities and Similarities Organisational LCA follows the four-phase methodology stated by LCA standards (ISO 14040 and ISO 14044), including goal and scope definition, inventory analysis, impact assessment and interpretation. As a matter of fact, most of the principles, requirements and guidelines of the LCA standards apply also for organisational LCA (with minor terminology amendments). For instance, the requirements in ISO 14040/44 for impact assessment, reporting and review basically apply to both product and organisational LCA (Finkbeiner and König 2013)


For instance, the requirements in ISO 14040/44 for impact assessment, reporting and review basically apply to both product and organisational LCA (Finkbeiner and König 2013). Furthermore, product LCA and organisational LCA are complementary in three different ways: • Complementary levels of assessment: they may accompany each other and provide different levels of information to the organisation. For instance, organisational LCA could be used to identify the environmental hotspots at the organisation and throughout the whole value chain, and product LCA could then provide further insights on the key products and activities identified. • Organisational LCA usually needs product LCA data: in organisational LCA, the modelling of the environmental impacts of the products or services provided by suppliers very often involves the use of specific or generic product LCA datasets


• Transferability of the results: a proxy organisational LCA could be calculated by the weighted summation of the product LCAs for the products in the organisation’s portfolio (plus supporting activities). The other way around also works, generic product LCAs results could be generated from organisational LCA results based on specific allocation keys. 20.2.2 Main Differences There is one fundamental difference between the two methods: organisational LCA is not designed for comparison between organisations, while one prominent aim of product LCA is to achieve comparability between different products providing the Organisational LCA


same service. As stated in ISO/TS 14072, “the results [of organisational LCA] are not intended to be used in comparative assertions intended to be disclosed to the public”, as the results of product LCAs may be. In organisational LCA, the unit of comparison is not consistent between organisations, because the organisation and its product portfolio is unique and can differ strongly depending on the sector, the size, the location, and the overall business model. The description of the scoping elements in product LCA aims to achieve comparability (apart from transparency and reproducibility) (see Chap. 8). The definition of ‘reporting organisation’, ‘reporting flow’ and ‘system boundary’ (see Table 20.1) in organisational LCA is motivated to guarantee a meaningful performance tracking. Performance tracking, a promising application for organisational LCA, is the regular assessment of the environmental performance of an organisation over time to measure its continuous improvement


Performance tracking, a promising application for organisational LCA, is the regular assessment of the environmental performance of an organisation over time to measure its continuous improvement. This connects also perfectly with the overall goal of environmental management systems. Of course, this also considers a kind of comparison, but the subject compared over time is the same organisation, not a competing one. Apart from the comparability issue, there is another obvious difference, i.e. the object of study: an individual product or an organisation, respectively. As a consequence of these two main differences, some principles, requirements and guidelines from ISO 14040/44 do need to be adapted for organisational LCA. Main differences arise during the scoping and inventory phases. Table 20.1 summarises major discrepancies in the scope phase that are related to the definition of the unit of analysis and the boundaries


Table 20.1 summarises major discrepancies in the scope phase that are related to the definition of the unit of analysis and the boundaries. Due to the nature of the new object of study and the scoping changes, it is also necessary to bear in mind some new operational considerations during the inventory analysis (see Sect. 20.5). 20.3 Main Benefits and Applications As mentioned above, comparisons between different organisations appear neither meaningful nor robust at this point in time. In accordance with ISO/TS 14072, an organisational LCA shall state that the results will not be used for studies envisaged to be used for comparative assertions between organisations intended to be disclosed to the public (e.g. ranking among organisations). However, there are a number of other benefits that an organisational LCA can generate. Some of these are listed in the Table 20.2. J. Martínez-Blanco and M. Finkbeiner


