Life Cycle Assessment Michael Z. Hauschild Ralph K. Rosenbaum Stig Irving Olsen Editors Theory and Practice

Life Cycle Assessment

Michael Z. Hauschild • Ralph K. Rosenbaum Stig Irving Olsen Editors Life Cycle Assessment Theory and Practice

Hauschild et al., LCA: Theory and Practice


Editors Michael Z. Hauschild Department of Management Engineering Technical University of Denmark Kongens Lyngby Denmark Ralph K. Rosenbaum IRSTEA, UMR ITAP, ELSA Research group and ELSA-PACT Environmental and Social Sustainability Assessment Montpellier France Stig Irving Olsen Department of Management Engineering Technical University of Denmark Kongens Lyngby Denmark ISBN 978-3-319-56474-6 ISBN 978-3-319-56475-3 (eBook) DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-56475-3 Library of Congress Control Number: 2017946049 © Springer International Publishing AG 2018 This work is subject to copyright


All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication


The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Printed on acid-free paper This Springer imprint is published by Springer Nature The registered company is Springer International Publishing AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland


It is an old observation that ‘What gets measured gets managed’, and that what is not measured or measurable runs the risk of being neglected. It is therefore important that we have tools for assessing the sustainability of our choices when we develop the technologies and systems that shall help us determine and meet the needs of the present generations in a way that does not compromise the ability of our descendants to meet their needs in the future. As you will learn from this book, we must take a life cycle perspective when we want to assess the sustainability of the solutions that lie in front of us. You will be presented with many examples of problem shifting where solutions that improve or solve a targeted problem unintentionally create other problems of environmental, economic or social nature somewhere else in the systems of processes and stakeholders affected by our choice


If we do not consider the totality of these systems in our analysis, we will fail to notice these unwanted consequences of our decision and we will not be able to take them into consideration. We also have to consider a broad range of potential impacts in our assessment, in fact all those is that the system can contribute to and that we consider relevant in the context of our decision-situation. Life Cycle Assessment, LCA, offers this totality—it analyses the whole life cycle of the system or product that is the object of the study and it covers a broad range of impacts for which it attempts to perform a quantitative assessment. The focus of LCA has mainly been on the environmental impacts although both social and economic impacts can be included as well


The focus of LCA has mainly been on the environmental impacts although both social and economic impacts can be included as well. It is an important assessment tool as demonstrated by the central role that it has been given in the environmental regulation in many parts of the world and certified by its ISO standardization and the strong increase in its use over the last decades by companies from all trades and all over the world. Engineers and scientists who develop decision support, or make decisions where sustainability is a concern, should understand the need to view the solutions in a life cycle perspective and to consider possible trade-offs between environmental impacts and between the three sustainability dimensions. Designers and engineers who design and develop products and technical systems should be able to critically v


read and evaluate life cycle assessment information about the alternatives that they are considering, and the environmental sustainability specialists among them should also be able to perform the LCA studies


Why this Book? It is the purpose of this book to offer the reader the theory and practice of LCA in one volume comprising: • A textbook, explaining the LCA methodology and the theory behind it in a pedagogical way with a meaningful balance between depth and accessibility • A cookbook offering recipes with concrete actions needed to perform an LCA • A repository of information about experience with the use and adaptation of LCA and LCA-based approaches within policy-making, decision support and life cycle engineering and management, and a collection of chapters presenting results and methodological challenges from the use of LCA in some of the central technological application areas of LCA Focus is on environmental impacts but life cycle sustainability assessment is considered through introductory chapters on social LCA and on life cycle costing. Who is the Target Audience? The book was written to support the LCA learning of • University students, from undergraduate to Ph.D


Who is the Target Audience? The book was written to support the LCA learning of • University students, from undergraduate to Ph.D. level • Researchers and (university) teachers • Professionals looking to get started on LCA and quantitative (environmental) sustainability assessment • LCA practitioners looking to deepen their knowledge of specific aspects of LCA methodology (e.g. uncertainty management) and LCA practice in specific areas (e.g. electro-mobility, buildings, biomaterials, etc.) and looking for relevant literature for further reading. The structure of the book with separate and comprehensive parts on LCA methodology (theory), LCA cookbook (own practice) and LCA applications (practice of others) allows it to cater to the needs of this rather broad group of potential users. vi


Who Wrote the Book? A total of 68 authors contributed to the writing of this book (see short presentations of contributors at the end of each chapter). The core team consisted of researchers from the division for Quantitative Sustainability Assessment at the Department of Management Engineering at the Technical University of Denmark, where the three editors have or have had their employment (Ralph Rosenbaum now is an Industrial Chair for Environmental and Social Sustainability Assessment at the French National Research Institute of Science and Technology for Environment and Agriculture (Irstea) in Montpellier, France). Other contributions were solicited from leading experts within each field from the rest of the world, in particular for discussion of the different applications of LCA


Other contributions were solicited from leading experts within each field from the rest of the world, in particular for discussion of the different applications of LCA. Who made it Possible? A book like this requires much work apart from the writing of the text before your eyes, and it had never reached your hands without the indispensable contributions from staff of the division for Quantitative Sustainability Assessment at the Department of Management Engineering at the Technical University of Denmark. We also wish to thank all contributing authors for their timely and fine contributions, their constructive collaboration and not least their patience with a production process that lasted far beyond what was planned when we started. We hope that this book will find a broad audience worldwide and strengthen the assessment of sustainability in the future, because what gets measured gets managed... Kongens Lyngby, Denmark Michael Z. Hauschild Montpellier, France Ralph K


Kongens Lyngby, Denmark Michael Z. Hauschild Montpellier, France Ralph K. Rosenbaum Kongens Lyngby, Denmark Stig Irving Olsen vii


Part I About This Book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Michael Z. Hauschild, Ralph K. Rosenbaum and Stig Irving Olsen Main Characteristics of LCA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Anders Bjørn, Mikołaj Owsianiak, Christine Molin and Alexis Laurent LCA History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Anders Bjørn, Mikołaj Owsianiak, Christine Molin and Michael Z. Hauschild LCA Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mikołaj Owsianiak, Anders Bjørn, Alexis Laurent, Christine Molin and Morten W. Ryberg LCA and Sustainability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Andreas Moltesen and Anders Bjørn Part II Introduction to LCA Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Michael Z. Hauschild Goal Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


Michael Z. Hauschild Goal Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Anders Bjørn, Alexis Laurent, Mikołaj Owsianiak and Stig Irving Olsen Scope Definition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Anders Bjørn, Mikołaj Owsianiak, Alexis Laurent, Stig Irving Olsen, Andrea Corona and Michael Z. Hauschild ix


Life Cycle Inventory Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Anders Bjørn, Andreas Moltesen, Alexis Laurent, Mikołaj Owsianiak, Andrea Corona, Morten Birkved and Michael Z. Hauschild Life Cycle Impact Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ralph K. Rosenbaum, Michael Z. Hauschild, Anne-Marie Boulay, Peter Fantke, Alexis Laurent, Montserrat Núñez and Marisa Vieira Uncertainty Management and Sensitivity Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ralph K. Rosenbaum, Stylianos Georgiadis and Peter Fantke Life Cycle Interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Michael Z. Hauschild, Alexandra Bonou and Stig Irving Olsen Critical Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ralph K. Rosenbaum and Stig Irving Olsen Use of Input–Output Analysis in LCA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tuomas J. Mattila Life Cycle Costing: An Introduction . .


Ralph K. Rosenbaum and Stig Irving Olsen Use of Input–Output Analysis in LCA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tuomas J. Mattila Life Cycle Costing: An Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jan-Markus Rödger, Louise Laumann Kjær and Aris Pagoropoulos Social Life Cycle Assessment: An Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Andreas Moltesen, Alexandra Bonou, Arne Wangel and Kossara Petrova Bozhilova-Kisheva Part III Introduction to Part III: Application of LCA in Practice. . . . . . . . . Ralph K. Rosenbaum Life Cycle Thinking and the Use of LCA in Policies Around the World. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G. Sonnemann, E.D. Gemechu, S. Sala, E.M. Schau, K. Allacker, R. Pant, N. Adibi and S. Valdivia Globalisation and Mainstreaming of LCA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Arne Wangel Organisational LCA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


Pant, N. Adibi and S. Valdivia Globalisation and Mainstreaming of LCA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Arne Wangel Organisational LCA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Julia Martínez-Blanco and Matthias Finkbeiner Future-Oriented LCA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stig Irving Olsen, Mads Borup and Per Dannemand Andersen Life Cycle Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Niki Bey Ecodesign Implementation and LCA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tim C. McAloone and Daniela C.A. Pigosso x


Environmental Labels and Declarations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jeppe Frydendal, Lisbeth Engel Hansen and Alexandra Bonou Cradle to Cradle and LCA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Anders Bjørn and Michael Z. Hauschild LCA of Energy Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alexis Laurent, Nieves Espinosa and Michael Z. Hauschild LCA of Electromobility. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Felipe Cerdas, Patricia Egede and Christoph Herrmann LCA of Buildings and the Built Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Benjamin Goldstein and Freja Nygaard Rasmussen LCA of Food and Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Teunis J. Dijkman, Claudine Basset-Mens, Assumpció Antón and Montserrat Núñez LCA of Biofuels and Biomaterials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


