The GWP (global warming potential; see section 4.3.5) is a quantity (or variable) and it is an inherent (or intensive) property of a substance that does not depend on the amount of substance. One can speak of the GWP of methane, just as one can speak of the density of stone. The GWP of methane is a dimensionless 21, and the multiplication of inventory results (in kg) by their respective GWP yields a quantity that is again expressed in kg. “mPts” or “millipoints” is a unit that is sometimes used for the weighting result after characterisation, normalisation and weighting. If characterisation yields category results in kg and normalisation totals are in kg/yr, normalisation results are in yr. Finally, if weighting factors are dimensionless, the weighting result is again in yr. If the reference flow of the functional unit is expressed in terms of “function years”, normalisation and weighting results are dimensionless.


Part 3 : Scientific background mathematical models for analysing environmental impacts, it seems only natural that the conventions of mathematical notation developed in physics should be adopted in LCA, too. In addition to qualitative attributes that can be regarded as part of or an attribute to the flow name, it may be the case that we have real qualitative data. An example is a unit process which is known to disperse an ‘awful odour’. If such information is not quantifiable and we wish to keep this information available throughout the LCA, we must add it to the other qualitative and quantitative aspects of the unit process, and carry it over to the inventory table and subsequent Impact assessment and Interpretation. In the example with which we opened this section (the phrase ‘contains tropical hardwood’) we showed, however, that this type of purely qualitative information is of very limited value in the course of an LCA

Guinée et al., Handbook on LCA: Operational Guide to the ISO Standards (2002)


1.2.3.6 Reporting of LCA Reporting an LCA is an important issue. Because the methods for LCA are manifold, databases often give conflicting figures, and many choices must be made in the course of completing an LCA, the results are highly dependent upon the exact details regarding methods, data and choices. The reporting of an LCA therefore implies far more than reporting the results of the LCA. It also embraces reporting the methods used, the data used, the choices made, the procedural context in which the LCA was produced and the exact question and purpose of the LCA. In the guidelines that accompany the operational steps implemented in this Guide, reporting guidelines will be given separately for each step. Equally important, however, is that the person or persons reporting an LCA develop an awareness of certain basic principles of LCA reporting


Equally important, however, is that the person or persons reporting an LCA develop an awareness of certain basic principles of LCA reporting. ISO 14040 (1997E) clause 6 reads as follows concerning the topic of reporting requirements (see textbox): The results of the LCA shall be fairly and accurately reported to the intended audience. The type and format of the report shall be defined in the scope phase of the study. The result, data, methods, assumptions and limitation shall be transparent and presented in sufficient detail to allow the reader to comprehend the complexities and trade-offs inherent in the LCA study. The report shall also allow the results and Interpretation to be used in a manner consistent with the goals of the study. When the results of the LCA are to be communicated to any third party, i.e. interested party other than commissioner or practitioner of the study, regardless of the form of communication, a third-party report shall be prepared


interested party other than commissioner or practitioner of the study, regardless of the form of communication, a third-party report shall be prepared. This report constitutes a reference document, and shall be made available to any third party to whom the communication is made. The third-party report shall cover the following aspects: a) general aspects: 1) LCA commissioner, practitioner of LCA (internal or external); 2) sate of report; 3) statement that the study has been conducted according to the requirements of this International Standard, b) definition of goal and scope; c) life cycle Inventory analysis: data collection and calculation procedures; d) life cycle Impact assessment: the methodology and results of the Impact assessment that was performed; e) life cycle Interpretation: 1) the results; 2) assumptions and limitations associated with the Interpretation of results, both methodology and data related; 3) data quality assessment


f) critical review: 1) name and affiliation of reviewers; 2) critical review reports; 3) responses to recommendations. For comparative assertions, the following issues shall also be addressed by the report: analysis of material flows to justify their inclusion or exclusion; assessment of the precision, completeness and representativeness of data used; description of the equivalence of the systems being compared in accordance with 5.1.2.4; description of the critical review process. Source: ISO 14040, 1997.


Part 3: Scientific background Lindfors et al. (1995a) and the SETAC-Europe Working Group on Case studies (Meier et al., 1997) give additional material for basic and specific guidelines for reporting. As general principles, we propose the following guidelines: The results of the LCA shall be fairly and accurately reported to the intended audience. The type and format of the report shall be defined in the scope phase of the study. The result, data, methods, assumptions and limitation shall be transparent and presented in sufficient detail to allow the reader to comprehend the complexities and trade-offs inherent in the LCA study. The report shall also allow the results and Interpretation to be used in a manner consistent with the goals of the study. When the results of the LCA are to be communicated to any third party, i.e


The report shall also allow the results and Interpretation to be used in a manner consistent with the goals of the study. When the results of the LCA are to be communicated to any third party, i.e. interested party other than the commissioner or practitioner of the study or to the expert reviewer, regardless of the form of communication, a third-party report shall be prepared. This report constitutes a reference document, and shall be made available to any third party. A third-party Goal and scope report and a third-party Final report are mandatory for detailed LCA. For simplified LCA, only a Final report is mandatory; it is recommended that this Final report also conforms to the guidelines for third-party reports given below. The terminology used in the report shall be consistent with the ISO 14040 series. Other terms used shall be detailed and defined and used consistently throughout the study


The terminology used in the report shall be consistent with the ISO 14040 series. Other terms used shall be detailed and defined and used consistently throughout the study. If, in principle, the LCA study undertaken conforms to the guidelines given in this document, any deviations from the guidelines provided shall be specifically documented and justified fairly and transparently. For each LCA phase and step, all assumptions and value judgements shall be clearly detailed, along with the justification for these assumptions. Since in this report some steps are named and sequenced a little differently from the ISO standards (see Chapter 1), the ISO reporting issues have not been adopted unaltered. All the ISO issues are covered, however, in the reporting guidelines given above. Furthermore, where possible and useful the ISO guidelines have been made more explicit, based on the guidelines provided by Lindfors et al. (1995a) and Meier et al. (1997)


Furthermore, where possible and useful the ISO guidelines have been made more explicit, based on the guidelines provided by Lindfors et al. (1995a) and Meier et al. (1997). A distinction is made here between reports and reporting issues. Two main reports are distinguished: the Goal and scope report and the Final report. There is a relation between reports and issues to be reported, of course. For example, if it is decided to also draft an Inventory and/or Impact assessment report, all issues should be reported concerning that phase and the preceding phases. For a Goal and scope report, however, a different list of reporting issues holds. The reason for this is that in the Goal and scope phase of a study, the study results are not yet available and so cannot be discussed, evaluated, etc. In contrast, the initial choices and assumptions proposed can be reported and discussed at an early stage of the study with the commissioner and third parties, i.e


In contrast, the initial choices and assumptions proposed can be reported and discussed at an early stage of the study with the commissioner and third parties, i.e. interested parties and/or expert reviewer. A Goal and scope report is particularly recommended for detailed LCA studies, since one main characteristic of detailed LCA studies is that some kind of critical review is made for which a third-party report is necessary and in which case it is useful to discuss the main choices and assumptions at an early stage of the study. By allowing comments at an early stage, the LCA study may get off to a more efficient and smoother start. The resulting Goal and scope report may be used as the basis for the Final report. Of course, modifications made to the former report during the course of the study should be duly documented and justified


Of course, modifications made to the former report during the course of the study should be duly documented and justified. When a full description of all methodological issues is provided in the Goal and scope report, consideration may be given to reporting only the results in the chapter of the Final report on Inventory analysis, Impact assessment and Interpretation. In the Goal and scope report the practitioner can justify the choices and assumptions made for each step by basically referring to the Guidelines given in this report or explaining why and how (s)he has deviated from these Guidelines. Thus, the goal and scope report can be a short report referring to the Guidelines as defined in this Guide, or a more extensive report explaining why and how other choices and assumptions (including extensions) have been made. On the one hand, extensions can be made to the detailed Guidelines. On the other hand, even the Guidelines for simplified LCA can be further simplified


On the one hand, extensions can be made to the detailed Guidelines. On the other hand, even the Guidelines for simplified LCA can be further simplified. However, it should then be clearly documented if and how these further simplifications are to be justified in relation to the goal of the study. For simplified LCA we recommend not writing a specific report as part of the Goal and Scope definition phase. In a simplified LCA only a Final report should be written.


