Life Cycle Assessment Handbook E-Book

• Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
• Kategorie: Wissenschaft und neue Technologien
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 1062

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2012

Beschreibung

The first book of its kind, the Life Cycle Assessment Handbook: A Guide for Environmentally Sustainable Products will become an invaluable resource for environmentally progressive manufacturers and suppliers, product and process designers, executives and managers, and government officials who want to learn about this essential component of environmental sustainability.

As the last several decades have seen a dramatic rise in the application of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) in decision making, the interest in the life cycle concept as an environmental management and sustainability tool continues to grow. The LCA Handbook offers a look at the role that life cycle information, in the hands of companies, governments, and consumers, may have in improving the environmental performance of products and technologies. It concisely and clearly presents the various aspects of LCA in order to help the reader better understand the subject.

The content of the book was designed with a certain flow in mind. After a high-level overview to describe current views and state-of-the-practice of LCA, it presents chapters that address specific LCA methodological issues including creating life cycle inventory, life cycle impact assessment, and capturing eco-systems services. These are followed by example applications of LCA in the agri-food industry; sustainable supply chain management; solid waste management; mining and mineral extraction; forest products; buildings; product innovation; and sustainable chemistry and engineering.

The international success of the sustainability paradigm needs the participation of many stakeholders, including citizens, corporations, academia, and NGOs. The handbook links LCA and responsible decision making and how the life cycle concept is a critical element in environmental sustainability. It covers issues such as building capacity in developing countries and emerging economies so that they are more capable of harnessing the potential in LCA for sustainable development. Governments play a very important role with the leverage they have through procurement, regulation, international treaties, tax incentives, public outreach, and other policy tools. This compilation points to the clear trend for incorporating life cycle information into the design and development processes for products and policies, just as quality and safety concerns are now addressed throughout product design and development.

Leseprobe

Contents

Cover

Half Title page

Title page

Copyright page

Preface

Chapter 1: Environmental Life Cycle Assessment: Background and Perspective

1.1 Historical Roots of Life Cycle Assessment

1.2 Environmental Life Cycle Concepts

1.3 LCA Links to Environmental Policy

1.4 Micro Applications of LCA Rising

1.5 The Micro-Macro Divide

1.6 Macro Level LCA for Policy Support

1.7 Example Biofuels

1.8 Why Environmental LCA?

1.9 Overview of the Book

References

Chapter 2: An Overview of the Life Cycle Assessment Method – Past, Present, and Future

2.1 The Present-Day LCA Method

2.2 A Short History of LCA

References

Chapter 3: Life Cycle Inventory Modeling in Practice

3.1 Introduction

3.2 Study Goal

3.3 Scope

3.4 Methodology Issues

3.5 Evolution of LCA Practice and Associated Issues

3.6 Conclusion

References

Chapter 4: Life Cycle Impact Assessment

4.1 Introduction

4.2 Life Cycle Impact Assessment According to ISO 14040–44 Requirements

4.3 Principles and Framework of LCIA

4.4 Historical Developments and Overview of LCIA Methodologies

4.5 Variability in the LCIA Models

4.6 State-of-the-Art LCIA

4.7 Future Development

References

Chapter 5: Sourcing Life Cycle Inventory Data

5.1 Introduction

5.2 Developing LCI to Meet the Goal of the Study

5.3 Types of LCI Data

5.4 Private Industrial Data

5.5 Public Industrial Data

5.6 Dedicated LCI databases

5.7 Using Non-LCI Data in LCAs

5.8 Creating Life Cycle Inventory using Economic Input/Output Data

5.9 Global Guidance for Database Creation and Management

5.10 Future Knowledge Management

5.11 Conclusion

References

Chapter 6: Software for Life Cycle Assessment

6.1 LCA and LCA Software

References

Chapter 7: Modeling the Agri-Food Industry with Life Cycle Assessment

7.1 Introduction

7.2 Methodological Issues

7.3 Role of the Food Industry: Some Examples

7.4 Conclusions

References

Chapter 8: Exergy Analysis and its Connection to Life Cycle Assessment

8.1 Introduction

8.2 Life Cycle Assessment

8.3 Exergy and Exergy Analysis

8.4 Exergetic Life Cycle Assessment (ExLCA)

8.5 Case Study

8.6 Conclusions

Acknowledgements

Nomenclature

Acronyms

References

Chapter 9: Accounting for Ecosystem Goods and Services in Life Cycle Assessment and Process Design