Teunis J. Dijkman, Claudine Basset-Mens, Assumpció Antón and Montserrat Núñez LCA of Biofuels and Biomaterials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Susanne Vedel Hjuler and Sune Balle Hansen LCA of Chemicals and Chemical Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Peter Fantke and Alexi Ernstoff LCA of Nanomaterials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mirko Miseljic and Stig Irving Olsen LCA of Drinking Water Supply. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Berit Godskesen, Noa Meron and Martin Rygaard LCA of Wastewater Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Henrik Fred Larsen LCA of Solid Waste Management Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ioannis Bakas, Alexis Laurent, Julie Clavreul, Anna Bernstad Saraiva, Monia Niero, Emmanuel Gentil and Michael Z. Hauschild LCA of Soil and Groundwater Remediation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


Hauschild LCA of Soil and Groundwater Remediation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gitte Lemming Søndergaard and Mikołaj Owsianiak Part IV LCA Cookbook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Michael Z. Hauschild and Anders Bjørn Part V Report Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1051 Anders Bjørn, Alexis Laurent and Mikołaj Owsianiak xi


Illustrative Case Study: Life Cycle Assessment of Four Window Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1059 Mikołaj Owsianiak, Anders Bjørn, Heidi B. Bugge, Sónia M. Carvalho, Leise Jebahar, Jon Rasmussen, Caroline M. White and Stig Irving Olsen Overview of Existing LCIA Methods—Annex to Chapter 10 . . . . . 1147 Ralph K. Rosenbaum Glossary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1185 Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1199 xii


About the Editors Michael Z. Hauschild is Professor in Life Cycle Assessment and Head of the division for Quantitative Sustainability Assessment at the Department of Management Engineering, Technical University of Denmark. He has been overall responsible for the department’s life cycle engineering research activities, teaching and professional training for more than a decade. A chemical engineer and ecotoxicologist of training, he entered the field of life cycle assessment method development and application with the EDIP project (Environmental Design of Industrial Products) 1992–1997. Together with colleagues he developed and documented one of the first full life cycle assessment methods and received the Great Environmental Prize of the Nordic Council of Ministers 1997 for this work. He has worked internationally in various scientific working groups and held the chair of the SETAC-Europe task force on ecotoxicity assessment in LCIA 1998–2002


He has worked internationally in various scientific working groups and held the chair of the SETAC-Europe task force on ecotoxicity assessment in LCIA 1998–2002. 2002–2006 he chaired the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative task force on Assessment of Toxic Impacts in LCIA facilitating the development of the UNEP/SETAC consensus model USEtox for evaluation of human and ecotoxicity in LCA, and since 2017 he has chaired the task force on ecotoxic impacts. He has been a member of the editorial board of The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment since 1998, subject editor for LCIA of human and ecotoxic impacts since 2008, and he has been subject editor on LCA for the Journal of Industrial Ecology since 2010. As a consultant he has assisted in the development of the European Comission’s International Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) guideline for LCA and the development of recommendations for life cycle impact assessment under the ILCD system


Furthermore, he is the founding Chair of the Nordic Life Cycle Association, NorLCA, aimed at broad dissemination of life cycle thinking in the Nordic countries and has been active in the International Academy for Production Engineering (CIRP) in agenda setting and support of life cycle engineering activities. He has been teaching LCA methodology and application to university students and professionals in xiii


industry and administration during his whole career; at the Technical University of Denmark close to 1000 master of engineering students since the late 1990s have graduated from the LCA course that he has been active in developing, renewing and running through around 20 years. Ralph K. Rosenbaum is Head of the Industrial Chair for Environmental and Social Sustainability Assessment “ELSA-PACT” at the French National Research Institute of Science and Technology for Environment and Agriculture (Irstea) in Montpellier. Originally from Germany, he received his Environmental Engineering degree (Diplomingenieur) from the Technical University Berlin in 2003. He then pursued his Ph.D. thesis entitled “Multimedia and Food Chain Modelling of Toxics for Comparative Risk and Life Cycle Impact Assessment” at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Lausanne (EPFL) until 2006. In early 2007 he joined the team of CIRAIG at the École Polytechnique Montreal, Canada as researcher and lecturer


In early 2007 he joined the team of CIRAIG at the École Polytechnique Montreal, Canada as researcher and lecturer. Before becoming affiliated with Irstea in 2014, he was appointed Associate Professor at the Technical University of Denmark (DTU) in Copenhagen in 2010. In 2015 he defended his Habilitation (“Habilitation à Diriger des Recherches”—HDR), entitled: “Increasing precision and applicability of life cycle impact assessment in the context of comparative environmental sustainability studies” at the University of Montpellier, France. Passionate about quantitative environmental sustainability assessment including Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) since 1997, Ralph Rosenbaum is an expert in environmental modelling, as well as application and development of LCA methodology and teaching related to sustainability and environmental assessment


He is co-author of the UNEP-SETAC consensus model for the evaluation of comparative toxicity USEtox and the LCIA methods IMPACT 2002+, Impact World+ and LC-Impact. Since 2007 he has been a subject editor of The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment for impacts of chemicals on human health. He has been active in several international expert working groups of the UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle Initiative since its launch in 2002. He was member of the SETAC North America LCA Steering Committee from 2008 to 2010 and the SETAC Europe LCA Steering Committee from 2012 to 2018 and appointed to the LCIA Method Developers Advisory Group of the European LCA Platform project (ILCD) of the EU Commission in 2007. Since 2007 he has been developing and running courses on sustainability, LCA and related concepts and methods, teaching hundreds of professionals from industry, academia and government, as well as more than 600 students from Bachelor to Ph.D


level on three continents, and supervising numerous masters, Ph.D. and postdoc projects. xiv


Stig Irving Olsen is Associate Professor at the division for Quantitative Sustainability Assessment at DTU Management Engineering at Technical University of Denmark. He graduated as environmental biologist from University of Copenhagen with a postgraduate education in Toxicology from the same university. He has a total of 9 years experience as a consultant in the field of toxicology and ecotoxicology. After some years as a consultant, he did an industrial Ph.D. working on “Life Cycle Assessment of basic chemicals” from Technical University of Denmark with five industrial partners, the main one being Novo Nordisk. He combined his knowledge and entered into methods development for life cycle impact assessment of toxic impacts, an area in which he was chairman for SETAC working groups during 1999–2001 and later member of an ensuing WG


He found interest in nanotechnology with the increasing societal focus, the potential environmental benefits, and the potential risks of nanoparticles and he became a member of a working group at the Danish board of technology and was invited to a number of governmental workshops in the USA and EU. He has also studied other emerging technologies such as third-generation biofuels. He has served as a reviewer of research proposals for EU, Sweden, Germany, Portugal and Switzerland. He is senior editor and member of founding board for the journal Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management and submission editor for The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. He has been teaching LCA and particularly application of simple LCA for 15 years in four different courses and has supervised numerous bachelors, masters, and Ph.D. students in the field of LCA


He has been teaching LCA and particularly application of simple LCA for 15 years in four different courses and has supervised numerous bachelors, masters, and Ph.D. students in the field of LCA. Contributors Naeem Adibi PLATEFORME [avniR]-cd2e, Loos-en-Gohelle, France; WELOOP, Lens, France Karen Allacker Department of Architecture, Faculty of Engineering Science, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium Per Dannemand Andersen Division for Technology and Innovation Management, Department of Management Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark Assumpció Antón IRTA, Food and Agricultural Research Institute, Centre de Cabrils, Barcelona, Spain Ioannis Bakas Division for Quantitative Sustainability Assessment, Department of Management Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark Claudine Basset-Mens CIRAD, UPR Hortsys, ELSA—Research Group, Montpellier Cedex 5, France xv


Niki Bey Division for Quantitative Sustainability Assessment, Department of Management Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark Morten Birkved Division for Quantitative Sustainability Assessment, Department of Management Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark Anders Bjørn Division for Quantitative Sustainability Assessment, Department of Management Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Kgs


Lyngby, Denmark; CIRAIG, Polytechnique Montréal, Montreal, QC, Canada Anne-Marie Boulay LIRIDE, Sherbrooke University, Sherbrooke, Canada; CIRAIG, Polytechnique Montreal, Montreal, Canada Alexandra Bonou Division for Quantitative Sustainability Assessment, Department of Management Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark Mads Borup Division for Technology and Innovation Management, Department of Management Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark Kossara Petrova Bozhilova-Kisheva Division for Quantitative Sustainability Assessment, Department of Management Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Kgs.Lyngby, Denmark Heidi B. Bugge Ecolabelling Denmark, Danish Standards Foundation, Nordhavn, Denmark Sónia M


Bugge Ecolabelling Denmark, Danish Standards Foundation, Nordhavn, Denmark Sónia M. Carvalho Division for Quantitative Sustainability Assessment, Department of Management Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark Felipe Cerdas Chair of Sustainable Manufacturing and Life Cycle Engineering, Institute for Machine Tools and Production Technology, Technische Universität Braunschweig, Brunswick, Germany Julie Clavreul Residual Resources Engineering, Department of Environmental Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark Andrea Corona Division for Quantitative Sustainability Assessment, Department of Management Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark Teunis J. Dijkman Division for Quantitative Sustainability Assessment, Department of Management Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark xvi