Part 3 : Scientific background 1.2.3.7 Software for LCA Scientific endeavours to develop a method for LCA lead to calculation procedures involving a vast multitude of input data. Today it is not unusual to find 500 unit processes, 600 economic flows and 1000 environmental flows in a typical LCA. Clearly, such an analysis cannot be undertaken by hand and calculations must therefore be run on computers. There are three ways to use computers: One can use a general, i.e. non-LCA-dedicated program such as a spreadsheet. This has certain advantages: most (potential) practitioners already know how to work with these programs, they are quite flexible in manipulating data and they provide easy access to graphical presentations. On the other hand, the open and flexible nature of these programs make them rather inefficient for this particular purpose: the user must in fact himself create all the links between flows and processes and the same applies to the computational algorithms


One can also use a dedicated LCA program. There are several dozen such programs available, ranging in price from free to many thousands of euros and in scope from very basic to quite advanced. Many commercial programs are shipped with a database of process data and/or Impact assessment data. A clear disadvantage of commercial software is that the user has no capacity to perform analyses deviating, however slightly, from those that are part of the program. Some programs cannot deal with allocation, while others can handle one allocation method only. There is currently no program available that provides for full implementation of all the methods specified in this Guide. As a compromise between the flexibility of spreadsheets and the power of dedicated programs, a practitioner may decide to develop his own LCA software. This is a major task. This is clearly not an option to be recommended as standard practice


This is a major task. This is clearly not an option to be recommended as standard practice. For the occasional practitioner dealing with very small product systems (say, less than 20 unit processes) we tend to recommend the use of spreadsheets. As product systems grow or if detailed analyses are required, including sensitivity and uncertainty analyses, for instance, the use of commercial software is advisable. We refer to Rice (1996), Rice et al. (1997), Menke et al. (1996) and Siegenthaler et al. (1997) for an overview of the programs then available1. 1.3 Management of LCA projects: procedures 1.3.1 Introduction In principle, an LCA is an analytical activity that should be performed by independent experts. However, LCA projects also generally involve using the analytical results within a policy or strategy framework, as is the case with the majority of LCA studies conducted or commissioned by public authorities or private companies


In these cases the results of the LCA will have an influence on government or corporate decision-making and we then speak of mandated science: a scientific, analytical activity is performed for which a mandate has been given, and the outcome may steer decision-making. Authoritativeness of results ISO 14040 defines an interested party as “an individual or group concerned about or affected by the environmental performance of a product system or by the results of an LCA”. While retaining this definition, in this Guide we generally employ the shorter synonym ‘stakeholder’. Three groups of environmental stakeholders are usually recognised: political (national, international legislators), public (press/media, local environmental initiatives and consumer and environmental organisations) and market (competitors, customers, suppliers and financial institutions)


When LCA is applied as mandated science problems of authoritativeness often arise, that is to say: the outcome of the LCA may not always be accepted by all the stakeholders in the policy or strategy. The upshot will be clear: if the outcome if not accepted, the LCA will be of no influence on decision-making. Problems of authoritativeness may arise for one of three reasons: the actual results of the LCA may be debatable, owing to dubious assumptions, data and/or system boundaries being used, for example; 1 A program that is intended mainly for educational purposes has been developed at CML. It can be downloaded, for educational purposes for free, at: http://www.leidenuniv.nl/interfac/cml/ssp/cmlca .


Part 3: Scientific background there may be a misfit between the LCA results and other considerations pertinent to decision-making (safety, cost-effectiveness, etc.); the policy/strategy setting often involves many different parties representing differing interests. In such cases, parties will endeavour to magnify the above objections, for reasons of strategy as well as substance. Conducting LCAs in accordance with ISO standards If an LCA project is performed according to ISO standards, this means not only that the LCA itself will be methodically structured but also that certain aspects of the LCA process will be established beforehand. There are two important issues here. First, the ISO standards lay down (quality) criteria for the design and execution of the LCA as such as well as for the reporting of results, data, methods, assumptions and limitations. Second, the ISO standards outline a procedure for a ‘critical review’


Second, the ISO standards outline a procedure for a ‘critical review’. In general terms, the ISO standards deem a critical review optional and indicate that use can be made of different review options. If the LCA results are used to support ‘comparative assertions’ a critical review is mandatory ("since this application is likely to affect interested parties that are external to the LCA study") according to § 7.2 of ISO 14040. In cases involving “a comparative assertion that is disclosed to the public” a “review by interested parties” is required under ISO 14040 (clause 5.1). For the sake of clarity, we here define several other key terms used in this Guide. An ‘LCA study’ is an environmental study in which LCA methodology is employed, performed by practitioners who may or may not be affiliated to the party or parties commissioning the study. An ‘LCA project‘ is a project that seeks to obtain particular results by means of an LCA study


An ‘LCA project‘ is a project that seeks to obtain particular results by means of an LCA study. Besides commissioning parties and practitioners, the project may also involve other organizations and individuals, in the capacity of data supplier, peer reviewer or interest group, for example. An ‘LCA process’ is the integral series of exchanges among the individuals and organisations participating in an LCA project, from project initiation and guidance through to interpretation and discussion of the results. Use of a process approach Against this background, LCA-based decision-making can be seen as a process designed to involve all relevant stakeholders, which may take a variety of forms. This implies a need to elaborate a process approach, with the process being designed as appropriately as possible for the specific nature of this kind of decision-making and the various specific situations that may be involved. If a process approach is successfully implemented, the process result (i.e


If a process approach is successfully implemented, the process result (i.e. the outcome of such an approach) will show a number of characteristics. In the first place, there will be due support for process result. Having exerted an influence on the results, the various stakeholders will often come to hold different (‘richer’) views. Second, the process result will be substantially robust. That is to say: the outcome will be scientifically so well underpinned as to stand up to criticism. The stakeholders will have contributed their know-how and information and enriched the results with their knowledge and values, with due allowance being made as far as possible for the dynamics of new developments, innovation and so on. Third, the process will have been fair. All the stakeholders will have been able to contribute their problem definitions and solutions. These will all have been taken into due consideration in the decision-making process and a decision ultimately reached


These will all have been taken into due consideration in the decision-making process and a decision ultimately reached. This process will have been transparent, allowing it to be validated by all parties.


Part 3 : Scientific background Together, (1) support for a (2) substantially robust result after (3) a fair process may be sufficient to ensure that there is consensus among the stakeholders. In many cases, though, the interests of the stakeholders may differ so widely that consensus cannot reasonably be expected. A process may then well result in commitment to a particular product. Parties expressing commitment declare that they: commit themselves to the product of a process; perhaps distance themselves from certain elements of that product; are prepared to vouch for the product. 1.3.2 Decision-making based on a process approach The philosophy behind the process approach is that the outcome of a LCA will be authoritative only if the principal parties are duly involved in this analysis. This involvement should be structured in an orderly fashion and a process design is consequently essential


This involvement should be structured in an orderly fashion and a process design is consequently essential. This design should indicate: which parties (singular or plural) are to be involved in the analysis; at which points in the decision-making process these parties may exert their influence; how to proceed at such points in the process. Advantages In brief, the principal arguments in favour of a process approach are as follows: I. II. III. IV. V. Support Successful execution of an LCA requires the support of the stakeholders, and if they are to stand behind the outcome of the analysis they must be duly involved in the analysis process. Quality of data and other information The stakeholders can also make an important contribution to the quality of the information used to perform the LCA, for they dispose over factual data and other information (based on such data), in the form of data and know-how on recent and expected innovations, for example


Quality of the analysis Critical interrogation by stakeholders vis-à-vis the study and its outcome will bring into clear view the underlying values, the choices (regarding data and assumptions) made, and which results are robust and authoritative and which do not satisfy these criteria. Validation of stakeholder views and assumptions Conversely, in their meetings with researchers the stakeholders will have to expound on their own views and assumptions, some of which may not stand up to the scrutiny of scientific criticism. ‘Enrichment’ The stakeholders involved in the analysis will often be representing different interests. Confrontations between these interests may lead to enrichment: a mutual learning process. Basic preconditions If a process approach is to have any chance of success, three basic preconditions must be satisfied: Condition 1: Condition 2: There must be a sense of urgency. A process design demands a sense of urgency


A process design demands a sense of urgency. The stakeholders must, in other words, be convinced that: there is a problematic situation1 that must be resolved as a matter of priority; an LCA can help resolve this problematic situation; the stakeholders must somehow collaborate on designing the LCA. If these three conditions are not fulfilled, the process will have little chance of succeeding, for nobody will be prepared to commit themselves to a decisionmaking process. Phenomena like the ‘participation paradox’ as well as limited participation at the outset of the process (see Section 1.3.4) are especially likely if there is little sense of urgency. There is then a high major risk of the process breaking down. Stakeholders must be willing to commit themselves to a process design


There is then a high major risk of the process breaking down. Stakeholders must be willing to commit themselves to a process design. It is important that the basic process agreements between parties are explicitly recorded in a process design, making clear which organisations may participate 1 The stakeholders may well, at the outset, have different perceptions of the problem. What matters, though, is that all parties see the need to arrive at a collective approach and decision.