Table 20.1 Differences between product LCA and organisational LCA (based on Martínez-Blanco et al. 2015a) Product LCA Organisational LCA Unit of analysis General The object of study is the product, i.e. any good or service The object of study is the organisation, i.e


a sole-trader, company, corporation, firm, enterprise, authority, partnership, charity or institution, or part or combination thereof, whether incorporated or not, public or private The main purpose of the unit of analysis is to find the relation between two or more products that provide the same function and are compared The unit of analysis represents the comparability basis between years for environmental performance tracking of the organisation Definition Functional unit is the quantified performance of a product system for use as a reference unit Reporting organisation defines the organisation under study to be used as a unit of analysis Functional unit is defined according to the main function(s) of the product Reporting organisation includes: subject of study, consolidation method, and reference period Quantification Reference flow is a measure of the outputs from processes in a given product system required to fulfil the function expressed by the functional unit Reporting


and reference period Quantification Reference flow is a measure of the outputs from processes in a given product system required to fulfil the function expressed by the functional unit Reporting flow is a measure of the outputs from the reporting organisation during the reference period Reference flow refers to the number of units needed to fulfil the functional unit Reporting flow represents the quantification of the product portfolio of the reporting organisation: including type and quantity of products


It may be expressed per unit, weight or volume and by other measures, like number of employees or revenue System boundary General No distinction is done between direct and indirect impacts System boundary includes direct and indirect activities Defined by The system boundary is derived from the type of product and it is not directly dependent on the functional unit considered The definition of the reporting organisation is the determining issue for stating the system boundary, as the subject of study and the consolidation method are critical for the definition of the boundaries (continued) Organisational LCA


20.3.1 Integration into Management and Decision Analysis Systems LCA of organisations provides comprehensive information—along the value chain and for multiple impact categories—at the level at which decisions are taken and beyond the organisation’s walls. Through its results, the organisation understands which are the risks and impact reduction opportunities and has strong arguments to elucidate which are the most effective actions to reduce the organisation’s environmental impacts. This is also encouraged by the new version of EMS standard ISO 14001 (ISO 2015a), which stresses the relevance of life cycle thinking and the consideration of the supply chains


This is also encouraged by the new version of EMS standard ISO 14001 (ISO 2015a), which stresses the relevance of life cycle thinking and the consideration of the supply chains. Table 20.1 (continued) Product LCA Organisational LCA Other Comparison Comparison between products is expected and can be communicated, provided that the scope of the assessment is equivalent External communication of comparative assertions between organisations is discouraged Time Generally, results of the study are relatively time-independent over a reasonable period The environmental results of the organisation are reported for a given reference period Supporting activities Those activities that are not directly linked to the production (e.g


business travel, leased assets, heating, cleaning services, managerial offices) are usually disregarded Those activities not directly related with the production process are included Table 20.2 Main benefits of organisational LCA application Analytical benefits ∙Gain insight about the main actors and the impacts involved in internal operations and value chain ∙Identify environmental hotspots throughout the value chain for each of the environmental categories considered ∙Track the environmental performance of the organisation over time Managerial benefits ∙Get support to define which are the priority actions and targets at different levels ∙mprove organisational procedures, for instance in the collection and management of environmental data ∙Get the basis for voluntary or regulatory reporting and environmental communication with stakeholders ∙Show environmental awareness for marketing purposes Societal benefits ∙Reduce pressure on the environment and avoid future negative effects on


and environmental communication with stakeholders ∙Show environmental awareness for marketing purposes Societal benefits ∙Reduce pressure on the environment and avoid future negative effects on the organisation ∙Incentivise suppliers in the value chain, consumers, and even competitors to adopt environmental friendly practices J


Martínez-Blanco and M. Finkbeiner


Organisational LCA scheme allows the organisation to: • Run different scenarios: to assess the effect of proposed actions or measures. • Set environmental targets: to define quantified reductions for a certain impact category to be achieved in a target year on the basis of a reference year. Within the context of organisational LCA the organisation could define reduction targets for the whole organisation and for its parts, and at the short and long term. • Track performance: to compare the environmental results of the organisation’s own operations over time. The performance could be evaluated against the environmental targets. 20.3.2 Integration into the Environmental Toolbox of Organisations Organisational LCA can complement the environmental toolbox of organisations (see Fig. 20.1) but also benefits from it. Existing experience applying other environmental or sustainability methodologies and the associated data collected will streamline the application of organisational LCA