Patricia Egede Chair of Sustainable Manufacturing and Life Cycle Engineering, Institute for Machine Tools and Production Technology, Technische Universität Braunschweig, Brunswick, Germany Alexi Ernstoff Division for Quantitative Sustainability Assessment, Department of Management Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark; EPFL Innovation Park, Quantis International, Lausanne, Switzerland Nieves Espinosa Department of Energy Conversion and Storage, Technical University of Denmark, Roskilde, Denmark; Product Policy Bureau, European Commission Joint Research Centre, Sevilla, Spain Peter Fantke Division for Quantitative Sustainability Assessment, Department of Management Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark Matthias Finkbeiner Chair of Sustainable Engineering, Department of Environmental Technology, Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany Jeppe Frydendal Danish Standards Foundation, Nordhavn, Denmark Eskinder Gemechu


of Sustainable Engineering, Department of Environmental Technology, Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany Jeppe Frydendal Danish Standards Foundation, Nordhavn, Denmark Eskinder Gemechu ISM-CyVi, UMR 5255, University of Bordeaux, Talence, France Emmanuel Gentil Copenhagen Resource Institute, Copenhagen K, Denmark Stylianos Georgiadis Department of Applied Mathematics and Computer Science, Technical University of Denmark, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark; Global Decision Support Initiative, Technical University of Denmark, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark Berit Godskesen HOFOR (Greater Copenhagen Utility), Copenhagen, Denmark Benjamin Goldstein Division for Quantitative Sustainability Assessment, Department of Management Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark Lisbeth Engel Hansen Danish Standards Foundation, Nordhavn, Denmark Sune Balle Hansen Division of Quantitative Sustainability Assessment, Department for Management Engineering, Technical University of


Engel Hansen Danish Standards Foundation, Nordhavn, Denmark Sune Balle Hansen Division of Quantitative Sustainability Assessment, Department for Management Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark Michael Z


Hauschild Division for Quantitative Sustainability Assessment, Department of Management Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark Christoph Herrmann Chair of Sustainable Manufacturing and Life Cycle Engineering, Institute for Machine Tools and Production Technology, Technische Universität Braunschweig, Brunswick, Germany xvii


Susanne Vedel Hjuler Division of Quantitative Sustainability Assessment, Department for Management Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark; Novozymes A/S, Bagsværd, Denmark Leise Jebahar Division for Quantitative Sustainability Assessment, Department of Management Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark Louise Laumann Kjær Section of Engineering Design and Product Development, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark Henrik Fred Larsen Danish Road Directorate, Hedehusene, Denmark Alexis Laurent Division for Quantitative Sustainability Assessment, Department of Management Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark Julia Martínez-Blanco Chair of Sustainable Engineering, Department of Environmental Technology, Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany Tuomas J


Mattila Finnish Environment Institute SYKE, Luonnonkoneisto Engineering Co-operative, Helsinki, Finland Tim C. McAloone Section of Engineering Design and Product Development, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark Noa Meron The Porter School of Environmental Studies, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, Israel Mirko Miseljic Division for Quantitative Sustainability Assessment, Department of Management Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark Christine Molin Division for Quantitative Sustainability Assessment, Department of Management Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Kgs


Lyngby, Denmark Christine Molin Division for Quantitative Sustainability Assessment, Department of Management Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark Andreas Moltesen Division for Quantitative Sustainability Assessment, Department of Management Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark Monia Niero Division for Quantitative Sustainability Assessment, Department of Management Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark Montserrat Núñez IRSTEA, UMR ITAP, ELSA Research Group and ELSA-PACT Industrial Chair for Environmental and Social Sustainability Assessment, Montpellier, France xviii


Stig Irving Olsen Division for Quantitative Sustainability Assessment, Department of Management Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark Mikołaj Owsianiak Division for Quantitative Sustainability Assessment, Department of Management Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark Aris Pagoropoulos Section of Engineering Design and Product Development, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark Rana Pant European Commission, Directorate D: Sustainable Resources, Bioeconomy Unit, Joint Research Centre, Ispra, Italy Daniela C.A


Pigosso Section of Engineering Design and Product Development, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark Freja Nygaard Rasmussen Faculty of Engineering and Science, Danish Building Research Institute, Aalborg University, Copenhagen, Denmark Jon Rasmussen Division for Quantitative Sustainability Assessment, Department of Management Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark Jan-Markus Rödger Division for Quantitative Sustainability Assessment, Department of Management Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark Ralph K. Rosenbaum IRSTEA, UMR ITAP, ELSA Research Group and ELSA-PACT—Industrial Chair for Environmental and Social Sustainability Assessment, Montpellier, France Morten W. Ryberg Division for Quantitative Sustainability Assessment, Department of Management Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Kgs


Ryberg Division for Quantitative Sustainability Assessment, Department of Management Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark Martin Rygaard Department of Environmental Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark Serenella Sala European Commission, Directorate D: Sustainable Resources, Bioeconomy Unit, Joint Research Centre, Ispra, Italy Anna Bernstad Saraiva SAGE/COPPE, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Erwin M. Schau European Commission, Directorate D: Sustainable Resources, Bioeconomy Unit, Joint Research Centre, Ispra, Italy Gitte Lemming Søndergaard Department of Environmental Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark xix


Guido Sonnemann ISM-CyVi, UMR 5255, University of Bordeaux, Talence, France Sonia Valdivia World Resources Forum, St. Gallen, Switzerland Marisa Vieira PRé Consultants bv, Amersfoort, The Netherlands Arne Wangel Division for Quantitative Sustainability Assessment, Department of Management Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark Caroline M. White Division for Quantitative Sustainability Assessment, Department of Management Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark xx


Part I


Chapter 1 About This Book Michael Z. Hauschild, Ralph K. Rosenbaum and Stig Irving Olsen Abstract To reach the UN sustainable development goal, there is a need for comprehensive and robust tools to help decision-making identify the solutions that best support sustainable development. The decisions must have a system perspective, consider the life cycle, and all relevant impacts caused by the solution. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a tool that has these characteristics and the ambition with this book is to offer a comprehensive and up-to-date introduction to the tool and its underlying methodological considerations and potential applications. The book consists of five parts. The first part introduces LCA. The second part is a text book aiming at university students from undergraduate to PhD level, and professionals from industry and within policy making


The first part introduces LCA. The second part is a text book aiming at university students from undergraduate to PhD level, and professionals from industry and within policy making. It follows ISO 14040/14044 structure, draws upon a variety of LCA methods published over the years, especially the ILCD, and offers prescriptions and recommendations for all the most important methodological choices that you meet when performing an LCA. The third part introduces applications of LCA and life cycle thinking by policy- and decision-makers in government and industry. The fourth part is a Cookbook guiding you through the concrete actions to undertake when performing an LCA. The fifth part contains some appendices. The book can be used as a text book, the chapter can be read as stand alone, and you can use the Cookbook as a manual on how to perform an LCA. M.Z. Hauschild (&)  S.I


The book can be used as a text book, the chapter can be read as stand alone, and you can use the Cookbook as a manual on how to perform an LCA. M.Z. Hauschild (&)  S.I. Olsen Division for Quantitative Sustainability Assessment, Department of Management Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark e-mail: mzha@dtu.dk R.K. Rosenbaum IRSTEA, UMR ITAP, ELSA Research Group and ELSA-PACT—Industrial Chair for Environmental and Social Sustainability Assessment, Montpellier, France © Springer International Publishing AG 2018 M.Z. Hauschild et al. (eds.), Life Cycle Assessment, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-56475-3_1


1.1 Our generation is facing daunting challenges of a changing climate and an overall increasing pressure on the environment, challenges that are under the influence of human-made activities. Reflecting on these environmental conditions and their relationship to social and economic challenges that we face, a sustainable development was coined in 1987 by UN’s World Commission for Environment and Development as a development that “... meets the needs of the present generations without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (UN WCED 1987). In 2015 the 193 member states of the United Nations adopted 17 goals to ‘end poverty, protect the planet, and ensure prosperity for all as part of a new sustainable development agenda’ by 2030, setting targets for the way in which the present generations can meet their needs (UN 2017)


To meet the goals and targets, sustainability must gain strong prominence in decision support for professionals who are responsible for creating solutions for the future, but also for everybody else who, in today’s global economy, is both a stakeholder and a decision-maker with a role to play concerning sustainability as a consumer, as member of a local community, or as a voter. Each individual needs answers and information based on comprehensive and robust tools to help them decide what best supports a sustainable development, from small- to large-scale decisions. To avoid the often seen problem shifting where solutions to a problem creates several new and often ignored problems, these decisions must take a systems perspective. They must consider what in this book is referred to as the life cycle of the solution, and they need to consider all the relevant impacts caused by the solution


They must consider what in this book is referred to as the life cycle of the solution, and they need to consider all the relevant impacts caused by the solution. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a tool that has these characteristics, and there is a strong and growing need for professionals who understand or even master this tool and who know how to critically appraise and use the information that it provides. It is our ambition with this book to offer a comprehensive and up-to-date introduction to the tool and its underlying methodological considerations and potential applications. 1.2 Structure of This Book The book consists of five parts. The first part sets the scene. First, if you are a newcomer to LCA, you get a short introduction to important characteristics of LCA and some of its strengths and weaknesses, illustrated through a collection of questions that LCA can—or cannot be used for answering


This short introduction is followed by a presentation of the history of LCA from its early beginnings half a century ago to today, with a focus on methodological developments, growth in number and variety of applications and international harmonization and consensus building. Finally, LCA is positioned in the context of sustainability and its use as a tool for quantitative sustainability assessment is discussed. M.Z. Hauschild et al.