Part 3: Scientific background in the process, who are to represent them, what mandate these representatives are to have, and what rules of decision-making and what (substantial, financial) constraints are to hold. Although this may seem trivial, experience shows that process management is frequently implicit: talks are held with stakeholders, without a process design being properly thought out and elaborated in concreto. The transparency and integrity of the process may consequently suffer. Parties may be drawn into the process too late, be unclear about the status of the talks and how their contribution is reflected in the end result, have the impression that other parties are exerting undue influence, and so on. If there is a lack of transparency and/or integrity, a process may become ‘messy’ in the eyes of the participants and/or not give them a fair chance to influence the outcome. It will be clear that this will discredit the process


It will be clear that this will discredit the process. The process design can be drawn up by a process architect, in due consultation with all the stakeholders. Once the latter have approved the design, the process can be steered and guided by a so-called process manager. A number of topics described in the following sections under ‘process items’ derive from this fundamental precondition. Condition 3: All process participants must possess a minimum level of substantial expertise. A third basic condition is that the representatives of the parties must be in possession of a minimum level of knowledge and expertise on LCAs. If this is not the case, pronounced asymmetry may arise among process participants, which frequently leads to the process breaking down. The mere fact that participants lacking due expertise will need to go through a learning process during the LCA process confirms this risk: the process will become unnecessarily protracted and consequently vulnerable


1.3.3 Designing the decision-making process The first thing to remember when designing a decision-making process is that a process approach in a situation of mandated science involves certain risks. A number of such risks can be identified and for these due allowance should be made


stakeholders will have access to knowledge regarding project progress and may make opportunistic use of interim and final results; if the LCA results threaten to be unfavourable from their perspective, stakeholders may so accelerate or procrastinate decision-making that a misfit ensues (substantive, analytical results arrive too soon or too late); researchers have access to information about the progress of the decision-making process and may upset this process by publicising their opinions, incomplete (‘quick and dirty’) research results, and so on; if the study results threaten to be unfavourable from their perspective, researchers, too, may so accelerate or procrastinate decision-making that a misfit ensues; at the very least, the stakeholders may be accused of taking a decision that is inadequately grounded in the research undertaken; stakeholders and researchers may be so concerned about reaching consensus that the quality of the LCA suffers as a result


These risks are a clear indication that an explicit process design is a sine qua non for a successful process-type LCA, for it allows appropriate measures to be taken to limit the risks inherent in such a process. Focus on execution and use of the LCA In the second place it should be recognised that fair LCA-based decision-making requires that due allowance be made for how the LCA is conducted and how the analysis results are utilised by the various stakeholders. On the one hand, this relates to the actual analysis based on the LCA methodology. In this respect, the main aim of the process approach is to make sure the analysis is of sufficiently high quality and the results sufficiently authoritative for all the stakeholders. On the other hand, it relates to the practical implications of the analysis results, in the form of corporate or public decision-making, for example


On the other hand, it relates to the practical implications of the analysis results, in the form of corporate or public decision-making, for example. In this respect, the process should be designed such that due justice is done to the analysis results in the corporate or public decision-making setting in question. This implies that the process design must cover more than merely the methodological rigour of the LCA project. For a process design to work


Part 3 : Scientific background satisfactorily there must also be optimum interaction between project execution as such and the intended practical use of the analysis results. Matching the process goal Thirdly, the process must be designed in accordance with the goal. The reasons for conducting an LCA differ from case to case. For example, a company may perform or commission an LCA in order to decide - internally - what kind of new product is preferable from an environmental perspective, or to provide public accountability for the environmental burden caused by a current product. Alternatively, it may be a government commissioning or conducting an LCA, for any number of reasons. The study may serve to decide - internally - what kind of new policies are preferable from an environmental perspective, or to provide public accountability for (proposed) policies


The study may serve to decide - internally - what kind of new policies are preferable from an environmental perspective, or to provide public accountability for (proposed) policies. The motives for undertaking the LCA will determine the scope and substance of the decisions based on the LCA results (product development, policy development and implementation, accountability). It goes without saying that the potential scope of the LCA-based decision should constitute a major determining factor vis-à-vis the intensity of participation in the decision-making process by the various stakeholders. Interests Finally, it should be stressed that LCA-based decision-making may involve a substantial variety of domestic as well as foreign players with commercial, public or ‘idealistic’ interests. These may be the interests of the companies or government agencies commissioning the LCA (henceforth ‘commissioners’), third-party interests or the international legal and economic context


These may be the interests of the companies or government agencies commissioning the LCA (henceforth ‘commissioners’), third-party interests or the international legal and economic context. The decisionmaking process should therefore be designed such that none of the relevant parties can be overlooked, to avoid implementation of inappropriate environmental measures, assertion of improper environmental claims and debatable competitive advantages. Based on our own experience in a variety of practical contexts and on information on other cases, we have undertaken a careful review of LCA-based decision-making, giving particular attention to the procedural embedding of LCA projects and subsequent processes. In doing so, we have focused on the kinds of situations arising in both the public and the corporate decision-making context. We have found that LCA-based decision-making is often embedded in a standing procedural framework, statutory or otherwise


We have found that LCA-based decision-making is often embedded in a standing procedural framework, statutory or otherwise. In a number of cases this was a broader procedural context explicitly allowing for possible execution of LCAs (Dutch Voluntary Agreement on Packaging, ‘Eco-label’). In other instances, such as LCAs performed as part of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) procedures, this was not the case. In this report we do not reflect on the diversity of practical cases as such, but focus directly on the results of that reflection process. Against this background, the following sections present a number of general insights regarding those process aspects that have proved most relevant. With regard to the procedural embedding of LCA studies, we here distinguish a total of 15 dominant process characteristics (items), divided over four process aspects. For each process item one or more potential bottlenecks are identified, based on experience and theoretical understanding


For each process item one or more potential bottlenecks are identified, based on experience and theoretical understanding. Due attention should be given to these bottlenecks, by anticipating the problems that are likely to arise.


Part 3: Scientific background I. Implementation of LCA tasks process item 1 Overall process management process item 2 Role and duties of the process manager process item 3 Role and duties of the LCA practitioner process item 4 Role and duties of the reviewer(s) II. Representation of interests process item 5 Selection of process participants process item 6 Structures and interests to be respected process item 7 Participation process item 8 Commitment III. Process progress process item 9 Balance between content and process process item 10 Balance between speed and thoroughness process item 11 Outside influences process item 12 Honouring input IV


Process progress process item 9 Balance between content and process process item 10 Balance between speed and thoroughness process item 11 Outside influences process item 12 Honouring input IV. Process outcome process item 13 Clarity of purpose process item 14 Relation between LCA findings and process conclusions process item 15 Relation between process conclusions and implementation 1.3.4 Implementation of LCA tasks Satisfactory execution of the numerous activities involved in an LCA project requires a clearly delineated assignment of tasks among the various parties and tight overall management of responsibilities. Process item 1: Overall process management In most cases an LCA will not be executed by the initiating party but by one or more specialists, commissioned by one or more stakeholders. This may take a number of forms


This may take a number of forms. The simplest configuration involves a single person representing a company or organisation - with a clearly defined purpose - and fulfilling the role of commissioner as well as overall process manager. If there are several parties involved and it is deemed desirable to give the various parties a fair chance of making an optimum contribution and the contracting (i.e. paying) party or parties are also willing to provide that opportunity, the role of ‘commissioner’ may be shouldered jointly by the full compliment of stakeholders. In such cases responsibility for overall project management is assigned to an independent process manager. In practice, of course, there will be numerous variations between these two extremes


In such cases responsibility for overall project management is assigned to an independent process manager. In practice, of course, there will be numerous variations between these two extremes. Experience shows that overall progress of the LCA process may be hampered by several factors: the commissioning party or parties have insufficient LCA know-how prior to their formulating the LCA assignment; the supervisory committees set up by the commissioners have an inadequate decision-making framework; this is particularly relevant when the commissioners have conflicting interests; financial responsibility for the LCA contract is undivorced from responsibility for overall project management.


Part 3 : Scientific background Process item 2: Role and duties of the process manager To ensure optimum project progress and stakeholder involvement a process manager may be appointed. A process manager may in principle fulfil any number of duties, with a strong emphasis on substance or purely process-oriented, on behalf of a commissioning party or entirely independent, purely as a mediator or simultaneously managerial and directive. If there is ambiguity in this area or if roles and duties are interpreted differently by various parties to the process, the status of the process manager may suffer and with it the status of the process itself


Experience shows that overall progress of the LCA process may be hampered by several factors: the role and duties of the process manager are not clearly delineated prior to the start of the process; inadequate attention is paid to communicating the process manager’s specific role and duties to all process participants; there is insufficient scope for assessing the process manager’s performance in the various stages of the process. Process item 3: Role and duties of the LCA practitioner The task of the person(s) and/or organisation executing the LCA (the ‘LCA practitioner’) is to perform all the activities necessary to deliver the end product agreed to in the relevant contract. Generally speaking, this end product will take the form of an LCA quantifying the environmental profile of one or more product systems. It has been found in practice that an LCA often takes longer to perform than schedules permit


It has been found in practice that an LCA often takes longer to perform than schedules permit. Interim revision of the contract is not unusual, particularly in the case of LCAs for use in comparative, public reviews. A well-conducted LCA does not automatically lead to a good process result (through lack of consensus or commitment, for example). Conversely, an LCA deficient in substance may be blamed - rightly or wrongly - on a problematic process. On this playing field a conflict may arise between the interests of the party executing the LCA and the best interests of the process. Another possible area of tension concerns the relation between the LCA practitioner on the one hand and the commissioning party and other stakeholders on the other. In the case of LCA-related conflict among stakeholders it may be the task of the LCA practitioner to expose fallacious thinking, signal inconsistencies and employ sensitivity analysis to quantify the effects of different assumptions, for example


In situations like these due care should be taken, however, to ensure that the LCA practitioner shows no ‘bias’. One thing that must be avoided, for instance, is that the interests of the commissioning party lead to the product systems under study being modeled to respect considerations of corporate strategy rather than the system requirements specified. (In an assessment of possible future strategies, disagreeable product systems could conceivably be torpedoed through adoption of unfavourable assumptions regarding service life (short), resource consumption (high, polluting) and transport and cleaning processes (polluting).) In such cases the LCA practitioner can all too easily become party to a conflict regarding system boundaries and assumptions


Experience shows that overall progress of the LCA process may be hampered by several factors: the LCA practitioner has not reflected sufficiently on the admissibility of the project terms and constraints as specified by the commissioning party; there is insufficient, diffuse regard for the role and responsibilities of the LCA practitioner in terms of both the LCA results and the overall process result; the LCA practitioner is insufficiently perceptive of the interests at stake and the conscientiousness this role demands; the LCA practitioner adopts an insufficiently independent stance, thus compromising the objectivity of the process. Process item 4: Role and duties of the reviewer(s) The aim of a (critical) review is to verify that an LCA study satisfies the set criteria with respect to such issues as methodology, system modeling, data selection and reporting mode


If LCA-based decisionmaking is to be worthwhile, it is of the greatest importance that one or more rigorous reviews be carried out. This is illustrated by the inclusion in ISO 14040 of background considerations and process criteria with regard to such reviews.