9.1 Motivation

9.2 Life Cycle Assessment Background

9.3 Ecologically-Based Life Cycle Assessment

9.4 Case Study Comparing Process-Based and Hybrid Studies Based on EIO-LCA and Eco-LCA

9.5 Overview of the Role of Ecosystems in Sustainable Design

9.6 Design Case Study: Integrated Design of a Residential System

9.7 Conclusions

References

Chapter 10: A Case Study of the Practice of Sustainable Supply Chain Management

10.1 Introduction

10.2 Why Develop an Integrated Sustainable Supply Chain Management Program?

10.3 How Might the World’s Largest Consumer Products Company Measure and Drive Sustainability in its Supply Chains?

10.4 What is the State of P&G’s Supply Chain Environmental Sustainability?

10.5 Why is the Scorecard Effective for Driving Change and Building Environmental Tracking Capability?

10.6 What is involved with Social Sustainability in Supply Chain Management?

10.7 Conclusion

References

Chapter 11: Life Cycle Assessment and End of Life Materials Management

11.1 Introduction

11.2 Value of Applying Life Cycle Principles and Concepts to End-Of-Life Materials Management

11.3 LCA of Waste Management Versus GHG Inventory/Reporting, Sustainability Reporting, and Other Environmental Initiatives

11.4 Summary of Key Life Cycle Procedures and their Application to End-of-Life Systems

11.5 Overview of Existing Waste Related LCAs

11.6 Using Waste Management LCA Information for Decision Making

References

Chapter 12: Application of LCA in Mining and Minerals Processing – Current Programs and Noticeable Gaps

12.1 Introduction

12.2 The Status Quo

12.3 What is LCA and LCM Information Being Used for?

12.4 Gaps and Constraints

12.5 Conclusions and Recommendations

References

Chapter 13: Sustainable Preservative-Treated Forest Products, Their Life Cycle Environmental Impacts, and End of Life Management Opportunities: A Case Study

13.1 Introduction

13.2 Life Cycle Inventory Analysis

13.3 Energy Reuse Considerations

13.4 Case Study Scenarios

13.5 Carbon Accounting, Impact Indicator Definition, and Classification

13.6 Lumber Life Cycle Assessment Findings

13.7 Conclusions

References

Chapter 14: Buildings, Systems Thinking, and Life Cycle Assessment

14.1 Introduction

14.2 Applying LCA to Buildings

14.3 History and Progress in Applying LCA to Buildings

14.4 Evolution and Future Applications to the Built Environment

References

Chapter 15: Life Cycle Assessment in Product Innovation

15.1 Introduction

15.2 Background

15.3 What R&D is For

15.4 The Innovation Funnel

15.5 Idea Generation

15.6 Idea Assessment

15.7 Concept Development

15.8 Business Planning and Execution

15.9 Where to Focus – Management Framework

15.10 Sustainable Portfolio Management

15.11 Tools

15.12 Data

References

Chapter 16: Life Cycle Assessment as a Tool in Food Waste Reduction and Packaging Optimization – Packaging Innovation and Optimization in a Life Cycle Perspective

16.1 Introduction

16.2 Food Waste and Packaging Optimization in a Life Cycle Perspective

16.3 Principles and Models for Optimal Packaging in a Life Cycle/Value Chain Perspective

16.4 Case Studies on LCA of Food Waste and Packaging Optimization

16.5 Discussion and Conclusions

References

Chapter 17: Integration of LCA and Life-Cycle Thinking within the Themes of Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering

17.1 Introduction

17.2 The Four Themes of Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering

17.3 Life Cycle Assessment as a Tool for Evaluating SC&E Opportunities

17.4 LCA – One Tool in the Sustainability Toolbox

17.5 Summary

Acknowledgement

References

Chapter 18: How to Approach the Assessment?

18.1 Introduction

18.2 Assessment Methods

18.3 Comparison of Assessment Methods

18.4 Guidance for Assessment

18.5 Discussion and Conclusions

Acknowledgement

References

Chapter 19: Integration of MCDA Tools in Valuation of Comparative Life Cycle Assessment

19.1 Introduction

19.2 Current Practices in Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA)

19.3 Principles of External Normalization

19.4 Issues with External Normalization

19.5 Principles of Internal Normalization

19.6 Weighting

19.7 Case 1: Magnitude Sensitivity

19.8 Case 2: Rank Reversal

19.9 Conclusions

References

Chapter 20: Social Life Cycle Assessment: A Technique Providing a New Wealth of Information to Inform Sustainability-Related Decision Making