The second part is a textbook aiming at university students from undergraduate to PhD level, and professionals from industry and within policy making who need a thorough and pedagogical introduction to LCA methodology. The textbook has been developed based on a cumulated experience from more than three decades with teaching LCA to engineering students at undergraduate and master level courses at Technical University of Denmark and Polytechnique Montréal, Canada, and it is intended to provide a complete curriculum for such courses. The structure of the introduction to the LCA methodology follows the ISO framework (as presented and elaborated in the ISO 14040 and ISO 14044 standards (ISO 2006a, b)), and we have strived to keep the use of technical terms in accordance with the ISO terminology


When it comes to the methodological details, the ISO standards refrain from prescriptions or recommendations for many of the detailed decisions and choices that must be made by a practitioner who wants to perform an LCA. Here, we have sought inspiration in LCA methods published over the years, including the EDIP method (Wenzel et al. 1997; Hauschild and Wenzel 1998), the Ecoinvent methodologies (Weidema et al. 2013), the Consequential LCA (Ekvall and Weidema 2004), as well as more recent projects within the UNEP/ SETAC Life Cycle Initiative and the development of the IMPACT World+ (http:// www.impactworldplus.org), the LC-Impact (http://www.lc-impact.eu), or the ILCD life cycle impact assessment methods (Hauschild et al


2013), and not least in the detailed guidance offered by the General guide for Life Cycle Assessment, the ‘ILCD Handbook’ that was elaborated by the European Commission to serve as the methodological backbone of its International Reference Life Cycle Data System (EC-JRC 2010). The ILCD Handbook was developed through a broad international consultation process with LCA experts, stakeholders and the public from all over the world with the ambition to minimize ambiguity in LCA studies and provide governments and businesses with a basis for assuring quality and consistency of life cycle data, methods and assessments (EC-JRC 2010; Pennington et al. 2010; Sala et al. 2012). Building on methodological elements from previously published LCA methods, it offers prescriptions and recommendations for all the most important methodological choices that you meet when performing an LCA


We use the ILCD method as a solidly founded, well documented, and detailed reference methodology that is in full accordance with the ISO standards and details methodology descriptions far beyond them. This part of the textbook offers separate chapters on each phase of the LCA methodology and additional chapters on life cycle costing and social life cycle assessment as well as chapters on central methodological aspects like uncertainty management and sensitivity analysis, and use of input–output analysis in LCA. The third part of the book offers a collection of chapters introducing applications of LCA and life cycle thinking by policy- and decision-makers in government and industry, written by authors who are experts in the field of their chapter. They start out with policy applications around the world and organizational LCA, then move on to industrial applications, life cycle management, ecodesign, environmental labels and declarations, and the Cradle to cradle concept


The focus then moves on to the application of LCA to different technological areas like energy About This Book


systems, buildings, food and waste management. Eleven chapters present, within each their technological area, the main types of findings from published LCA studies, identifying methodological considerations that are particularly relevant and highlighting potential pitfalls when performing or using LCA studies within that area. The fourth part consists of a Cookbook which takes you through all the phases of the LCA once more, but this time with concrete actions to undertake when performing an LCA. The ambition with the cookbook is to provide you with the recipes for performing an LCA. Where Part II answers the numerous ‘why’ questions, the Cookbook answers the ‘what’ and ‘how’ questions. It is intended to guide you through the many steps, activities and decisions that are needed to perform an LCA


It is intended to guide you through the many steps, activities and decisions that are needed to perform an LCA. The Cookbook follows the main structure of the ISO 14044 standard and gives detailed instructions on all the central activities, based on selection of those provisions and actions in the ILCD Handbook that are generally needed in order to perform an LCA. The fifth part of the book is an appendix collection with supporting material for use in LCA teaching like a reporting template offering the student a recommended structure for an LCA report, an example of a complete LCA report on a case study based on student results from an LCA course, and an overview and comparison of existing life cycle impact assessment methods to compliment the methodology chapter on this phase of the LCA. 1.3 How to Use This Book? As you will see, you may use this book as a textbook, focusing on the description of the theory in Part II


1.3 How to Use This Book? As you will see, you may use this book as a textbook, focusing on the description of the theory in Part II. All the basic elements of the methodology are presented in chapters with clearly defined learning objectives. An exemplary LCA case study weaves through the methodology chapters and is used, where relevant, to give practical examples of the presented methodological elements. The case study is compiled at the end in a full LCA report in Part V of the book, illustrating the use of the reporting template and serving as an example for students of how a good student LCA report may look. You can select chapters from Part III of the book on the LCA applications that are relevant in your didactic context, and you can use the Cookbook in Part IV and the reporting template and example LCA report in Part V for support to perform a real LCA if this is part of your learning


Each chapter of the book was written in a way that allows it to also function as stand-alone material for studying the respective aspects that it presents. The chapters can thus also be read on their own in order to deepen your knowledge on their specific topics. Once you have taken the learning from the book, you can use the Cookbook as a manual on how to perform an LCA. The cookbook is based on the ILCD guideline and it is thus not a universally endorsed LCA method—in fact, such a method does not exist beyond the ISO standards. We have, however, found that this guideline is useful as a reference because of its very detailed prescriptions. In cases M.Z. Hauschild et al.


where you disagree with certain provisions or where a different approach is more relevant for the study that you perform, it will still serve as a reference for transparently and efficiently reporting about the method that you have used by specifying the points where you have chosen a different approach. Whether you aspire to be a practitioner of LCA or a user of LCA information, the textbook will also serve as a repository of LCA experience with the wealth of information on the many application areas presented in Part III of the book. We wish you a fruitful learning with the book and success with your future LCA activities! EC-JRC: European Commission—Joint Research Centre—Institute for Environment and Sustainability: International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook—General guide for Life Cycle Assessment—Detailed guidance. First edition March 2010. EUR 24708 EN. Luxembourg


First edition March 2010. EUR 24708 EN. Luxembourg. Publications Office of the European Union (2010) Ekvall, T., Weidema, B.P.: System boundaries and input data in a consequential life cycle inventory analysis. Int. J. LCA 9(3), 161–171 (2004). doi:10.1007/BF02994190 Hauschild, M.Z., Wenzel, H.: Environmental Assessment of Products. Vol. 2—Scientific Background, 565 pp. Chapman & Hall, UK, Kluwer, Hingham. ISBN 0412 80810 2 (1998) Hauschild, M.Z., Goedkoop, M., Guinée, J., Heijungs, R., Huijbregts, M., Jolliet, O., Margni, M., De Schryver, A., Humbert, S., Laurent, A., Sala, S., Pant, R.: Identifying best existing practice for characterization modeling in life cycle impact assessment. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 18, 683–697 (2013) ISO: Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Principles and Framework (ISO 14040). ISO, the International Organization for Standardization, Geneva (2006a) ISO: Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Requirements and Guidelines (ISO 14044)


ISO, the International Organization for Standardization, Geneva (2006a) ISO: Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Requirements and Guidelines (ISO 14044). ISO, the International Organization for Standardization, Geneva (2006b) Pennington, D.W., Chomkhamsri, K., Pant, R., Wolf, M.-A., Bidoglio, G., Kögler, K., Misiga, P., Sponar, M., Lorz, B., Sonnemann, G., Masoni, P., Wang, H., Ling, L., Castanho, C., Sau Soon, C., Fieschi, M., Filareto, A., Hauschild, M.: ILCD handbook public consultation workshop— International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD). Int. J. LCA 15(3), 231–237 (2010) Sala, S., Pant, R., Hauschild, M., Pennington, D.: Research needs and challenges from science to decision support. Lesson learnt from the development of the International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) recommendations for life cycle impact assessment. Sustainability 4(7), 1412–1425 (2012) UN: http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/ (2017)


Sustainability 4(7), 1412–1425 (2012) UN: http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/ (2017). Accessed 4 March 2017 UN WCED: Our Common Future. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1987) Weidema, B.P., Bauer, C., Hischier, R., et al.: The Ecoinvent Database: Overview and Methodology, Data Quality Guideline for the Ecoinvent Database Version 3 (2013). www. ecoinvent.org Wenzel, H., Hauschild, M.Z., Alting, L.: Environmental Assessment of Products. Vol. 1— Methodology, Tools and Case Studies in Product Development, 544 pp. Chapman & Hall, UK, Kluwer, Hingham (1997). ISBN 0 412 80800 5 About This Book


Author Biographies Michael Z. Hauschild involved in development of LCIA methodology since the early 1990s. Has led several SETAC and UNEP/SETAC working groups and participated in the development of the ISO standards and the ILCD methodological guidelines. Main LCA interests are chemical impacts, spatial differentiation and science-based boundaries in LCIA. Ralph K. Rosenbaum LCA expert and environmental modeller focusing on LCIA development since early 2000s. Contributed to several UNEP/SETAC working groups towards global harmonisation of LCA methodology. Interested in LCIA modelling of emissions and water/soil resource use, operationalisation of uncertainty management and spatial differentiation. Stig Irving Olsen LCA expert both as researcher and as consultant. Involved in the development of LCA methodologies since mid 1990s. Contributed to UNEP/SETAC working groups on LCIA methodology. Main LCA interest is human toxicity impacts, emerging technologies, and decision making. M.Z


Contributed to UNEP/SETAC working groups on LCIA methodology. Main LCA interest is human toxicity impacts, emerging technologies, and decision making. M.Z. Hauschild et al.