Part 3: Scientific background Experience shows that overall progress of the LCA process may be hampered by several factors: the independent status of the critical review and/or panel review within the decision-making process is not guaranteed; review duties are undermined because the status of the review(s) in the overall process is unclear (in terms of planning, for example); there is no explicit distinction between the advisory and evaluatory responsibilities of the critical reviewer(s) and/or panel; there are no clear arrangements regarding the relationship between critical reviewer and panel duties and reporting by these parties; there is insufficient clarity regarding the scope of the scheduled review reports and any constraints imposed on the review, either prior to or during the process


Representation of interests To ensure that decision-making is sufficiently transparent, it is essential that all relevant parties be involved in the decision-making process and that these parties can be confident that their interests are addressed as satisfactorily as possible within the adopted framework of the process. Process item 5: Selection of process participants It is of the utmost importance that the circle of participants engaged in the process be sufficiently wide. Although there may be an understandable urge to move forward, every endeavour should be made to avoid exclusion of relevant stakeholders and the loss of authoritativeness with which this is likely to be associated. In this context it should be borne in mind that those representing the parties involved must have sufficient ‘commitment power’. Those being represented should consider themselves sufficiently bound to the outcome of the process. Another point meriting due attention is balanced representation


Those being represented should consider themselves sufficiently bound to the outcome of the process. Another point meriting due attention is balanced representation. ‘Impassioned’ parties for whom the stakes are high will send a relatively heavy delegation with plenty of time and know-how, while less impassioned parties will send lighter-weight representatives. This may upset the symmetry of the process and complicate overall progress. Experience shows that overall progress of the LCA process may be hampered by several factors: inadequate prior consideration is given to the required breadth of representation, with no proper inventory of stakeholders; the stakeholder representatives recruited have insufficient commitment power; representation is unbalanced (inequality, asymmetry); process participants lack sufficient basic knowledge regarding LCA and the product systems under study; this is particularly important in the Goal and scope definition phase of the LCA


Process item 6: Structures and interests to be respected A process may sometimes be structured in such a way that the issues at stake coincide with the vital interests of (some of) the parties involved. Jeopardisation of these interests may then disrupt the entire process. Companies often state that they are willing to participate in a process only on condition that sensitive corporate information need not be made available to other parties (or only confidentially). The core interest of many public interest groups is to fulfil their role as moulders of opinion. Consequently, they are not likely to take part in a process if this involves their not being allowed to publicise their positions in any way. Politicians, administrators and their representatives bear political responsibility and this is the key interest that they represent. LCA processes may not be designed such that this political accountability to representational bodies is compromised


LCA processes may not be designed such that this political accountability to representational bodies is compromised. Experience shows that overall progress of the LCA process may be hampered by several factors: there is excessive discussion, prior to as well as during the process, about secrecy arrangements, through aversion to confidentiality on the one hand and insufficient explicit detailing and limitation of the scope of confidentiality on the other; 1.3.5


Part 3 : Scientific background prior to the process, there is insufficient detailing of how maximum freedom of action for all parties to the process is to be guaranteed, at the same time ensuring the least damage to the process as such; the primacy of the political domain is inadequately respected, while the commitment of political representatives is rendered insufficiently explicit; there are deficiencies in the organisational structure linking the process participants/representatives to their ‘constituency’. Process item 7: Participation It is a well-known fact that at the outset of a process some parties take only a limited interest in the proceedings. The main reason is that it is not yet sufficiently clear to these parties what turn the process will take. Time and money must be invested in participation in a process whose outcome is still unclear


Time and money must be invested in participation in a process whose outcome is still unclear. These actors therefore are insufficient motivated to participate in the process, even though they have every opportunity to influence the decision-making process. In the final stages of the process the picture is reversed. Certain actors will be particularly interested in continued participation, for the products of the process are becoming clearer all the time. At the same time the most important decisions will already have been taken, and the potential for influencing the process will be restricted accordingly. In short, there is major scope for influencing the decision-making process at its outset when participation is low, and far less scope for influence when participation is high. Another phenomenon that deserves mention is the so-called ‘participation paradox’. The aim of suitably broad-based participation is to improve the quality and support base of the decisions to be made


The aim of suitably broad-based participation is to improve the quality and support base of the decisions to be made. The paradox is that participation may have the opposite effect. Using the knowledge they have gained by participation in the process, parties are in a better position to oppose the decisions made once it is over. If they had acquiesced to a process outcome they were later to oppose, the party concerned might be accused of opportunistic conduct. For precisely this reason it might then be more appealing for the party to withdraw from the process before its termination


For precisely this reason it might then be more appealing for the party to withdraw from the process before its termination. Experience shows that overall progress of the LCA process may be hampered by several factors: there is a lack of explicit prior commitment by the process participants; there is insufficiently rigorous implementation of the agreed rules of play; there is insufficient encouragement of input from hesitant participants in the preliminary and initial phases of the project; some participants exert a disproportionate influence in the final project phase, thereby prompting undue reiteration of already finalised process elements; participants are replaced by heavier ‘fresh’ delegates and use made of ‘fully functional’ deputies. Process item 8: Commitment The best way to guarantee participants’ commitment to the process is to ensure they have confidence in its outcome


Process item 8: Commitment The best way to guarantee participants’ commitment to the process is to ensure they have confidence in its outcome. To ensure participants feel sufficiently comfortable it is essential that their respective positions be duly protected. On the one hand, this has implications for process design: vital interests must be respected (cf. process item 6), while potential conflicts can be anticipated through wise design of the process structure. On the other hand, measures should be taken to limit the pressure exerted on parties during the process. In this respect it is important to provide due scope for postponing commitment wherever possible. It is not always wise to ask parties to commit themselves to all kinds of subsidiary decisions early in the process. Due allowance should be made for the complexity of LCAs: matters that at first seem crucial may later transpire to be mere details, while details may later prove quintessential


Due allowance should be made for the complexity of LCAs: matters that at first seem crucial may later transpire to be mere details, while details may later prove quintessential. Ultimately, commitment to the final outcome of the LCA and the associated process is only possible on the basis of due insight and understanding. In practice this means that participants must undergo a learning process vis-à-vis LCA execution or the product systems being analysed, or both. Learning processes may be hampered if commitments are to be made at an early stage of the proceedings. In this respect it should always be remembered that the LCA process can only serve as a learning process for participants if the didactics are not overly disturbed by apprehension about unforeseen consequences


Experience shows that overall progress of the LCA process may be hampered by several factors: participants’ knowledge and understanding on LCA execution and the product systems under analysis consistently lags behind; participants are insufficiently motivated to develop a consistent picture in terms of content;


Part 3: Scientific background ’binding’ decisions are scheduled too early in the process. 1.3.6 Progress of the decision-making process A process geared towards LCA-based decision-making can take a variety of different forms and the rate of progress will be determined in no small measure by how this process is designed. Process item 9: Balance between content and process The balance between content and process may be upset in two ways: 1. 2. ‘Process drives out content’: parties may be so focused on consensus that issues of substance are insufficiently addressed. 'Content drives out process': parties are overconcerned with details of substance that are irrelevant for achieving consensus


'Content drives out process': parties are overconcerned with details of substance that are irrelevant for achieving consensus. Experience shows that overall progress of the LCA process may be hampered by several factors: there is too much focus on consensus and too little in-depth treatment of substance; there is too much focus on content, although this has little or no relevance for the final process outcome; participants shy away from real differences and conflicts and lose themselves in detail; participants ‘take refuge’ from the content in the process, because they are insufficiently knowledgeable at the outset of the process, for example; participants ‘take refuge’ from the process in the content, embarking on unnecessarily detailed descriptions to gain time, for example. Process item 10: Balance between speed and thoroughness Much criticism of the process approach is grounded in the view that processes are slow and cost too much time to work through