20.1 Historical Development

20.2 Why Do Businesses Care?

20.3 Methodology

20.4 S-LCA and other Key Social Responsibility References and Instruments

20.5 Conclusion

References

Chapter 21: Life Cycle Sustainability Analysis

21.1 LCA and Sustainability Questions

21.2 A Framework for Life Cycle Sustainability Analysis

21.3 Future Directions for Research

References

Chapter 22: Environmental Product Claims and Life Cycle Assessment

22.1 Introduction

22.2 Typology of Claims: Three Different Claims per ISO Standards

22.3 Other LCA-Based Product Claims

22.4 Other Relevant Environmental Information

22.5 Conclusion

References

Appendix 1: Global Update of PCR/EPD Activity

Appendix 2: Product Category Rules

Appendix 3: Environmental Product Declaration for High-Quality Pasteurized Milk Packaged in PET Bottles

Chapter 23: Building Capacity for Life Cycle Assessment in Developing Countries

23.1 Introduction

23.2 Status of LCA in Developing Countries

23.3 Challenges and opportunities

23.4 Improving the Effectiveness of Capacity Building Initiatives

23.5 A Roadmap for Capacity Building in LCA in Developing Countries

23.6 Conclusions

References

Chapter 24: Environmental Accountability: A New Paradigm for World Trade is Emerging

24.1 Introduction

24.2 The Paradigm Shift and LCA

24.3 International Trade and LCA

24.4 Behavior Change and LCA

24.5 Challenges and Opportunities for a World Shifting to Using LCA and Environmental Impacts as Components of Regulation and Commerce

Appendix I

References

Chapter 25: Life Cycle Knowledge Informs Greener Products

25.1 Introduction

25.2 Situation Analysis

25.3 Diagnostics and Interpretation

25.4 Concluding Remarks

References

Index

Life Cycle Assessment Handbook

Scrivener Publishing

100 Cummings Center, Suite 541J

Beverly, MA 01915-6106

Publishers at Scrivener

Martin Scrivener ([email protected])

Phillip Carmical ([email protected])

Copyright © 2012 by Scrivener Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Co-published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Hoboken, New Jersey, and Scrivener Publishing LLC, Salem, Massachusetts.Published simultaneously in Canada.

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning, or otherwise, except as permitted under Section 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without either the prior written permission of the Publisher, or authorization through payment of the appropriate per-copy fee to the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, [phone], fax [phone], or on the web at www.copyright.com. Requests to the Publisher for permission should be addressed to the Permissions Department, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, [phone], fax [phone], or online at http://www.wiley.com/go/permission.

Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty: While the publisher and author have used their best efforts in preparing this book, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this book and specifically disclaim any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by sales representatives or written sales materials. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your situation. You should consult with a professional where appropriate. Neither the publisher nor author shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages.

For general information on our other products and services or for technical support, please contact our Customer Care Department within the United States at [phone], outside the United States at [phone] or fax [phone].

Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats. Some content that appears in print may not be available in electronic formats. For more information about Wiley products, visit our web site at www.wiley.com.

For more information about Scrivener products please visit www.scrivenerpublishing.com.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data:

ISBN 978-1-118-09972-8

Preface

For a growing number of companies, global diversity is a business imperative. Manufacturing operations have increasingly become technically and geographically diverse in the sourcing of resources, manufacturing and assembly operations, usage, and final disposal. This expansion, along with a growing awareness of sustainability and the responsibilities to the environmental, economic, and social dimensions that go with it, has prompted environmental managers and decision makers everywhere to look holistically from cradle to grave, at products and services. The need for a tool that helps users obtain data and information to accurately and consistently measure the resource consumption and environmental aspects of their activities has never been more acute. Most importantly, people now realize that decisions should not lead to improving one part of the industrial system at the expense of another. In other words, the identification and avoidance of unintended consequences are essential in the decision making process. Out of this need came Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). What started as an approach to compare the environmental goodness (greenness) of products has developed into a standardized method for providing a sound scientific basis for product stewardship in industry and government. When used within an environmental sustainability framework, LCA ultimately helps to advance the sustainability of products and processes as well as promote society’s economic and social activities.