Chapter 2 Main Characteristics of LCA Anders Bjørn, Mikołaj Owsianiak, Christine Molin and Alexis Laurent Abstract Life cycle assessment (LCA) has a number of defining characteristics that enables it to address questions that no other assessment tools can address. This chapter begins by demonstrating how the use of LCA in the late 2000s led to a drastic shift in the dominant perception that biofuels were “green”, “sustainable” or “carbon neutral”, which led to a change in biofuel policies. This is followed by a grouping of the LCA characteristics into four headlines and an explanation of these: (1) takes a life cycle perspective, (2) covers a broad range of environmental issues, (3) is quantitative, (4) is based on science. From the insights of the LCA characteristics we then consider the strengths and limitations of LCA and end the chapter by listing 10 questions that LCA can answer and 3 that it cannot


From the insights of the LCA characteristics we then consider the strengths and limitations of LCA and end the chapter by listing 10 questions that LCA can answer and 3 that it cannot. Learning objectives After studying this chapter the reader should be able to: • Explain the relevance of LCA as a tool for environmental management. • Explain four main characteristics of LCA. • Demonstrate an understanding of strengths and limitations of LCA by providing examples of environment-related questions that LCA can answer and questions that LCA cannot answer. A. Bjørn  M. Owsianiak  C. Molin  A. Laurent Division for Quantitative Sustainability Assessment, Department of Management Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark A. Bjørn (&)  C. Molin  A. Laurent CIRAIG, Polytechnique Montréal, 3333 Chemin Queen-Mary, Montréal, QC, Canada e-mail: anders.bjoern@polymtl.ca © Springer International Publishing AG 2018 M.Z. Hauschild et al


Molin  A. Laurent CIRAIG, Polytechnique Montréal, 3333 Chemin Queen-Mary, Montréal, QC, Canada e-mail: anders.bjoern@polymtl.ca © Springer International Publishing AG 2018 M.Z. Hauschild et al. (eds.), Life Cycle Assessment, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-56475-3_2


2.1 Why Is LCA Important? Biofuel Case LCA has a number of defining characteristics. Before elaborating on these characteristics a real life case is presented to show how the use of LCA provided new insights and led to major changes in policy. This is the case of first generation biofuels used in the transport sector. The use of biofuels is not a new trend. They were used in the form of wood and peat before the industrialisation and were pretty much the only source of fuels then. This changed with the emergence of cheap fossil fuels, first in the form of coal, later followed by oil and natural gas. By the end of the twentieth-century fossil fuels had become the dominating source for meeting the world’s primary energy demand. At the same time the transportation sector of developed nations was responsible for an increasing share of the total national energy demands [e.g. EC (2012)]


At the same time the transportation sector of developed nations was responsible for an increasing share of the total national energy demands [e.g. EC (2012)]. While electricity and heat increasingly were supplied by other sources than fossil fuels, a similar transition could not be observed for transportation energy (IEA 2015). The 2000s witnessed a renewed interest in using biofuels in the transportation sector, spurred by increasing oil prices, the question of energy security and concerns over climate change. Biofuels were seen as potentially cost competitive with gasoline and diesel and they were considered means to reduce dependencies on large exporters of oil, many of which were (and are) located in politically unstable regions of the world. In the early 2000s biofuels in the transportation sector were also generally considered much better for the climate than fossil fuels


In the early 2000s biofuels in the transportation sector were also generally considered much better for the climate than fossil fuels. The reasoning was that the CO2 emitted from the combustion of biofuels has a “neutral” effect on climate change, because it belongs to the biogenic carbon cycle, meaning that it used to be in the atmosphere before being taken up, via photosynthesis, by the plants that were the sources of the biofuel and that it will be taken up by new plants again. By contrast, CO2 emitted from the combustion of fossil fuels originates in carbon that belongs to the much slower geological carbon cycle and can be considered as effectively isolated from the atmosphere, because it would have stayed in the ground for millions of years, had it not been extracted to be used as fuel. While the distinction between biogenic and fossil CO2 is important, LCA studies (Zah and Laurance 2008; Fargione et al. 2008; Searchinger et al


While the distinction between biogenic and fossil CO2 is important, LCA studies (Zah and Laurance 2008; Fargione et al. 2008; Searchinger et al. 2008) have shown that it was a mistake to: (1) consider the use of biofuels in the transport sector inherently “climate neutral” (2) disregard potential increases in environmental problems other than climate change from a transition from fossil fuels to biofuels. Regarding the first point, LCA takes a life cycle perspective when evaluating environmental impacts of a product or a system. In this case it means not only considering the use stage of the biofuel, i.e. where its chemical energy is transformed to kinetic energy in a vehicle’s combustion engine, but also considering the industrial and agricultural processes prior to the delivery of the biofuel to the fuel tank of the vehicle (see Fig. 2.1).


When taking a life cycle perspective it is clear that no biofuel is “climate neutral”, because of the inputs of fossil fuels needed in industrial processes prior to the use stage. In addition, a consequence of the increased demand for biofuel crops may be the conversion of natural land (such as forest) to cultivated land and this releases the carbon bound in the natural biomass (e.g. wood) and the soil as CO2. Sometimes the conversion of natural land happens as an indirect consequence, i.e. forest is being cleared to make room for the crops that used to be cultivated at the piece of land now used for biofuel crops. This means that a country that increases its production of biofuel crops, at the expense of a decrease in food crops may indirectly contribute to a loss of natural land (e.g. forest) somewhere else, possibly on a different continent, due to the mechanisms of international trade


forest) somewhere else, possibly on a different continent, due to the mechanisms of international trade. Regarding the second point, LCA considers multiple environmental issues (and sometimes social issues, see Chap. 16) when evaluating a product or a system. This is an important attribute in the case of biofuels because the release of nutrients from fertilizer use and synthetic chemicals from pesticide use, lead to eutrophication and toxic effects on freshwater ecosystems and elsewhere, and because the cultivation requires large amounts of land and water for irrigation, which can lead to biodiversity loss and water scarcity. Social impacts from an increased production of biofuels have also been reported in the form of increasing food prices. The insights provided by LCA were a key reason for the rapid change in perspective on biofuels by policy-makers and media that began around 2008


The insights provided by LCA were a key reason for the rapid change in perspective on biofuels by policy-makers and media that began around 2008. For example, in 2010 the European Commission amended its legislation on biofuels by introducing a set of sustainability criteria, which relates to life cycle emissions of greenhouse gases and prohibits the conversion of land with previously “high carbon stock” and “high biodiversity” for the production of biofuels (EC 2010). With the above text, we are not arguing that the transportation sector should abandon biofuels as a strategy to reduce its use of fossil fuels and climate impacts. We are merely trying to show that the world is not black and white and that a more holistic perspective is required when evaluating and guiding technological changes


We are merely trying to show that the world is not black and white and that a more holistic perspective is required when evaluating and guiding technological changes. 2.2 Main Characteristics Having made a case for LCA with the topic of biofuels, we now turn to describing its main characteristics in slightly more technical terms and end the chapter by listing its strengths and limitations. Raw materials Biorefinery Distribution Car driving Fig. 2.1 Graphic representation of the biofuels life cycle from feedstock to end user (Icons made by Flaticon from www.flaticon.com) Main Characteristics of LCA


2.2.1 Takes a Life Cycle Perspective The life cycle metaphor is borrowed from the field of biology. For example, the life cycle of a butterfly starts with an egg, which bursts and lets a caterpillar out that turns into a pupa from which a butterfly emerges that eventually dies after laying eggs for the cycle to be repeated. In much the same way a man-made object starts its lifecycle by the harvesting and extraction of resources, followed by production, use and eventually management of the object as waste, which marks the end of the life cycle. Recycling or reuse can be seen as “new eggs” for the life cycles of other man-made objects. The objects studied in LCA are often physical products and the term “product system” signals that a life cycle perspective is taken, i.e. that all the processes required to deliver the function of the product are considered. For example, the function of a car fuel is to propel a car


that all the processes required to deliver the function of the product are considered. For example, the function of a car fuel is to propel a car. As illustrated in the case above, the delivery of this function requires a number of industrial and agricultural processes that can be conceptually organised in stages of the life cycle of a biofuel (see Fig. 2.1). The core reason for taking a life cycle perspective is that it allows identifying and preventing the burden shifting between life cycle stages or processes that happens if efforts for lowering environmental impacts in one process or life cycle stage unintentionally create (possibly larger) environmental impacts in other processes or life cycle stages. As shown above, the substitution of fossil fuels with biofuels reduces impacts on climate change from the use stage but increases climate change impacts from the harvest and extraction stage


As shown above, the substitution of fossil fuels with biofuels reduces impacts on climate change from the use stage but increases climate change impacts from the harvest and extraction stage. Although LCA is mostly used to study product systems, it can also be used to study more complex man-made objects, such as companies (see Chap. 22), energy-, transport- or waste management systems (see Chaps. 26, 27 and 35) and infrastructure and cities (see Chap. 28). In all applications the assessment takes a life cycle perspective having the function of the studied entity as focal point. 2.2.2 Covers a Broad Range of Environmental Issues In LCA, the comprehensive coverage of processes over the life cycle is complemented by a comprehensive coverage of environmental issues. Rather than focusing exclusively on, say, climate change, which generally receives most attention these days, LCA covers a broad range of environmental issues, typically around fifteen (see Chap. 10)


10). These issues include climate change, freshwater use, land occupation and transformation, aquatic eutrophication, toxic impacts on human health, depletion of non-renewable resources and eco-toxic effects from metals and synthetic organic chemicals. The core reason for considering multiple environmental issues is to avoid burden shifting, which is also why a life cycle perspective is taken. Here burden shifting happens if efforts for lowering one type of environmental impact unintentionally increase other types of environmental impacts.