Process item 10: Balance between speed and thoroughness Much criticism of the process approach is grounded in the view that processes are slow and cost too much time to work through. Due consultation of all the relevant stakeholders is a time-consuming process. As the process moves forward, parties moreover often learn a lot about their own conceptions and views, which become less secure as a result. This, too, may in turn affect the speed of the decisionmaking process. It is also true that LCA-based decision-making processes have often overshot their schedules, owing either to insufficient experience with LCA or underestimation of the complexity of the product systems and interests at stake. There is not always a willingness to accept ‘lost time’ for the sake of better-quality decision-making. Time considerations may, for example, tempt participants to focus early on in the process on certain issues or certain solutions


Time considerations may, for example, tempt participants to focus early on in the process on certain issues or certain solutions. One consequence of this may be inadequate coverage of the full range of issues and potential solutions (cf. process item 13). This may threaten the authoritativeness of the process, certain parties claiming that particular options were not addressed during the process, thus rendering the outcome of the process debatable a priori


Experience shows that overall progress of the LCA process may be hampered by several factors: the desired quality of the LCA is not properly established at the outset, in terms of either content or process, nor is proper attention given to the possible implications of this for the project duration (this does not exclude the possibility of participants learning together during the process and subsequently reviewing quality criteria and schedules); there are deficiencies regarding one or more of the following points: adequate preliminary across-the-board consideration of relevant issues by all participants; collective agreement on and elaboration of the approach to be followed; appropriate detailing of process planning; ditto monitoring of progress; (this form of process design should not be too rigidly interpreted) during the process there is too little reflective evaluation vis-à-vis speed and thoroughness; there is inadequate scope for postponing the decision(s) if new insights


not be too rigidly interpreted) during the process there is too little reflective evaluation vis-à-vis speed and thoroughness; there is inadequate scope for postponing the decision(s) if new insights arise or parties learn from the process;


Part 3 : Scientific background there is insufficient consultation about and explicit reformulation of de facto revisions regarding quality criteria and/or completion date. Process item 11: Outside influences Even if the circle of participants has been cast sufficiently wide - against the backdrop of the process goal - there are often (external) parties with a different kind of interest in the outcome of the process. The process may then be affected by outside influences, i.e. influences from the wider process context. The outcome of an LCA project may, after all, extend beyond the environmental profile of a given product system. A new contribution may have been made to methodology, for example, there may be improved understanding of the (market) operation of a product system and/or product chain, or a new basis of comparison for other process results, etc


For the outside world, as well as for certain process participants, it may be very important to give these aspects of the project specific status as subsidiary goals. All this means additional risks as well as opportunities with respect to the success of the project. Experience shows that overall progress of the LCA process may be hampered by several factors: insufficient use is made of the advantages arising from the fact that process participants and outsiders recognise subsidiary process goals of greater or lesser importance; insufficient action is taken to combat the drawbacks arising from the fact that process participants and outsiders recognise subsidiary process goals of greater or lesser importance. Process item 12: Honouring input In principle, LCA-based decision-making should run its course as an open and transparent process. All the parties involved must be able to contribute their views and see them sufficiently honoured


All the parties involved must be able to contribute their views and see them sufficiently honoured. Some parties may also consider the process as a kind of trap, however: by participating in the process they become committed to its outcome, without having been able to make any contribution of substance. Perceptions of this nature will be manifested differently by each of the various parties. A different or additional problem may occur if there is too great a discrepancy between the actual process results and the actual value of the LCA results, on the one hand, and the impressions gained by the world outside. If some parties see their views reasonably well honoured but are meanwhile confronted with exaggerated ’image-building’ efforts by other parties, they may be prompted to withdraw. This is particularly relevant when public relations departments gloss over or disregard participants’ comments on the value of the LCA results and/or process results


This is particularly relevant when public relations departments gloss over or disregard participants’ comments on the value of the LCA results and/or process results. Experience shows that overall progress of the LCA process may be hampered by several factors: there is unfounded 'image-building' based on provisional/anticipated LCA and process results; there is insufficient respect for the wishes of some parties that announcement of provisional/anticipated LCA and process results should be accompanied by these parties’ comments; there is no prior establishment of one or more opportunities for interim evaluation during which participants have an option to withdraw (giving their reasons for doing so). 1.3.7 Process outcome In the LCA-based decision-making context a distinction should be made between an LCA result, the process conclusion and the process result. An LCA result is the sum total of results yielded by a life cycle analysis


An LCA result is the sum total of results yielded by a life cycle analysis. The process conclusion is the conclusion drawn about a problem identified prior to the start of the project, motivated by an LCA result, or after comparison of one or more LCA results. The process result is the result the process conclusion being implemented. This section is concerned with the steps followed in moving from goal to LCA result, process conclusion and implementation. Process item 13: Clarity of purpose It is crucially important that the goal of an LCA study be formulated such that the ultimate results of the LCA are optimally suited for use in the framework of the process goal. In the first place, this means that before the LCA study is started there should be measured reflection on the potential significance of the


Part 3: Scientific background LCA results within the established framework of system boundaries and assumptions vis-à-vis the product system. Second, it means that the LCA study must be carried out as an iterative process, with ongoing reflection throughout. It should be emphasised that considerable prior attention should be devoted to formulating a clear-cut goal for both the process result and the LCA result. It is better to define the product system as appropriately as possible at the outset than to patch up a deficient definition on the basis of supplementary sensitivity analyses and considered options for subsequent improvement. A misfit between the final LCA result and the intended process result is a waste of research time and process time, moreover


A misfit between the final LCA result and the intended process result is a waste of research time and process time, moreover. Experience shows that overall progress of the LCA process may be hampered by several factors: at the beginning of the LCA there is no critical, collective reflection on the goals of the commissioning party or of the LCA (with respect to adequacy and feasibility) by all the parties involved; during the process a lack of exchange between the LCA commissioner and practitioner prevents tightening or revising of established goals from being discussed where necessary. Process item 14: Relation between LCA findings and process conclusions The principal result of an LCA, or a series of comparative LCAs, is one or more environmental profiles: a review of the environmental scores of one or several product systems. LCA-based decision-making involves interpreting these profiles and drawing appropriate conclusions


LCA-based decision-making involves interpreting these profiles and drawing appropriate conclusions. This interpretative step has several aspects: the value the decision-makers attach to the environmental scores as such, the margins of error to be considered in doing so, insights concerning possible options for improvement, the relative importance of the environmental themes considered, how the modeled product system conforms to pictures of reality, and so on. Ultimate process conclusions often prove to be based not only on LCAs, but also on considerations of corporate economics or general policy concerns, for example. It should be borne in mind that although both the interpretative step and the last-mentioned step are more difficult to objectify than the actual LCA process, it is feasible to design and implement appropriate procedural arrangements


Experience shows that overall progress of the LCA process may be hampered by several factors: prior to the LCA process, there is no established decision-making procedure indicating as explicitly as possible how to deal with the issue of balancing considerations stemming from the LCA relative to considerations of corporate economics, policy and so on; insufficient prior consideration is given to procedures for handling the following issues in the conclusion phase: the margins of error in the environmental scores; the respective weighting of the environmental themes considered; insights obtained after considering options for improvement; insights obtained after performing sensitivity analyses (vis-à-vis assumptions in the modeled product systems, for example). Process item 15: Relation between process conclusions and implementation A key question in many decision-making contexts is how binding the process conclusion is to be


Process item 15: Relation between process conclusions and implementation A key question in many decision-making contexts is how binding the process conclusion is to be. Are all the conclusions to be implemented exactly as they stand? Or is there to be some leeway, with the party or parties implementing the conclusions operating under certain degrees of freedom? The advantage of the first option is that the conclusions bear major significance; parties can count on their findings being implemented. The drawback of a binding process conclusion is that it can loom as a threat over the conclusion process (and the preceding analysis), for if participants are aware that the process conclusions are to be implemented as they stand, there will be a strong incentive for certain parties to resist particular conclusions


Experience shows that overall progress of the LCA process may be hampered by several factors: the conclusions drawn during the process and the ultimate process conclusions are too binding with respect to subsequent measures; the opposite is true, permitting opportunistic use and abuse during the process; the process is insufficiently transparent, compounding these opportunities for process abuse;


Part 3 : Scientific background no measures are taken to avoid opportunistic use and abuse of non-binding conclusions after termination of the process. 1.4 Stepwise structure for Environmental Life-Cycle Assessment As already mentioned in Chapter 0, this Guide adheres rigidly to the four main phases of LCA specified by ISO (see ). In this Guide we elaborate a logical, stepwise structure for each of these four phases, based on general practical experience of the logical sequence of actions undertaken in the course of an LCA study. In naming the steps we have taken the ISO phraseology1 as our point of departure wherever possible. No iterations are specified in the Guide, for in principle the outcome of any step may lead to a revision of previous steps. In practice, iteration between steps will be so frequent and manifest itself in so many different ways that it would be impossible to elaborate them all in a guide


In practice, iteration between steps will be so frequent and manifest itself in so many different ways that it would be impossible to elaborate them all in a guide. In this sense, the described steps specify a logically ordered structure that allows for any degree of iteration desired. Procedural aspects with broader ramifications are specified for each phase separately. 1.4.1 Goal and scope definition ISO 14041 (1998E) breaks down the Goal and scope definition phase of an LCA into the following steps or elements (clause 5, p.4): Goal of the study; Scope of the study; Function, functional unit and reference flow; Initial system boundaries; Description of data categories; Criteria for initial inclusion of inputs and outputs; Data quality requirements; Critical review; Study report. Based on a review of steps and items proposed for the Goal and scope definition phase by ISO 14040 (1997E) ISO 14041 (1998E), Heijungs et al. (1992), Lindfors et al. (1995a) and Wenzel et al


Based on a review of steps and items proposed for the Goal and scope definition phase by ISO 14040 (1997E) ISO 14041 (1998E), Heijungs et al. (1992), Lindfors et al. (1995a) and Wenzel et al. (1997), we propose to distinguish the following steps for Goal and scope definition: 1 This does not imply that the authors consider ISO phraseology to be the most appropriate in all cases. However, deviation from the ISO wording would probably not be helpful in achieving an understandable and widely acceptable Guide.