When I set out to create the “latest and greatest” book on Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), I had three very specific goals in mind. First, I wanted it to be comprehensive, covering every possible facet of methodology and application. This was quite a challenge, given the ever-growing scope that LCA has reached over the years. As can be seen in the table of contents, the subject is addressed from a wide range of perspectives and in many applications. Note, however, that this book is not a “how to” manual with step-by-step instructions for conducting an LCA. Instead, I designed this book to explain what LCA is, and, just as importantly, what it is not. The immense popularity of the “life cycle” concept led to its use in a variety of assessment approaches, even in those approaches that are focused on a single environmental aspect. For example, LCA is often used in writing about carbon accounting. In these times of heightened concern over climate change, individuals and organizations alike are eager to measure the release and impact of greenhouse gases. But the results only address climate change and not the other equally important impacts. The exact meaning of the methodology is frequently misunderstood, resulting in carbon footprint and LCA being used synonymously, and incorrectly so. By narrowing an assessment to a single issue of concern, the results will not reflect the important benefit that LCA offers of identifying potential trade-offs. There are several other similar examples, which I will not go into here. I trust that after reading this book, the differences will be clearer.

Second, I wanted the reader to hear from the experts and leaders in LCA. I asked recognized LCA professionals for their contributions. I felt it was important to hear all the representative voices from industry, academia, and of course, the LCA consultants. We even heard from non-governmental organizations (NGOs). The book contains writings from 47 authors from 10 countries. Despite their busy schedules, all of the authors came through with marvelous contributions. I give my sincere thanks to the authors for their dedication and hard work and their willingness to take time away from their extremely busy careers and lives to share their experiences, wisdom, observations, and guidance which made this book possible (the term “herding cats” was used frequently as I waited for final manuscripts). In the end, I am extremely pleased with the outcome. There is much the reader can learn by drawing from the wealth of experience and knowledge that is contained within the covers of this book.

Third, I wanted to capture the latest advancements in LCA methodology and application in one convenient place. I also wanted to indicate where further advancement in LCA is still needed. The book was designed with a particular flow in mind. It begins at the beginning, with an historical account of LCA and how it has developed over the years. The following chapters cover the basics of the LCA methodology, and discuss goal and scope definition, inventory analysis, impact assessment, and interpretation. Then, multiple examples of application are presented. This is followed by aspects of how LCA is used in decision making, and how it is now evolving as the underlying principle behind environmental sustainability. The book is best approached from beginning to end, as each chapter was designed to build on the last. However, each chapter is self-contained, and readers may benefit from skipping to the topic(s) of interest to them.

LCA and LCA-based tools give us a way to improve our understanding of the environmental impacts associated with product and process systems in order to support decision making and achieve sustainability goals. In the early 1990s (before the first ISO 14000 series on LCA was established), there was considerable confusion regarding how LCA should be conducted. Even the term itself was debated, and ‘life cycle analysis’ and ‘life cycle assessment’ were used interchangeably. Eventually, ‘assessment’ became the preferred choice in the ISO standards and within the LCA community. ‘Analysis’ is still used by some (usually those who are less familiar with LCA), but I asked the authors to use ‘assessment’ throughout their writing to be consistent with the ISO standard, and to appease me. Over the last 22 years, it has been fascinating to watch the evolution of LCA practice, from concept to standardized methodology and on to being the ‘backbone’ of sustainability.

I intend for this book to be a useful reference tool for a wide audience, including students in environmental studies, government policy makers, product designers and manufacturers, and environmental management professionals. That is, I hope it is useful to anyone who wants to implement a life cycle approach in their organization, be it in the private sector or public, as well as those who simply wish to have a better understanding of what all the fuss over LCA has been about.

Mary Ann Curran

Cincinnati, Ohio, USAJuly 2012

Chapter 1

Environmental Life Cycle Assessment: Background and Perspective

Gjalt Huppes1 and Mary Ann Curran2*

1Institute of Environmental Sciences (CML), Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands

2US Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, USA

Abstract

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) has developed into a major tool for sustainability decision support. Its relevance is yet to be judged in terms of the quality of the support it provides: does it give the information as required, or could it do a better job? This depends very much on the questions to be answered. The starting point was the application to relatively simple choices, such as making technical changes in products and choosing one material over another, with packaging as a main example. This was then followed by the use of LCA in consumer choices. Over time, there has been a shift to more encompassing questions, such as the attractiveness of biofuels and the relevance of lifestyle changes. This chapter describes the ongoing discussions on issues that still need to be addressed, such as allocation, substitution data selection, time horizon, attributional versus consequential, rebound mechanisms, and so forth. The chapter then describes how LCA might develop in the future. There are important tasks ahead for the LCA community.