As shown above, decreasing impacts on climate change by substituting fossil fuels with biofuels has the potential to cause an increase in other environmental issues such as water scarcity, eutrophication, land occupation and transformation. 2.2.3 Is Quantitative LCA results answer the question “how much does a product system potentially impact the environment?” Part of the answer may be “the impact on climate change is 87 kg of CO2 equivalents”. The quantitative nature of LCA means that it can be used to compare environmental impacts of different processes and product systems. This can, for example, be used to judge which products or systems are better for the environment or to point to the processes that contribute the most to the overall impact and therefore should receive attention


LCA results are calculated by (1) mapping all emissions and resource uses and, if possible, the geographical locations of these, and (2) use factors derived from mathematical cause/effect models to calculate potential impacts on the environment from these emissions and resource uses. The first step often involves thousands of emissions and resource uses, e.g. “0.187 kg CO2, 0.897 kg nitrogen to freshwater, 0.000000859 kg dioxin to air, 1.54 kg bauxite, 0.331 m3 freshwater...”. In the second step the complexity is reduced by classifying these thousands of flows into a manageable number of environmental issues, typically around fifteen (see above). Quantifications generally aim for the “best estimate”, meaning that average values of parameters involved in the modelling are consistently chosen (see Chap. 10). 2.2.4 Is Based on Science The quantification of potential impacts in LCA is rooted in natural science. Flows are generally based on measurements, e.g


10). 2.2.4 Is Based on Science The quantification of potential impacts in LCA is rooted in natural science. Flows are generally based on measurements, e.g. water gauges or particle counters at industrial sites or mass balances over the processes. The models of the relationships between emission (or resource consumption) and impact are based on proven causalities, e.g. the chemical reaction schemes involving nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds in the formation of atmospheric ground level ozone (smog) or on empirically observed relationships, e.g. between the concentration of phosphorous in a lake and the observed numbers of species and their populations. On top of its science core, LCA requires value judgement, which is most evident in the optional step of assigning weights to different types of environmental problems to evaluate the overall impact of a product system


LCA strives to handle value judgement consistently and transparently and in some cases allows practitioners to make modelling choices based on their own values, for example with respect to the number of years into the future that environmental impacts should be considered in the assessment. Main Characteristics of LCA


2.3 Strengths and Limitations of LCA A main strength of LCA is its comprehensiveness in terms of its life cycle perspective and coverage of environmental issues. This allows the comparison of environmental impacts of product systems that are made up of hundreds of processes, accounting for thousands of resource uses and emissions that are taking place in different places at different times. However, the comprehensiveness is also a limitation, as it requires simplifications and generalisations in the modelling of the product system and the environmental impacts that prevent LCA from calculating actual environmental impacts. Considering the uncertainties in mapping of resource uses and emissions and in modelling their impacts and the fact that calculated impacts are aggregated over time (e.g. tomorrow and in 20 years) and space (e.g. Germany and China) it is more accurate to say that LCA calculates impact potentials


tomorrow and in 20 years) and space (e.g. Germany and China) it is more accurate to say that LCA calculates impact potentials. Another strength in the context of comparative assessments is that LCA follows the “best estimate” principle. This generally allows for unbiased comparisons because it means that the same level of precaution is applied throughout the impact assessment modelling. A limitation related to following the “best estimate” principle is, however, that LCA models are based on the average performance of the processes and do not support the consideration of risks of rare but very problematic events like marine oil spills or accidents at industrial sites. As a consequence, nuclear power, for example, appears quite environmentally friendly in LCA because the small risk of a devastating disaster, like the ones that happened in Chernobyl, the Ukraine or Fukushima, Japan, is not considered


A final limitation worth keeping in mind is that, while LCA can tell you what (product system) is better for the environment, it cannot tell you if better is “good enough”. It is therefore wrong to conclude that a product is environmentally sustainable, in absolute terms, with reference to an LCA showing that the product has a lower environmental impact than another product. Chapter 5 elaborates on the relationship between LCA and sustainability. The above characteristics mean that LCA is suitable for answering some questions and unsuitable for answering others. Box 2.1 provides examples of questions that LCA can and cannot answer. Box 2.1. What LCA can and cannot answer Examples of questions LCA can answer: 1. Is paper, plastic or textile bags the most environmentally friendly option for carrying groceries back from the supermarket? 2. From an environmental point of view should we use glass fibre composite or steel for the car body? 3


From an environmental point of view should we use glass fibre composite or steel for the car body? 3. How can the overall environmental impact of a refrigerator be minimised with the least effort?


4. What is the most environmentally friendly way to package and transport food? 5. From an environmental perspective, should plastics be incinerated or recycled and which parameters do the conclusion depend on? 6. Where is the environmental optimum in the trade-off between minimising heat loss and minimising the use of impact-intensive materials in a window (see illustrative case on window frames in Chap. 39)? 7. Should a plastic zipper be added to cheese packaging to reduce household food waste and thereby reduce the overall environmental impacts of cheese? 8. Is it more environmentally friendly to do the dishes manually or using a dishwasher? 9. Should a company target its own processes, its suppliers, its customers or the waste management sector in the effort of reducing the environmental impact of its products? 10. Are electric cars more environmentally friendly than conventional internal combustion engine cars and what are the important parameters deciding this (see Chap


Are electric cars more environmentally friendly than conventional internal combustion engine cars and what are the important parameters deciding this (see Chap. 27)? Examples of questions LCA cannot answer: 1. Should taxes on old diesel cars be increased to reduce emissions of particles and thereby reduce hospital spending on treating lung diseases? Explanation: LCA cannot be used to compare the societal disadvantages of higher taxes with advantages of less pollution. Cost benefit analysis combined with Health Assessment Studies would be a better tool for answering this question. 2. Do current emissions from a specific factory lead to pollutant concentrations above regulatory thresholds in nearby aquatic ecosystems? Explanation: LCA is not designed to evaluate impacts of a single emission source on local ecosystems and contains no information on regulatory thresholds. Chemical risk assessment is a more appropriate tool for answering this question. 3


Chemical risk assessment is a more appropriate tool for answering this question. 3. Do total global emissions of endocrine disruptors cause polar bears to become hermaphrodites? Explanation: LCA is not designed to assess a specific effect on a specific organism from a specific group of chemicals. It would be more meaningful to measure the concentration of endocrine disruptors in (deceased) polar bears and compare those measurements with observed occurrences of hermaphrodite individuals. Main Characteristics of LCA


EC: Communication from the Commission on the practical implementation of the EU biofuels and bioliquids sustainability scheme and on counting rules for biofuels. Brussels (2010) EC: EU transport in figures. Statistical Pocketbook 2012. Brussels (2012) Fargione, J., Hill, J., Tilman, D., et al.: Land clearing and the biofuel carbon debt. Science 319, 1235–1238 (2008). doi:10.1126/science.1152747 IEA: Recent energy trends in OECD. Excerpt from energy balances of OECD countries (2015) Searchinger, T., Heimlich, R., Houghton, R.A., et al.: Use of U.S. croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land-use change. Science 319, 1238–1240 (2008). doi:10.1126/science.1151861 Zah, R., Laurance, W.: Biofuel’s impact on environment. Ind. Bioprocess 30, 9 (2008) Author Biographies Anders Bjørn part of the LCA community since the early 2010s


doi:10.1126/science.1151861 Zah, R., Laurance, W.: Biofuel’s impact on environment. Ind. Bioprocess 30, 9 (2008) Author Biographies Anders Bjørn part of the LCA community since the early 2010s. Main focus is interpretations of sustainability and integration of sustainability targets in LCA to enable absolute sustainability assessments. Mikołaj Owsianiak involved in development and application of life cycle impact assessment methods in sustainability assessment of technologies. Has worked on issues associated with: soils (remediation), metals (toxic impact assessment), biodiesel (fate in the environment), and carbonaceous materials (biochar and hydrochar). Christine Molin active in the field of LCA since 1992. Special interest in the development and dissemination of LCA and in the use of LCA in small and medium sized enterprises. Alexis Laurent working with LCA since 2010 with a strong LCIA focus, particularly on normalisation aspects


Alexis Laurent working with LCA since 2010 with a strong LCIA focus, particularly on normalisation aspects. Main LCA interests include development of LCIA methods, LCA applications and footprinting of large-scale systems for policy-making (e.g. nations, sectors), and LCA applied to various technology domains, including energy systems.