Part 3: Scientific background [Procedures];1 Goal definition; Scope definition; Function, functional unit, alternatives and reference flows. Although the structure is broadly similar to ISO 14041 (1998E), there are several differences and additions: 1. Procedures covers the ISO element ‘Critical review’, but is a more general term indicating the possible usefulness of covering other procedural aspects like stakeholder participation in a particular LCA study. In the present Guide guidelines on this topic are given for each individual LCA phase and the Procedures step therefore also recurs in the Inventory analysis, Impact assessment and Interpretation phases. However, in Part 3 - Scientific Background (this document) - Procedures are not discussed for each step separately but in a single, comprehensive section of this chapter (Section 1.3)


However, in Part 3 - Scientific Background (this document) - Procedures are not discussed for each step separately but in a single, comprehensive section of this chapter (Section 1.3). This is because ‘Procedures’ is a relatively new topic and it is not yet particularly useful to discuss developments since 1992 for each LCA phase individually. A separate background study has been devoted to the topic (De Bruijn & Van Duin, 1998; Van Duin & De Bruijn, 1998). To the ISO step ‘Function, functional unit and reference flow’ the choice of alternatives has been added in order to emphasise that it is here that selection of (product) systems for comparison takes place, if relevant in a given LCA study. Initial system boundaries, description of data categories, criteria for inclusion of inputs and outputs and data quality requirements now constitute elements of the Inventory analysis. In each step distinct guidelines are given for reporting and for issues for Interpretation


In each step distinct guidelines are given for reporting and for issues for Interpretation. Rather than devoting specific sections to these two items, which would lead to considerable double-wording, we have deemed it more useful to discuss them in context as they arose. The term ‘issues for Interpretation’ has been chosen to indicate that this step is related to the Interpretation phase. Identification of issues for Interpretation helps create a checklist of all Goal and scope, Inventory and Impact assessment issues of possible relevance for the Interpretation phase 2. 3. 4. The items procedures, reporting and issues for Interpretation are treated in the Inventory analysis and the Impact assessment phases, in the same way as described above for Goal and scope definition. Procedures and reporting are treated similarly in the Interpretation phase, too, but for obvious reasons issues for Interpretation is then a superfluous item


Procedures and reporting are treated similarly in the Interpretation phase, too, but for obvious reasons issues for Interpretation is then a superfluous item. One remaining point is what the Scope definition step exactly comprises. It is not clear from the ISO standards what should be stated about the issues and/or steps in the Scope definition and what in the Inventory analysis and Impact assessment. The suggestions provided by ISO 14040 and 14041 on Scope definition are slightly different


The suggestions provided by ISO 14040 and 14041 on Scope definition are slightly different. Under the heading ‘scope of the study’ a list of items is given in ISO 14040 (1997E), clause 5.1.2 (and referred to in ISO 14041, clause 5.3.1), which shall be considered and should be clearly described: the function of the system; the functional unit; the system to be studied; the system boundaries; allocation procedures; the types of impact and the methodology of Impact assessment and subsequent Interpretation to be used; data requirements; assumptions; limitations; the initial data quality requirements; the type of critical review, if any; and the type and format of the report required for the study. We suggest that these elements of the ISO Scope definition be split into three clusters


We suggest that these elements of the ISO Scope definition be split into three clusters. The first of these covers a number of basic choices for the entire study, including: temporal coverage (including infinite time horizon in modeling economic flows, environmental interventions and impacts); geographical coverage; Technology coverage; 1 “Procedures” is a separate step in Part 2a - Guide - but not in Part 3 - Scientific background.


Part 3 : Scientific background coverage of economic processes (initial system boundaries); coverage of environmental interventions and impacts; mode of analysis1; and level of sophistication. In this Guide these issues will be elaborated in the step ‘Scope of the study’. The second cluster covers basic choices regarding function, functional unit, alternatives and reference flows. Here, a separate step of Goal and scope definition is devoted to these key issues of an LCA study. The third cluster comprises critical review and reporting, viz. of all the basic choices with respect to functional unit, systems compared, Inventory analysis, Impact assessment and Interpretation. This socalled Goal and Scope Report is drafted for the purpose of critical review and stakeholder comments and, in comparison to ISO 14040 and 14041, is here extended to cover reporting on all the main choices of all the methodological steps distinguished


For this reporting dimension, separate guidelines are given in each step of the Goal and scope definition. The relation between the steps of Goal and scope definition in this Guide and those derived from ISO 14041 is shown in Figure 1.4.1.1. 1 “Mode of analysis” refers to a subject that is not (yet) treated in the ISO document but has become a key topic in the LCA debate. It concerns the distinction between descriptive and change-oriented applications, also known as the “marginal-average discussion” (cf. Udo de Haes and Wrisberg, 1997; Frischknecht, 1998). The distinction between these two types of application appears to be extremely important, for two reasons: 1. it enables an explicit connection to be made with the application and hence with the Goal definition, the functional unit, etc.; 2. it may have major consequences for methodological details during Inventory analysis, Impact assessment and Interpretation


it may have major consequences for methodological details during Inventory analysis, Impact assessment and Interpretation. As indicated above, this Guide focuses on change-oriented analysis for long-term structural decisions.


Part 3: Scientific background 1.4.2 Inventory analysis In ISO 14041 (1998E) the (Life Cycle) Inventory analysis phase (‘LCI’) is broken down into the following operational steps (ISO 14041, clause 6.1, p.8): Preparing for data collection; Data collection; Validation of data; Relating data to unit process; Relating data to functional unit; Allocation and recycling; Data aggregation; Refining the system boundaries. In addition to these operational steps the topics ‘limitation of LCI (interpreting LCI results)’ and ‘study report’ are mentioned in ISO 14041 (1998E).


Part 3 : Scientific background Based on ISO 14041 (1998E) and taking into account the steps distinguished in Heijungs et al. (1992), Lindfors et al. (1995a), Curran (1996) and Wenzel et al. (1997), in this Guide we distinguish the following steps of the Inventory analysis phase: [Procedures];1 Economy-environment system boundary; Flow diagram (one item of ‘Preparing for data collection’); Format and data categories (ISO step ‘Data categories’); Data quality; Data collection and relating data to unit processes (including ‘Relating data to unit processes’); Data validation; Cut-off and data estimation (= ‘Initial system boundaries’ and ‘Criteria for initial inclusion of inputs and outputs’; in ISO 14041 these steps are part of ‘Goal and scope definition’); Multifunctionality and allocation (= ‘Allocation and recycling’); Calculation method (= ‘Relating data to functional unit’ and ‘Data aggregation’)


The steps listed cover all ISO steps and elements, but they are here grouped and sequenced differently under slightly different headings. There are a number of reasons for these additions to and deviations from ISO: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. As the overall aim of this document is to provide a practical guide for LCA practitioners based on the ISO Standards, it is important to parallel the actual steps of a real-world LCA process as closely as possible. The procedural aspects of each LCA phase are treated in a separate ‘Procedures’ section in the description of each phase, to avoid cluttering up the technical steps. The ISO step ‘Preparing for data collection’ has been split into ‘Flow diagram‘ and ‘Data collection and relating data to unit processes‘. The description of each unit process, units of measurement, data retrieval methods, etc. are all part of ‘Data collection and relating data to unit processes‘


The description of each unit process, units of measurement, data retrieval methods, etc. are all part of ‘Data collection and relating data to unit processes‘. The ISO step ‘Relating data to unit processes’ is now part of the ‘Data collection and relating data to unit processes‘ step, as ‘Relating data to unit processes’ has too little substance to be treated as an individual step and is inextricably linked with the activity of data collection. ‘Format’ is lacking as a topic in the ISO framework and has been added here as part of the first data step: ‘Format and data categories‘. Definition of the economy-environment system boundary is a step that is lacking in the ISO framework and it has therefore been added here. All calculation steps have been brought together under ‘Calculation method‘, but with a distinction still being made between non-aggregated and aggregated inventory results


All calculation steps have been brought together under ‘Calculation method‘, but with a distinction still being made between non-aggregated and aggregated inventory results. Cut-offs are usually introduced because of data deficiency and general time and resource constraints on data retrieval. It is only after data collection that this problem becomes evident and it has therefore been put after data collection. As cut-off may often be avoided by data estimaton techniques such as input-output analysis (see Section 3.8), the name of this step has been extended to ‘Cut-off and data estimation‘. The step ‘Refining the system boundaries’ is related to the iterative character of LCA execution and, as argued above, is not elaborated as a separate step here. Issues for Interpretation, reporting and procedures (including critical review) are treated in the same way as in the Goal and scope definition (see Section 1.4)


Issues for Interpretation, reporting and procedures (including critical review) are treated in the same way as in the Goal and scope definition (see Section 1.4). The ISO topics ‘Limitation of LCI (interpreting LCI results)’ and ‘Study report’ are not treated in this Guide as separate steps but as part of the items ‘Issues for Interpretation’ and ‘Reporting’, respectively. The relation between the steps distinguished in this guide and the steps of ISO 14041 (1998E) is shown in Figure 1.4.2.1. 1 Parallel to the treatment of this subject in the Goal and scope phase, “Procedures” is a separate step in Part 2a - Guide - but not in Part 3 - Scientific background.