Keywords: Life cycle assessment, LCA, allocation, attributional, consequential, decision support

1.1 Historical Roots of Life Cycle Assessment

The concept of exploring the life cycle of a product or function initially developed in the United States in the Fifties and Sixties within the realm of public purchasing. Back then, use cost often carried the main share of the total cost. A first mention of the life cycle concept, by that name, is by Novick (1959) in a report by the RAND Corporation, focusing on Life Cycle Analysis of cost. Costs of weapon systems, a main application at that time, include not only the purchasing cost, or only the use cost. They also cover the cost of development and the cost of end-of-life operations. Life Cycle Analysis (not yet referred to as ‘Assessment’) became the tool for improved budget management, linking functionality to total cost of ownership. This was a first for government. Method issues and standardization questions soon followed. How should data on past performance be related to expected future performance? How is functionality defined? Can smaller systems like jet engines be taken out of overall airplane functioning? Should system boundaries encompass activities such as transport? How should accidents and mistakes be considered? How should overhead costs and multi-function processes be allocated? For public budget analysis, the life cycle approach led to general questions on methodology and standardization, as in Marks & Massey (1971), also linking to other “life cycle-like’ tools for analysis, especially cost-benefit analysis.

The life cycle concept rapidly spread to the private sector where firms struggled with similar questions. By 1985, a survey paper (Gupta & Chow, 1985) showed over six hundred explicit life cycle studies that had been published, all focusing on relating system cost to functionality. The methodology issues were treated in an operational manner, for example by Dhillon (1989). Optimizing system development and system performance became a core goal for the now broadly applied public and private life cycle analysis of cost.

There is now over a half a century of experience with function-based life cycle analysis of system costs, see the survey in Huppes et al. (2004), continuing in parallel with environmental Life Cycle Assessment, or environmental LCA (moving now from ‘Analysis’ to ‘Assessment’), and later to the life cycle concept related to Life Cycle Costing (LCC). Returning to these roots might be an interesting endeavor.

1.2 Environmental Life Cycle Concepts

This life cycle concept was already fully developed when environmental policy became a major issue in all industrialized societies, at the end of the Sixties and in the early Seventies. Environmental policies, mainly command-and-control type, were at first source-oriented with very substantial reductions in emissions being realized. It soon became clear that such end-of-pipe measures were increasingly expensive. However, other options were not easily introduced into the mainly command-and-control type regulatory framework as it had been developed. Shifts in mode of transport, for example, were clearly of broad environmental importance, but not easily brought into the regulations. The comparative analysis of such different techniques for a similar function was hardly developed in a practical way. Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA), as an example, was focused at projects that aim to maximize welfare. It was made obligatory for environmental regulatory programs in the US, starting in 1971 with Executive Order 20503, on Quality of Life. Adapted substantially by consecutive US presidents, it still is a main contender for environmental LCA in the public domain applications, and increasingly so in the European Union (EU) as well. Environmental LCA first developed relatively unobserved by the private sector, before having the name shortened to simply “LCA” at the end of the Eighties. Both CBA and LCA have a life cycle concept at their core. The major difference between them is that CBA specifies activities in time and then uses a discounting method, in line with dominant modes of economic analysis, which is similar to the Life Cycle Analysis of cost. LCA, on the other hand, uses a timeless steady-state type of system analysis, without discounting effects. CBA also quantifies environmental effects in economic terms and then discounts them. In modeling welfare effects of climate policies, for example, the discounting mode is dominant. That dynamic analysis seems superior to the static GWP (Global Warming Potential) analysis used in LCA. How to quantify environmental effects in an economic sense and how to discount effects spread across time remains a core issue in CBA, open to further public and scientific debate. In LCA the time frame discussion is hardly present. Looped processes are not, and cannot, be specified in time. The only explicit treatment of time is found in the consideration of the different environmental themes in GWP impacts, with scores being limited to 20, 50 or 100 years, and in the toxic effects of heavy metals and the like that are assumed to extend virtually to eternity. The time frame discussion, then, might be part of Interpretation, which is problematic in itself while also hardly any guidance is given in the ISO standards or in any of the instructional guides that followed.

It would be interesting to have a discourse on overlapping issues and strategic choices in the domains of Cost-Benefit Analysis; Life Cycle Analysis of costs; and environmental Life Cycle Assessment.