Existing experience applying other environmental or sustainability methodologies and the associated data collected will streamline the application of organisational LCA. The second column of Table 20.3 summarises how the application and integration of organisational LCA is simplified depending on the type or class of tools already applied in the respective organisation. The third column presents some of the additional benefits and added value of applying organisational LCA in addition to the existing approaches and tools. In general, the framework of interdepartmental work on environmental issues and communication channels with suppliers, established during the implementation of an environmental tool will facilitate the application of other methodologies, organisational LCA or others from the toolbox


Furthermore, the results of an organisational LCA may be the backbone for environmental performance reporting with voluntary sustainability reporting schemes—like the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP), and the United Nations Global Compact principles. 20.4 Existing Frameworks for Organisational LCA Currently, there are three leading initiatives working on the development and agreement of approaches for the environmental multi-impact assessment of organisations and their value chains. At the global level, ISO developed the technical specification “ISO/TS 14072: Environmental management—Life Cycle Assessment—Requirements and guidelines for Organisational Life Cycle Assessment” (ISO 2014), which adapts the Organisational LCA


requirements of product LCA to organisations and states some potential benefits that LCA can bring to organisations. ISO/TS 14072 serves as the basic foundation of the ‘Guidance on Organizational Life Cycle Assessment’ (UNEP 2015), developed within a flagship project of the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative (UNEP/SETAC 2016). This document builds on the ISO specification, but goes into greater detail with regard to the capabilities of organisational LCA and its methodological framework. Eleven case studies were included in the guidance document to illustrate some methodological aspects as well as the benefits that the methodology could bring to organisations. At the regional level, the European Commission launched the so-called Organisation Environmental Footprint (OEF) Guide (European Commission 2013a)


At the regional level, the European Commission launched the so-called Organisation Environmental Footprint (OEF) Guide (European Commission 2013a). The document aims to increase reproducibility and comparability by underlining prescriptiveness over flexibility to ensure that the methodology is applied consistently (European Commission 2013a). At the European level, OEF together with an equivalent guide for product footprinting (i.e. PEF Guide) is supposed to achieve an important goal, the implementation of LCA into European environmental policy. The three approaches are similar in many ways and share most of the principles, requirements and guidelines, but they are not totally interchangeable. The name of Table 20.3 Integration of organisational LCA at the organisation’s environmental toolbox Tool type How does the tool streamline the application of organisational LCA? How does organisational LCA complement the tool? Organisational on-site assessment (e.g


EMS) The organisational on-site assessment offers data for direct activities and guides the identification of the targeted suppliers Organisational LCA complements and refreshes the EMS of organisations mainly by broadening the horizon from on-site to value chain improvements LCA at product level (e.g., PEF, EPDs, product carbon footprint) It may roughly identify some important hotspots in the value chain that should be further assessed. Organisational LCA may consist of the addition of the different LCAs weighted by the amount of products It brings a more comprehensive understanding of the organisation environmental performance by including the whole portfolio and supports organisation-related decisions Life cycle and single-indicator assessment for corporations (e.g


GHG Protocol, ISO 14064) The overall analytical framework, the data collection procedures and tools developed for the single-indicator assessment may guide the scoping definition of the multi-impact approach Organisational LCA will identify impacts beyond the specific single indicator, thus avoiding unintended consequences and burden shifting J. Martínez-Blanco and M. Finkbeiner


the methodology depicted by ISO/TS 14072, organisational LCA (OLCA), was adopted by the UNEP Guidance with the exception of the acronym, which includes a hyphen, i.e. O-LCA. The European Commission proposed the term Organisation Environmental Footprint (OEF). Apart from the acronym, only few and minor differences exist between the ISO standard and the UNEP Guidance. However, the OEF Guide has some requirements that do not align with life cycle standard principles (Finkbeiner 2013; Galatola and Pant 2014; Martínez-Blanco et al. 2016). Examples include the recycling formula for end-of-life and the default set of impact categories and methods. In addition, the OEF Guide considers the option of comparative assertions intended to be disclosed to the public to be valid within the same sector and according to specific sectorial guides (which are under development)