Part 3: Scientific background


Part 3 : Scientific background 1.4.3 Impact assessment ISO 14042 (2000E) distinguishes the following steps In the (Life Cycle) Impact assessment phase (‘LCIA’): Selection of impact categories, category indicators and characterisation models; Assignment of LCI results (Classification); Calculation of category indicator results (Characterisation); Calculating the magnitude of the category indicator results relative to reference information (Normalisation); Grouping; Weighting; Data quality analysis; Limitations of LCIA; Comparative assertions disclosed to the public; Reporting and critical review. The ISO framework is summarised in Figure 1.4.3.1. LIFE CYCLE IMPACT ASSESSMENT ISO 14042 distinguishes mandatory and optional elements. The first mandatory element is ‘Selection and definition of impact categories, category indicators and characterisation models’. In this step impact categories (e.g. climate change) are identified along with appropriate category indicators (e.g


In this step impact categories (e.g. climate change) are identified along with appropriate category indicators (e.g. infrared radiative forcing) and the model used to derive the characterisation factors, i.e. the quantitative relationship between the interventions and the indicator, is established. The second mandatory element is ‘Assignment of LCI results to category indicators (Classification)’. In the final mandatory element, ‘Calculation of category indicator results (Characterisation)’, guidance and requirements are provided for calculating indicator results. Characterisation yields the ‘environmental profile’, consisting of a series of ‘indicator results’.


Part 3: Scientific background Besides the mandatory elements there are three optional elements. The first of these, ‘Normalisation’, covers calculation of the magnitude of category indicators relative to reference information. In the second optional element, ‘Grouping of indicator results’, impact categories are grouped into one or more sets involving a descriptive sorting or a prioritising ranking. The third optional element is ‘Weighting’, i.e. multiplication of indicator results or normalised results by numerical factors, with the aim of converting and possibly aggregating indicator results across impact categories into a single score or a small number of such scores. As a final optional element, ‘Data quality analysis’ may be performed to enhance understanding of the significance, uncertainty and sensitivity of the LCIA results. The mandatory and optional steps described above imply that different trajectories can be adopted en route to the final LCIA result


The mandatory and optional steps described above imply that different trajectories can be adopted en route to the final LCIA result. These are illustrated in Figure 1.4.3.2.


Part 3 : Scientific background Based on ISO 14042, in this new Guide we distinguish the following steps of the Impact assessment phase: [Procedures];1 Selection of impact categories; Selection of characterisation methods: category indicators, characterisation models and factors; Classification; Characterisation; Normalisation; Grouping; Weighting. This structure is broadly similar to ISO 14042 (2000E). The main difference is that ‘Limitations of LCIA’ and ‘Comparative assertions disclosed to the public’ are not discussed here as separate steps of the LCIA phase. The limitations of LCIA are treated in the general introduction to this Guide, under Goal and scope definition and Interpretation: in the former, because the general limitations of LCA (including those of LCIA) should be duly appreciated before conducting the actual LCA study and in the latter because they put the conclusions into due perspective


Comparative assertions are one possible application of LCA; this is determined in the Goal and scope definition phase and will steer several choices during the LCA study (including the choice of simplified versus detailed LCA, application of weighting methods, reporting guidelines, etc.). Issues for Interpretation (covering the ISO topic ‘Data quality analysis’), reporting (covering ISO’s ‘Reporting’) and procedures (covering ISO’s ‘Critical review’) are treated in the same way as in Goal and scope definition (see Section 1.4). The selection of impact categories, category indicators and characterisation models has been broken down into two steps, moreover, because these are clearly sequential elements. Finally, this Guide does not entirely retain ISO’s distinction between mandatory and optional steps


Finally, this Guide does not entirely retain ISO’s distinction between mandatory and optional steps. The Dutch LCA community feels that normalisation and data quality assessment (issues for Interpretation) constitute at least recommended, if not mandatory, steps and that these should be part of any LCA study. The relation between the steps distinguished in this guide and the steps of ISO 14042 (2000E) is shown in Figure 1.4.3.3. 1 Parallel to the treatment of this subject in the Goal and scope phase, “Procedures” is a separate step in Part 2a - Guide - but not in Part 3 - Scientific background.


Part 3 : Scientific background 1.4.4 Interpretation In ISO 14043 (2000E) the Interpretation phase is broken down into three elements: Identification of significant issues, based on the results of the LCI and LCIA phases of LCA; Evaluation, comprising completeness, sensitivity and consistency checks; Conclusions, recommendations and reporting. Other elements of analysis, including a critical review, are considered additionally in clause 9 of ISO 14043. Based on ISO 14043, in this Guide we distinguish the following steps of the Interpretation phase: [Procedures (Chapter 9 of ISO 14043)]1; Evaluation of results: consistency check completeness check Analysis of results: contribution analysis perturbation analysis sensitivity and uncertainty analysis Conclusion and recommendations. This structure is broadly similar to ISO 14043. The main difference is that ‘Evaluation’ has been split into two parts, one of which is placed before ‘Identification of significant issues’


This structure is broadly similar to ISO 14043. The main difference is that ‘Evaluation’ has been split into two parts, one of which is placed before ‘Identification of significant issues’. The reason for this change is that if there are large inconsistencies or errors in the data or if the data is very incomplete, all further Interpretation steps become futile. A minor difference is the use of the term analysis instead of check for the sensitivity and uncertainty analysis2. ‘Identification of significant issues’ is here operationalised in two different steps: the contribution analysis and the perturbation analysis. Reporting and procedures are treated in the same way as for the Goal and scope definition (see Section 1.4). For obvious reasons, and to prevent endless iteration, issues for Interpretation is no longer included as an item in the Interpretation phase itself


For obvious reasons, and to prevent endless iteration, issues for Interpretation is no longer included as an item in the Interpretation phase itself. The relation between the steps distinguished in this guide and the steps of ISO 14043 (2000E) is shown in Figure 1.4.4.1. There is an close relationship between the steps of the Interpretation phase and the other phases of the LCA. On the one hand, there is input from the other phases, because these identify relevant issues for Interpretation. On the other hand, the iterative nature of the LCA process allows for, and sometimes even demands, making changes in prior phases, as when errors are found or results prove to be ‘too’ sensitive to particular, debatable data, model choices, etc. during Interpretation. 1 Parallel to the treatment of this subject in the Goal and scope phase, “Procedures” is a separate step in Part 2a - Guidelines - but not in Part 3 - Scientific background


during Interpretation. 1 Parallel to the treatment of this subject in the Goal and scope phase, “Procedures” is a separate step in Part 2a - Guidelines - but not in Part 3 - Scientific background. 2 Here, the term check is used to emphasise the fact that data or model choices are being checked, while the term analysis is used for more complex assessments requiring dedicated tools and so on.


Part 3: Scientific background 1.5 Further reading guidance In the following chapters the steps distinguished above are discussed for each phase of LCA, viz. Goal and scope definition, Inventory analysis, Impact assessment and Interpretation. Each step is discussed according to a fixed format: ‘Topic’, ‘Developments in the last decade’, ‘Prospects’, ‘Conclusions’ and ‘Research recommendations’. However, as ‘Procedures’ is a fairly new topic in LCA with few developments in the last decade to discuss, in this case this format is not particularly useful. The


Part 3 : Scientific background Procedures step is therefore not discussed in each phase individually, but as an integrated whole in Section 1.3. Another important issue to bear in mind while reading and using this Guide - and to stress once more at this point - is that it has become clear in the preceding introduction that there is no such thing as ‘a correct LCA’. The sophistication of an LCA and the way in which it is elaborated depend on the specific situation in which LCA is being used as a decision support tool. In theory this might imply a practitioner having to develop custom-tailored methods for each LCA study anew. From a practical angle, however, this is obviously out of the question. Most choices vis-à-vis methods have broad ramifications, restricting the choices available in other respects