1.3 LCA Links to Environmental Policy

The conceptual jump from life cycle cost analysis to the first life cycle-based waste and energy analysis, and then to the broader environmental LCA (how we view LCA today) was made through a series of small steps. Documented history starts with the famous Coca Cola study from 1969, see Hunt and Franklin (1996), who were involved in LCA right from that start. The environmental focus was on resource use and waste management, not yet the broad environmental aspects that are usual in LCA now. The broad conceptual jump to environmental LCA as contrasted with Life Cycle Analysis of cost was made in the Eighties and formalized in the Nineties with the work of SETAC and the standardization in the 14040 Series of ISO, see Klöpffer (2006). From the start with the RAND Corporation in the end of the Fifties, the system to be analyzed was clear. It should cover the supply chain, including research and development, the use stage, and the processing of wastes from all stages, including end-of-life of the product analyzed.

The link to public policy was made based on concepts first developed in the Netherlands, in the Eighties at the Department of Environmental Management headed by Pieter Winsemius. After the first stage of environmental policy, with command-and-control instruments directed at main sources, there was a shift to a systems view, and to a more general formulation of environmental policy goals in the Dutch Environmental Policy Plans, see also Winsemius (1990, original 1986). This shift from a source-oriented to an effect-oriented approach created a domain for environmental LCA from an environmental policy point of view, as contrasted to a business long-term cost view or a consumer interest point of view. Winsemius coined the environmental themes approach now dominant in LCA, looking for integration over the environmental compartments policies regarding water, air and soil. His overall policy strategy was based on now familiar themes: Acidification; eutrophication; diffusion of (toxic) substances; disposal of waste; and disturbance (including noise, odour, and local-only air pollution). Somewhat later, further national policy themes were added: climate change; dehydration; and squandering.

The theme-oriented policy formed the basis for a broadened view on environmental policy, now covering complementary entries like volume policy, product policy and substance policy. In their implementation it was no longer only chimneys and sewers but also people and organisations: the target groups of environmental policy, several groups of producers and consumers. The responsibility for consequences of actions shifted to these target groups, which had to internalise the goals of environmental policy as specified using the themes approach. If, how, and why this internalization happened is a subject of much debate; see de Roo (2003) for a first analysis. For doing so, the new metrics of the themes were most appropriate, indicating the environmental performance of business and consumers in a unified collective framework, that of (generalized) public environmental policy. Private organizations may have ideas on what themes should constitute the impact assessment. It is the collective point of view that creates the relevance of LCA outcomes. The themes approach remained specifically Dutch for a short while only. It inspired environmental policy of the EU; see the historic survey by Liefferink (1997). It was incorporated in LCA in an operational manner beginning in the Nineties, as the Life Cycle Impact Assessment method now dominant in LCA, of course with additions and adaptations. In the US the themes approach was not dominant in environmental policy, with more emphasis there on CBA. That probably was the reason that the introduction of the themes approach in environmental LCA followed later there.

It is an open question now if and how Life Cycle Impact Assessment can be linked to environmental themes as goals of public policy. These goals might be – but need not be – the goals of a specific country or of the EU. Public policy goals set as targets, for example as emission reduction targets for a substance, lack the integrative power of the themes approach. Goals set as general welfare maximation lack the link to specific domains of action. Themes can make the link. Also because product systems and LCA increasingly become global, passing the policy goals of specific countries, the foundations for the themes in LCA impact assessment should be clarified.

1.4 Micro Applications of LCA Rising

The last decades have seen a startling rise in the production of LCAs. There are consultants in virtually all countries, many with an international orientation. Databases and software have become widely available. There also are interesting in-firm developments. Two Netherlands-based firms we happen to know have their internal LCA capacity well developed, Philips and Unilever. Procter and Gamble contributes a chapter to this book on their LCA operations. The Unilever example is enlightening. They regularly produce internal LCAs on virtually all of their products, having produced well over a thousand LCAs by now. They use the LCAs for product system improvement, reducing easily avoidable impacts. These may seem tiny per product, but may be substantial from a dynamic improvement point of view. Tea bags used to have zinc plated iron staples to connect the bag and the carton handle to the connecting thread. This gave a dominant contribution to the overall life cycle impact of the tea bag system. The staples were first replaced by a glue connection and in many cases now by a sewing connection. Such product system improvement forms the core of LCA use. However, when having so many equivalent LCAs, new more strategic applications become possible. Can strategies be developed to reduce environmental impact covering more than one product, with more general guidelines for product development? Such applications are now developing in Unilever, see the box. Similarly, Philips has developed strategic guidelines at an operational level regarding the use of materials, reducing the number in each product and phasing out those with the largest contribution to environmental impacts.

LCA, in its micro level application, is now a two decade-old success story. With all caveats following, we should not throw out the baby with the bath water. LCA is here to stay, and the child is still growing.