Chapter 3 LCA History Anders Bjørn, Mikołaj Owsianiak, Christine Molin and Michael Z. Hauschild Abstract The idea of LCA was conceived in the 1960s when environmental degradation and in particular the limited access to resources started becoming a concern. This chapter gives a brief summary of the history of LCA since then with a focus on the fields of methodological development, application, international harmonisation and standardisation, and dissemination. LCA had its early roots in packaging studies and focused mainly on energy use and a few emissions, spurring a largely un-coordinated method development in the US and Northern Europe. Studies were primarily done for companies, who used them internally and made little communication to stakeholders


Studies were primarily done for companies, who used them internally and made little communication to stakeholders. After a silent period in the 1970s, the 1980s and 1990s saw an increase in methodological development and international collaboration and coordination in the scientific community and method development increasingly took place in universities. With the consolidation of the methodological basis, application of LCA widened to encompass a rapidly increasing range of products and systems with studies commissioned or performed by both industry and governments, and results were increasingly communicated through academic papers and industry and government reports. To this day, methodological development has continued, and increasing attention has been given to international scientific consensus building on central parts of the LCA methodology, and standardisation of LCA and related approaches


Learning Objectives After studying this chapter, the reader should be able to: • Explain how LCA emerged and what characterised the early years of development. A. Bjørn (&)  M. Owsianiak  C. Molin  M.Z. Hauschild Division for Quantitative Sustainability Assessment, Department of Management Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark e-mail: anders.bjoern@polymtl.ca A. Bjørn  C. Molin  M.Z. Hauschild CIRAIG, Polytechnique Montréal, 3333 Chemin Queen-Mary, Montréal, QC, Canada © Springer International Publishing AG 2018 M.Z. Hauschild et al. (eds.), Life Cycle Assessment, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-56475-3_3


• Outline the history of LCA from the 1970s to the present in terms of methodological development, application, international harmonisation and standardisation and dissemination. 3.1 Concerns over environmental pollution and energy and material scarcity have motivated the development of life-cycle-oriented approaches for environmental profiling of products. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) has experienced a strong development both in methodology and applications since the first life-cycleoriented methods were proposed in the 1960s. Today LCA is defined as “a tool to assess the potential environmental impacts and resources used throughout a product’s life cycle, i.e. from raw material acquisition, via production and use stages, to waste management” (ISO 2006b). In this chapter, we present a brief account of the history of LCA in terms of methodological development, standardisation and regulation, application, and education and dissemination


In this chapter, we present a brief account of the history of LCA in terms of methodological development, standardisation and regulation, application, and education and dissemination. Important elements of the history are summarised chronologically in Table 3.1. 3.2 Methodological Development Life-cycle-oriented methods that were precursors of today’s LCA were developed in the 1960s in collaboration between universities and industry. They were known as Resource and Environmental Profile Analysis (REPA) (Hunt et al. 1992) or Ecobalances until the term LCA became the norm in the 1990s. The method development initiated in the US and mainly took place there and in Northern Europe. Early methods could be characterised as material and energy accounting and were inspired by material flow accounting, as they were focused on inventorying energy and resource use (crude oil, steel, etc.), emissions and generation of solid waste, from each industrial process in the life cycle of product systems


As inventories got more complex, the initial focus on accounting the physical flows in a product life cycle was gradually extended with a translation of the inventory results into environmental impact potentials. In other words, from a list of resource uses and emissions a set of indicator scores for an assessed product was calculated, representing contributions to a number of impacts categories, such as climate change, eutrophication and resource scarcity. In the early years of the LCA history, environmental concerns addressed by the methods tended to shift with public concerns, and there was no consistency or harmonisation of the applied methods. In some years, the focus was on the generation of solid waste, which was considered problematic, especially in the US, where landfilling was the dominant waste management practice. In other years,


Table 3.1 Selected events in LCA history Event Year Note The (perhaps) first LCA-oriented study was presented on energy requirements for the production of chemical intermediates and products World Energy Conference, Harold Smith Coca Cola commissions its first study comparing beverage containers Not public The methodological foundation for environmentally extended input/output analysis is made Leontief (1970) Publication of the first public and peer-reviewed LCA study “Resource and Environmental Profile Analysis of Nine Beverage Container Alternatives”, commissioned by the US EPA EPA (1974) First impact assessment method based on critical volumes introduced BUS (1984) The first widely used commercial LCA software, GaBi, was released in its first version Thinkstep (2016) SimaPro, another widely used commercial LCA software, was released in its first version PRé (2016) The term “life cycle assessment” was coined SETAC (1991) Emergence of a number of LCI databases managed by different


widely used commercial LCA software, was released in its first version PRé (2016) The term “life cycle assessment” was coined SETAC (1991) Emergence of a number of LCI databases managed by different institutions Early 1990s First environmental theme-oriented impact assessment methodology, CML92 Heijungs et al


(1992) SETAC Code of Practice published in effort to harmonise LCA framework, terminology and methodology SETAC (1993b) The academic journal fully dedicated to LCA, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, was born ISO 14040 standard on LCA principles and framework released ISO 14040 ISO 14041 standard on goal and scope definition released ISO 14041 Damage-oriented methodology Eco-indicator 99 emerges Goedkoop and Spriensma (2000) ISO 14042 standard on life cycle impact assessment released ISO 14042 ISO 14043 standard on life cycle interpretation released ISO 14043 UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative launched The LCI database ecoinvent version 1.01 is released Ecoinvent (2016) Establishing of a general methodological framework and guideless for LCA through ISO 14040 and ISO 14044 A framework for Life Cycle Sustainability Analysis was proposed Klöpffer (2008) ILCD handbook published EC (2010) PEF and OEF guidelines published and later LCA History


when the price on oil was fluctuating or high, energy use was the focus of early studies. Public concerns also shifted with respect to emissions, which in some periods were deemed to be sufficiently controlled by regulation and voluntary measures by industry, but at other times considered very problematic. Early impact assessment methods tended to represent impacts from emissions in the form of dilution volumes of air or water needed to dilute the emissions to safe levels, or below regulatory thresholds [e.g. the Swiss Ecopoint method from the 1980s (Ahbe et al. 1990)]. During the 1990s many impact assessment methods evolved, and the ambition has since then been to quantify all relevant environmental impacts, independent of shifting public concerns, with the goal of avoiding burden shifting. The first impact assessment methodology to cover a comprehensive set of midpoint impact categories, as we know them today, was CML92 (Heijungs et al. 1992)


The first impact assessment methodology to cover a comprehensive set of midpoint impact categories, as we know them today, was CML92 (Heijungs et al. 1992). It was released in 1992 by the Institute of Environmental Sciences at Leiden University in the Netherlands. The Swedish EPS method (Steen 1999a, b) looking at the damages caused took a different approach focusing on the damages to ecosystems and human health, rather than midpoint impacts, an approach that was followed by the Dutch Eco-indicator 99 methodology released in 1999 with a more science-based approach to the damage modelling (Goedkoop and Spriensma 2000). The early 1990s also saw the birth of a number of life cycle inventory databases managed by different institutes and organisations and covering different industrial sectors


The early 1990s also saw the birth of a number of life cycle inventory databases managed by different institutes and organisations and covering different industrial sectors. Due to differences in data standards and quality, the resource uses and emissions of a single industrial process could, however, differ substantially in the different databases, but at this point in the development, the focus was on expanding the coverage and for many processes, there were no data at all. This situation was improved in 2003 with the release of the first ecoinvent database (v 1.01) covering all industrial sectors and aiming for consistent data standards and quality (ecoinvent 2016). In parallel to this development in process-based LCA, a “top-down” approach was developed based on the work of the economist Wassily Leontief on input-output analysis of economies (Leontief 1970)


In parallel to this development in process-based LCA, a “top-down” approach was developed based on the work of the economist Wassily Leontief on input-output analysis of economies (Leontief 1970). This “top-down” approach to constructing an inventory is based on combining the national statistics of the trade between sectors with information on sector-specific environmental loads to arrive at an environmentally extended input/output analysis (EEIOA see more in Chap. 14). Inherent in the discussion of LCI data was also a more fundamental difference in the perception of the product life cycle and LCA and its potential application. The attributional perspective aims to quantify the environmental impacts that can be attributed to the product system based on a mapping of the emission and resource flows that accompany the product as it moves through its life cycle, applying representative average data for all processes involved in the life cycle in a book keeping approach


The consequential perspective is concerned with the potential consequences of the decision based on the results of the LCA, and involves modelling of the broader economic system that the decision affects (see Sect. 8.5).


The modelling of increasingly complex product systems and the proliferation of LCI data and impact assessment methodologies created a need for dedicated LCA software and the first versions of both SimaPro and GaBi, two widely used software, were released around 1990 (Thinkstep 2016; PRé 2016). In the twenty-first century, impact assessment methods have continuously been refined and several methodologies have emerged and are frequently being updated. The first impact assessment methods took into account the often large differences in the environmental hazards of the individual emissions. The realisation that there can be very large differences also in the sensitivity of the environment receiving the impacts lead to the release of the EDIP2003 method (Hauschild and Potting 2005) with spatially differentiated impact assessment methods covering non-global impacts like eutrophication and acidification


With the globalisation of production and an increased focus on biobased products in LCA, methods for impact assessment of extraction-related impacts like water use and land use have seen a lot of activity in the 2000s and 2010s. Hybrid LCA has emerged to reap the benefits of process-based and input/output based inventory analysis. Acknowledging that sustainability also has a social dimension, a growing activity has attempted to develop methods for Social LCA to quantify social impacts of product life cycles. A framework for life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) has emerged for performing assessments and aims to take into account an environmental, social and economic dimension of sustainability (see Chap. 5). 3.3 Application Many of the early process-based LCA studies analysed packaging, which was a great consumer concern around the 1970s. For example, moulded pulp trays were compared to plastic trays and plastic bottles were compared to refillable glass bottles


For example, moulded pulp trays were compared to plastic trays and plastic bottles were compared to refillable glass bottles. Studies were typically commissioned by companies producing or using the packaging, such as Coca Cola in a pioneering study in 1969. Rather than disclosing studies directly to consumers, the results were mainly used for internal purposes, such as guiding reduction of life cycle impacts. LCA also caught the interest of government early on. For example, the US EPA commissioned a large peer reviewed study, which was published in 1974, with the aim of informing regulation on packaging (US EPA 1974). However, at that time the EPA decided that using LCA as a direct regulatory tool was impractical, because it was thought to require LCAs to be carried out on thousands of products followed by extensive micro-managing of private businesses