20.4.1 Frontrunners Although complete and rigorous applications of organisational LCA are not yet common practice, several examples already exist offrontrunners that have developed their own methodology, sometimes inspired by product LCA or corporate carbon footprinting. These examples encompass the application of organisational LCA. At this point, the foremost source of examples is the UNEP Guidance that includes 11 experiences from companies of different sectors, sizes and regions (UNEP 2015), like the U.S. food and beverage conglomerate Mondelēz, the hotel group Accor, the German car manufacturer Volkswagen, the retail group Colruyt, the Australian Inghams, the Japanese Shiseido, and the natural gas provider Storengy. Furthermore, existing initiatives for organisational LCA road tested the methodological approaches and the application of their respective reference documents. The UNEP Guidance was road tested by twelve organisations that volunteered to take the lead in this process


The UNEP Guidance was road tested by twelve organisations that volunteered to take the lead in this process. The process is presented at the publication “Road testing Organizational Life Cycle Assessment around the world: Applications, experiences and lessons learned” (UN Environment 2017). The pilot phase of the OEF initiative focused on the development of two sectorial guides (retail and copper production) and aims to develop further ones for other sectors in the future. 20.5 Crash Course for Applying Organisational LCA The summary of the main methodological issues of organisational LCA is presented here according to UNEP (2015) and ISO/TS 14072. Most of the requirements stated and the methodology presented here are also similar in the OEF Guide. Organisational LCA follows the four-phase approach proposed in the ISO 14040/44. It is in the scoping phase that the major methodological differences with product LCA are found (see Table 20.1)


Organisational LCA follows the four-phase approach proposed in the ISO 14040/44. It is in the scoping phase that the major methodological differences with product LCA are found (see Table 20.1). The inventory analysis for organisational Organisational LCA


LCA is governed by the same principles, requirements and guidelines as product LCA (see Chap. 9), however, it has its own particularities due to the higher complexity of the object assessed and the new scoping elements used. As a consequence, this section will focus on the three key methodological issues of organisational LCA: two at the scoping level, i.e. the reporting unit and the boundaries, and finally one issue at the inventory level related to data collection. The rest of the elements of the goal and scope phase (like allocation, data quality requirements, assumptions, value choices and optional elements, limitations, etc.) and the other two phases of an LCA, impact assessment and interpretation, are also included in a study of organisational LCA and should primarily follow ISO 14040/44. 20.5.1 Reporting Unit As in product LCA, the scope defines the breadth, depth and detail of the study in accordance to the stated goals


20.5.1 Reporting Unit As in product LCA, the scope defines the breadth, depth and detail of the study in accordance to the stated goals. The new elements that are specific for organisational LCA are the definition of the subject being assessed and how the system boundary is drawn. Both are presented in Fig. 20.2, along with a simplified example. The unit of analysis in organisational LCA is the reporting unit that is defined as the quantified performance expression of the organisation under study to be used as a reference. It is broken down into two elements: the reporting organisation and the reporting flow. The primary purpose of the reporting organisation is to describe the unit of analysis, i.e. what is to be understood by ‘the organisation’. The definition includes three aspects summarised in Table 20.4. The reporting flow represents the quantification of the unit of analysis. It is a measure of the outputs from the reporting organisation during the reference period


The reporting flow represents the quantification of the unit of analysis. It is a measure of the outputs from the reporting organisation during the reference period. Reporting flow description shall use quantitative terms and is commonly based on OrganisaƟon ReporƟng organisaƟon ReporƟng flow System boundary DefiniƟon of the ouƞlow (porƞolio quanƟficaƟon) e.g. 1 million of juice boƩles and 1.5 million juice individual boxes. DefiniƟon of the organisaƟon under study e.g. the producer of juices Juicy, S.L. including all the operated faciliƟes in Denmark and their product porƞolio in the year 2016 Who is the subject reporƟng? e.g. Juicy, S.L. Set of criteria specifying which acƟviƟes are part of the studied system. It includes direct and indirect (upstream and downstream) resource use and emissions e.g. includes manufacturing, suppliers (like fruits, sugar, packaging), along with use (refrigeraƟon) and EoL (packaging and aŌer use-by date products) ReporƟng unit Fig


includes manufacturing, suppliers (like fruits, sugar, packaging), along with use (refrigeraƟon) and EoL (packaging and aŌer use-by date products) ReporƟng unit Fig. 20.2 Main elements in the scope phase of organisational LCA J. Martínez-Blanco and M. Finkbeiner