1.5 The Micro-Macro Divide

The core goal of environmental LCA as was established in the Nineties was to help improve environmental quality, with product policy – internalized, private, and also in public regulations – as one entry into environmental policy. That role is based on the assumption that improved micro environmental performance of a product-function system corresponds to an environmental improvement at the macro level. That macro level in principle is global society at large in its environmental impacts, as product systems increasingly span the world. When looking at the mechanisms that link shifts or developments in micro level behavior to macro level performance it is perfectly clear that there is no direct correspondence. Cycling as mode of transport has a minor fraction of the impacts of car transport per kilometer traveled, but also has a minor fraction of the costs. Some elements of this discrepancy may be covered by eco-efficiency analysis of these transport systems, expressing environmental impacts not per functional unit but per Euro spent. Such micro level scores don’t tell what the ultimate outcome of a shift to cycling in commuting will be. The income not spent on cars will be spent on something else, anything. The shift to cycling is also linked to a different spatial infrastructure, with different retail systems, different housing requirements, etc. Though one may be confident that this is all to the environmental good – there may be good reasons to believe so – that assessment is not just based on LCA. The analysis of the overall system effect can easily be set up in a way that cycling really is bad. If the income not spent on cars is assumed to be spent to a substantial degree on flight based holidays, the net environmental outcome of more cycling might well be negative. When reckoning with such behavioral mechanisms, the choice of mechanism will determine the outcome, quite haphazardly at the moment. So the question is if a strategy for analysis can be set up to include the most relevant mechanisms in an equitable way. The move towards consequential LCA is a possible step, but not the only one.

A core question is if dynamic, non-linear mechanisms can be incorporated in the comparative static or steady state framework of LCA, as consequential LCA. Or, should the micro level LCA technology system better be placed in a broader modeling system reckoning with income effects, dynamic market mechanisms, structural effects and constraints, and what more might be relevant? The modeling required definitely does not fit in the linear homogenous system of LCA based on matrix inversion for easy solutions. It seems wise to first investigate divergent cases with an open mind as to most relevant causalities, and to look into options for structured modeling later. Then a choice for micro-type consequential LCA might be substantiated, or not, or only for some applications.

1.6 Macro Level LCA for Policy Support

The use of LCA in public policy has been coming up, with an LCA-type of analysis being used. The domain of application of LCA has been that of specific product choices. However, the link to broader policy issues, never absent, seems on the rise. Biofuel, see below, is a major example, with unresolved discussion in the EU. The general feature of policy applications is that they should show how a change considered would work out, requiring an ex ante analysis of consequences of policy options, or an ex post analysis showing how a policy has worked out. In both cases we need to know ‘how the world would have been different.’ The functional unit with an arbitrary volume then is to be replaced by an analysis covering the total volumes. Policies tend to be set up in order to reach specified goals, not marginal effects of an unknown volume. Using traditional arbitrary-unit LCA for policy support assumes a correspondence between micro level LCA outcomes and macro level consequences for the choice at hand. This assumption should be substantiated. It also relates to the average versus marginal discussion, with causalities most easily established at a marginal level, but overall effects then requiring integration over all marginal changes, as increments. For substantiating the consequences of the policy choice at hand, the technical relations as covered in LCA should be part of the analysis, but also the broader behavioral mechanisms should be covered. If all mechanisms together come out negative, showing a rebound, simple LCA would have given the wrong advice.

A first step for the analysis is to place the choice in a framework of totals for society. Input-output analysis with environmental extensions can be set up in an LCA-type manner, with some details added to better cover the choice at hand. This hybrid analysis has come up as a theoretical tool, with one application related to the option of using fuel cell buses in urban transport, see Cantono et al. (2008). In the old Life Cycle Analysis of cost, the same link to input-output analysis was pointed out previously, see Staubus (1971). This IO framework allows one to specify one first secondary effect, the income effect. The higher cost of fuel cell buses replacing Diesel buses implies lower spending on other items, with lower environmental impacts there. However, this IO-analysis is static and cannot cover well broader causal mechanisms. Causal analysis can only be specified in time. It is the before-after analysis, of the situations with-and-without specific alternative policies. So the second step involves a dynamic analysis, of all mechanisms leading to the overall, the macro level, consequences.

The conclusion is that for supporting policy choices with macro level consequences the arbitrary functional unit based LCA will often be too narrow to give valid answers. A broader framework for analysis is then required.