During the 1980s, life-cycle-related tools received little attention in North America, but in Europe, a revival started around the middle of the decade with an increased interest in the impacts of milk packaging that inspired a number of large LCA studies performed in different European countries. All studies compared alternative packaging systems for milk distribution to private consumers (Bundesamt für Umweltschutz 1984; Franke 1984; Lundholm and Sundström 1985; LCA History


Mekel and Huppes 1990; Pommer et al. 1991). A comparison of the studies shows that although they aimed to answer the same question (is returnable packaging or milk cartons preferable from an environmental and resource perspective?), and although they compared more or less the same packaging technologies, they reached very different conclusions. Rather than disqualify LCA as a serious decision support tool, these findings triggered an international collaboration among scientists and LCA practitioners from industry and consultancy on furthering LCA methodology development and harmonisation, as reflected in the strong international development work and standardisation in the 1990s. Concurrent with the fast methodological development of the 1990s the application of LCA expanded to include numerous other types of products during this decade as reflected in the proliferation of LCA-based ecolabels


The first LCA-supported Nordic Ecolabel was initiated in 1989 to guide consumers towards products with the lowest environmental impacts, and the number of product categories covered by criteria grew rapidly under this and other ecolabels like the European Flower label and the German Blaue Engel (see Chap. 24 on Eco-labelling and environmental product declarations). Several European countries launched national product-oriented environmental strategies with LCA as the methodological backbone, presaging the European Integrated Product Policy(IPP) to be adopted at EU level in 2003 with policy instruments like the aforementioned ecolabels, environmental product declarations, green public purchase and integration of environmental aspects into standards development. After the turn of the century, product applications continued to grow in number and broaden in scope, also inspired by the increased political focus on LCA in EU and other parts of the world


After the turn of the century, product applications continued to grow in number and broaden in scope, also inspired by the increased political focus on LCA in EU and other parts of the world. LCA studies were increasingly used to analyse questions on the macro scale related to, for example, national energy systems and waste management systems. A 2006 survey of LCA practitioners found that LCA results were primarily used in business strategy, research and development and product or process design, but that education, policy development and labelling/product declarations were also frequent uses (Smith Cooper and Fava 2006). A similar survey from 2011 found that most practitioners made LCA studies in the agriculture (56%) and food sectors (62%), while practitioners working with other consumer goods (38%) and energy (37%) industries were somewhat less frequent (Teixeira and Pax 2011). The growth in the private sector’s use of LCA in the period is reflected in Fig


The growth in the private sector’s use of LCA in the period is reflected in Fig. 3.1 which shows the development in the total annual number of corporate responsibility reports mentioning LCA. The year 2008 became an important year in the history of LCA for policy support, as the European Commission initiated its Sustainable Consumption and Production and Sustainable Industrial Policy (SCP/SIP) Action Plan, incorporating the previous IPP and waste and resource strategies and having LCA as the analytical backbone, but this time without the micromanagement regulation scope explored by the US EPA three decades earlier. The use of LCA in policy development is discussed in Chap. 18. In 2009, The Sustainability Consortium was formed with the US retailer Walmart as a central partner with the mission to create a more sustainable consumer


goods industry through the implementation of credible, transparent, and LCA-based reporting systems in the value chains of consumer products, targeting both environmental and social impacts. The activities of the sustainability consortium have the potential to strengthen the applicationof LCA further in the main regions supplying consumer products to the North American market, notably China and Southeast Asia. 3.4 International Harmonisation and Standardisation With the awakening interest in LCA in the late 1980s, it soon became clear that there was a strong need for developing the methodology and harmonising the evolving methods to ensure consistency between studies. 3.4.1 Scientific Collaboration and Consensus Building The global Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry organised a workshop on “A Technical Framework for Life Cycle Assessment” in 1990 (SETAC 1991)


This first event was followed by a series of workshops targeting central elements of the LCA methodology: in Leiden in the Netherlands (1991) (SETAC 1992), Sandestin Florida (SETAC 1993a) and Wintergreen (1992) (SETAC 1994) where central elements of LCA methodology were discussed with the aim of developing a common framework and agree on principles and research needs. The series culminated in a Code of Practice workshop held in Sesimbra, Fig. 3.1 Development in number of published corporate responsibility reports mentioning LCA (“Life cycle analysis” or “life cycle assessment”) per year from 2000 to 2015. Based on a search in the PDF Search Tool of CorporateRegister (2016) carried out on April 25th, 2016 LCA History


Portugal, in 1993 leading to the development of the first official guidelines for LCA (SETAC 1993b)—a Code of practice for LCA. Through the rest of the 1990s SETAC working groups in Europe and North America further discussed the methodological elements with particular focus on inventory modelling and life cycle impact assessment, regularly publishing their recommendations in SETAC working group reports presenting the agreed state of the art and delivering recommendations for further research. The working groups helped coordinate the method development and strengthen the collaboration between the different research teams developing the LCA methods and they played an important role in the strong developments in LCA methodology through the 1990s. The work in these international fora was building on several important national and regional methodology development projects like the Nordic LCA Guideline project (Nordic Council of Ministers 1992; Lindfors et al


1995), The Dutch LCA Handbook (Guinée et al. 2002) and the Danish EDIP project (Wenzel et al. 1997; Hauschild and Wenzel 1998) In the late 1990s, leading researchers from the SETAC working group on life cycle impact assessment reached out to the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) to create a partnership to ensure further development of good LCA practice and global dissemination beyond Europe, North America and Japan, which had thus far been the main activity centres. The UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative was launched in 2002 and its changing working groups have taken over the method development activities of SETAC and increasingly focused on the dissemination of life cycle practices to the emerging economies through development of training materials and support with access to tools and data. The methodological recommendations have gained a more authoritative status with a formalised review procedure under the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative


The methodological recommendations have gained a more authoritative status with a formalised review procedure under the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative. 3.4.2 International Standardisation Taking off after the development of the SETAC code of practice for LCA in 1993, a formal standardisation process was initiated under the auspices of the International Organization of Standardization (ISO) to develop a global standard for LCA, building on the previous years’ accomplishments in the scientific consensus building. The standard was to meet concerns from industry who increasingly wanted to use LCA for product development and marketing of greener products, but experienced that the lack of a standardised methodology meant that different studies of the same product could give opposite results depending on the concrete methodological choices


The standard development resulted in the adoption and release of four standards over the next seven years, addressing the principles and framework (ISO 14040), the goal and scope definition (ISO 14041), the life cycle impact assessment (ISO 14042) and the life cycle interpretation (ISO 14043). In a 2006 revision, the latter three were compiled in the ISO 14044 standard detailing the requirements and guidelines, without changing any requirements in the standards.


The ISO 14040 series standards concern the LCA methodology, but in the ISO 14000 series of Environmental Management standards, there are also standards and technical guidance reports on the applications of LCA for e.g. eco-design (ISO 14062, ISO 14006), communication of environmental performance (ISO 14020 series on ecolabels and ISO 14063), and greenhouse gas reporting and reduction (ISO 14064). 3.4.3 Standardisation of Methodology Beyond the ISO Standards: The European ILCD LCA methodology was very young and rather immature while the ISO standardisation process took place in the 1990s, and the resulting standards are therefore not very detailed on specific methodological choices but rather focused on the framework and the fundamental principles of LCA. This is one of the reasons why the work of the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative was needed to evaluate alternative practices and develop recommendations from a scientific point of view


This is one of the reasons why the work of the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative was needed to evaluate alternative practices and develop recommendations from a scientific point of view. It was also the background for a process initiated by the European Commissionin the mid-2000s to develop an International Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) with a database of life cycle inventory data and a series of methodological guidelines. With the development of the Integrated Product Policy and the action plan for Sustainable Consumption and Production, there was a need for a strong methodological basis of the LCA which was the method used for judging alternatives and communicating on the impacts of products and consumption


The ISO standards left too many possibilities for ambiguities in the applied methodology and in a consultation process, the EU Commission’s Joint Research Centre’s Institute for Environment and Sustainability developed a comprehensive guideline in LCA (EC-JRC 2010) that builds on the ISO 14040 and 14044 standards, and over 394 pages specifies the majority of the methodological choices that are left open by the ISO standards. Adherence to the ILCD guideline is intended to ensure more consistent and reproducible results of LCAs performed by different practitioners and hence increase comparability of LCA results from different studies. We have compiled the central provisions of the ILCD guideline as a Cookbook for LCA in Chap. 37 and the core methodological Chaps. (7–13) are inspired by and consistent with the ILCD guidelines


We have compiled the central provisions of the ILCD guideline as a Cookbook for LCA in Chap. 37 and the core methodological Chaps. (7–13) are inspired by and consistent with the ILCD guidelines. The ILCD work also involved a comparative analysis of all available LCIA methodologies (around 2008) comparing their approaches to assessment of the different midpoint and endpoint impact categories and identifying a recommendable practice for each impact category. The collection of best practices for each impact category was compiled as the ILCD impact assessment method (EC-JRC 2011). After the release of the ILCD guidelines in 2012, the EU Commission launched the Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) and Organisational Environmental Footprint (OEF) Guidelines as abbreviated and LCA History