From a practical angle, however, this is obviously out of the question. Most choices vis-à-vis methods have broad ramifications, restricting the choices available in other respects. One cannot first opt for a steady-state model and subsequently opt for a change in capacity utilisation to supply the required inputs, as short-term and longterm perspectives would then be mixed. Even if one agrees on the main purpose of the LCA study, assuming that structural questions are to be answered there are still hundreds of choices to be made before a well-founded LCA model has been constructed. This is clearly beyond the capabilities of most practitioners and beyond the budget of most commissioners. To permit broad application of LCA some degree of standardisation is therefore essential. The standardisation developed in this Guide goes beyond the ISO standards, as the latter specify only the general structure of LCA


The standardisation developed in this Guide goes beyond the ISO standards, as the latter specify only the general structure of LCA. True operationalisation involves so many choices that one can hardly expect the world to agree on all of them and formulate them in an ISO standard. The basic question is therefore: how to arrive at an operational LCA which at the same time providing the flexibility required for widely differing applications. We have endeavoured to steer a ‘middle’ course, on the one hand excluding certain applications and on the other specifying a number of standardised types of LCA and a framework within which deviations from these can be accomplished in a transparent manner. The first restriction has already been explained: the prime focus of this Guide is to support structural decisions, using a long-term steady-state model for that purpose in the Inventory analysis phase and the most apt (but more diverse) models in the Impact assessment phase


This does not mean that shortterm issues are deemed less important. It is merely our choice of focus, prompted by the aim of supporting long-term sustainability developments. Within these limitations, a wide variety of possible methods still remains available. We elaborate two basic options in more or less systematic fashion. The first is a detailed LCA , which we believe to be representative for studies typically requiring between 20 and 200 days of work. The detailed LCA is the baseline LCA elaborated in this Guide. The second is a simplified version of LCA, typically requiring between 1 and 20 days of work. In this Guide we prescribe neither one option or the other, merely providing them as a ready reference within the overall framework of issues and steps already specified. Appropriate sensitivity analyses are also suggested


Appropriate sensitivity analyses are also suggested. Practitioners wishing to deviate from the guidelines provided in this Guide for a specific step are at liberty to do so, but should clearly justify their decision accordingly. One may, for example, deviate from the economy-environment system boundary specified for detailed LCA, or choose a different time horizon for leaching of landfill. Such options are not specifically supported in this Guide, however, and their implementation is entirely the responsibility of the LCA practitioner. It seems advisable, though, to introduce such deviations in the form of a sensitivity analysis of detailed LCA, in order to retain reference to a more or less standardised type of LCA. Note that in a detailed LCA certain steps may be performed at the simplified level, and within a single step, one may indeed even opt to apply detailed guidelines for some unit processes or impact categories and simplified guidelines for others


Finally, note that a simplified LCA is not simple in the sense of being easy. Finally, on some topics an indication is provided of possible extensions for improving the quality of detailed LCA in those respects where shortcomings are most obvious. A key example is the absence of economic mechanisms in the LCA model, an unfortunate feature in cases where there are extreme inelasticities of supply or demand. In the case of rechargeable batteries, for example, a shift to non-cadmium types of battery will not result in a smaller influx of cadmium to the economy and hence will not lead in the long run to reduced cadmium emissions. This is because the supply of primary cadmium is extremely inelastic. In such a situation, LCA may yield a misleading outcome. For a number of situations possible extensions are therefore specified, both within an adapted LCA framework and as an addition to detailed LCA in Figure 1.5.1.


Part 3: Scientific background In summary, simplified LCA and extensions build on detailed LCA, which is the baseline elaborated in this Guide. The guidelines for the various steps of LCA - the scientific background to which is provided in the present Part - have not all been elaborated at the same operational level. The guidelines for one step may imply that in each and every LCA study a number of actions should be actively performed, while those for another step may imply that one need generally only follow the baseline proposals given in this Guide. In the ‘Flow diagram‘ step, for example, a representative diagram of processes pertinent to the given LCA study will have to be drawn up in each and every study, while in the ‘Selection of impact categories’ step the baseline proposal (see Section 4.2) can generally be followed time and time again


In the latter case, one will of course have to evaluate whether the baseline proposal is sufficient, or whether other categories beyond the baseline proposal should be added for the specific LCA study in question. Below we present a ready-reference overview of the methodological steps distinguished in this Guide for each phase of an LCA, with a reference to the section of the present Part dealing with each specific step (Table 1.5.1).


Part 3 : Scientific background


Part 3: Scientific background 2. Goal and scope definition 2.1 Introduction No explicit definition of the Goal and scope definition phase is given by ISO. A definition derived from ISO’s work might run: The Goal and scope definition is the first phase of an LCA, stating the aim of an intended LCA study, the functional unit, the system alternatives considered, and the breadth and depth of the intended LCA study in relation to this aim (see also Figure 2.1.1). The Goal and scope definition anticipates the application, which might be to provide product information (e.g. by comparing product alternatives), ‘public regulation’ (e.g. product approval based on the results of comparison with a standard), product or process innovation (e.g. by identifying dominant processes in the environmental profile to obtain information about the potential effects of innovation) or as a tool for strategic studies based on policy scenarios


by identifying dominant processes in the environmental profile to obtain information about the potential effects of innovation) or as a tool for strategic studies based on policy scenarios. The scope of the study is also established at this stage, as a function of the time and money available and the intended application. Furthermore, the functional unit and the products to be investigated are defined. Finally, as in each phase (see Chapter 1), important issues relating to goal and scope are identified in and reporting guidelines established for each step (cf. Heijungs et al., 1992). The Goal and scope definition will largely be the result of discussions between the project commissioners, the practitioners and those with interests in the study results (interested parties or stakeholders). The procedural aspects of the goal and scope phase are therefore of particular importance


The procedural aspects of the goal and scope phase are therefore of particular importance. The result of goal definition is an accurate description of the goal and scope of the study, the functional unit to be used and the (product) system(s) to be investigated.


Part 3 : Scientific background Thus, the Goal and scope definition phase comprises four steps: Procedures (no special section in this Part; see Chapter 1); Goal definition (Section 2.2, p. 456); Scope definition (Section 2.3, p. 459); Function, functional unit, alternatives and reference flow (Section 2.4, p. 468). Further points of departure for elaborating these Goal and scope definition steps are ISO documents 14040 (1997E) and 14041 (1998E) particularly with regard to the methodological framework and issues for Goal and scope definition proposed there. In further operationalising the ISO proposals the work of SETAC Working Groups and relevant proposals by other authors have been taken into due account. Deviations from ISO have been introduced only when there is significant justification for doing so


Deviations from ISO have been introduced only when there is significant justification for doing so. We shall now discuss the substance of each of the last three steps distinguished above, thereby following the fixed format: Topic, Developments in the last decade, Prospects, Conclusions and Research recommendations. As explained in Section 1.5, the Procedures step is not discussed separately in the present chapter but in integrated fashion, for all phases, in Section 1.3. 2.2 Goal definition In the first step of Goal and scope definition the goal of the LCA study is stated and justified, explaining the goal (aim or objective) of the study and specifying the intended use of the results (application), the initiator (and commissioner) of the study, the practitioner, the stakeholders1 and for whom the study results are intended (target audience). As this step provides the basic starting point for conducting the LCA study, it should make clear the reasons for undertaking the study


As this step provides the basic starting point for conducting the LCA study, it should make clear the reasons for undertaking the study. This step is important and mandatory for each and every LCA study, not only because the stated application will affect the course of the entire study but also to guarantee clear external communications following completion of the study (Heijungs et al., 1992). TOPIC Note that recommendations for appropriate design of an LCA project are provided Part 2a, Chapter 1 . These should be duly studied before the actual LCA is commissioned and performed. DEVELOPMENTS IN THE LAST DECADE ISO 14041, clause 5.2 states the following requirement for the goal of the study: “The goal of an LCA study shall unambiguously state the intended application, the reasons for carrying out the study and the intended audience, i.e., to whom the results of the study are intended to be communicated.” Heijungs et al. (1992) The goal definition in Heijungs et al


(1992) The goal definition in Heijungs et al. (1992) was considered to be part of the overall goal definition. The overall goal definition referred to that part of the study that established not only the environmental goals of the LCA study but also its economic, financial, product safety, social (e.g. employment) etc. goals. The ’92 Guide was concerned solely with environmental LCA, as is this guide cf.Chapter 1). Heijungs et al. (1992) consequently focused on the environmental reasons for performing an LCA study. Although not formulated as a requirement under the goal of the study, the ISO standards make a distinction between comparative studies, in particular comparative assertions, and non-comparative studies. Specific (mandatory) requirements are formulated for LCA studies used to make a comparative assertion that is disclosed to the public


Specific (mandatory) requirements are formulated for LCA studies used to make a comparative assertion that is disclosed to the public. In ISO 14040 (1997E) a comparative assertion is defined as “an environmental claim regarding the superiority or equivalence of one product versus a competing product which performs the same function”. On several occasions ISO also mentions the importance of realising the possibilities and limitations of the LCA instrument, both in general and in relation to other environmental assessment tools. Once the type of application has been determined, it is important to establish whether LCA is the most appropriate instrument for answering the specific research question, or whether an alternative tool is perhaps more suitable for the purpose or may yield relevant additional information


This choice can be grounded in the possibilities and limitations of LCA in relation to those of other environmental assessment tools (see also 1 Referred to in ISO 14040 (1997E) as “interested parties”. (