1.7 Example Biofuels

In the biofuels discussion, all levels of questions come up. They range from small-step improvement options for a given biotechnology to produce biofuels; to the comparison between different fuels, including biofuels; and to an evaluation of a global shift towards a more biobased energy system. When looking at a small system, one may assume the changes to be so small that indirect effects are negligible. But the sum of all these small changes adds up to a substantial change. A small change in biomass demand for energy will have a small effect on biomass production and a small effect on energy prices. However, such effects are additive, and often non-linearly increasing. If biofuel is relevant, it has to be produced in substantial amounts. This also holds for the minor improvement in biotechnology. So, indirect effects cannot be ignored. A next option for simplified analysis is the assumption that all mechanisms not covered remain equal or do not influence the outcome. Both assumptions generally are not true in the case of bio-energy, see the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) study by Doornbosch and Steenblik (2008). These should be investigated empirically. A final option is to make assumptions on the rest of the world. One may assume, for example, that all additional biomass will come from barren lands not fit for food producing agriculture. This assumption is often present in studies on second and third generation biofuels. However, the use of fertile grounds will mostly be cheaper than barren grounds to produce biomass – that is why they were barren. In general, no mechanism exists to restrict biomass production for fuel to barren lands only. Therefore, to develop sound advice on biofuel choices we have to be comprehensive and cover ‘all relevant mechanisms.’

What might these relevant mechanisms be for biofuels? A first set of mechanisms relates to the markets more or less directly involved. In the US case of corn based ethanol (first generation) or stover-based ethanol (second generation), this involves the fodder and food markets for these products. Directly connected are other products for these markets, especially wheat. Also directly linked are changes in land use, more corn and wheat pressing out other staple products like soy beans, increasing the price of soy beans a well. These three staple crops function on global markets, so even if the bioethanol is US-produced the effects are really global, in principle affecting all crops globally. The overall agricultural effect will include somewhat higher prices, an intensification of agriculture, with also higher nitrous oxides emission affecting climate, and an increase in the volume of agricultural land use. Two studies have investigated the impact on additionally induced conversion of tropical rainforest into agricultural land; see Searchinger et al. (2008) and Fargione et al. (2008). These two studies differ in set-up and outcomes and cannot directly be connected to LCA-type studies. They show however that such global effects of biofuel production cannot be neglected. One mechanism not covered by these studies is a feedback in spatial policy as has taken place in Brazil and Indonesia, with strengthened legislation and strengthened power in implementation. This administrative reaction to US, and similar EU, biofuel policy will of course have longer term effects mainly. Some of these issues will be treated in a bit more detail by Guinée in a later chapter, as the framework for Life Cycle based Sustainability Analysis (LCSA).

So here we are, with old-fashioned types of LCA studies showing how attractive biofuels may be, and a range of induced mechanisms often being detrimental in an environmental sense, both on the shorter, longer and very long term. What to do? The only answer seems to be: get on the job, make a framework for analysis, start filling in the framework with conceptual models, and produce first order quantifications on environmental outcomes. On the way to specifying the mechanisms involved one will encounter major social effects as well, with rising food prices in cities (with riots and possibly a major effect on the uprisings in the Middle East) and with rising agricultural incomes all over the world, also for the poorest farmers. How to come to an overall evaluation of several divergent effects spread out in time will be a next problem to solve, involving all problems that have already been encountered in Cost Benefit Analysis, but often have not been not solved adequately yet.

1.8 Why Environmental LCA?

The early development of cost-oriented LCA had clear goals: reducing cost while improving performance. That driver remains, with cost analysis an essential element in management accounting.

Decision making on product systems developed in a period when planning and control was the dominant mode of organisation, with the “owner” having control over the supply chain. However, in the period that LCA emerged the planning concepts started to shift. When discussing chain management with the environmental officer of Nokia, there was a startling reaction: “How can we?” Nokia had a policy to have all their suppliers renewed through competitive bids every three months. But supply chain developments did not stop there. With globalisation large firms now tend to outsource production, with also chain management outsourced. Big brands do development and marketing and shift the production to the chain as much as possible, to reduce costs and risks. Exceptions are where consumers are the driving force for LCA, as with branded consumer products, especially food, and with special NGO action-based cases, like Nike.

The link with environmental-based public policy then becomes weaker, also because such theme- based approaches are less frequent in public policy making now, or at least shifting to new themes. There is a tendency to shift the analysis to applied subjects dominant in public discussion, like resources, energy, waste and land use. These however are not environmental impacts, but aspects of concern, for several reasons, including environmental ones. Resources are a supply problem mostly related to costs and to market failure, leading to nationalist policies to safeguard supply. The underlying depletion aspect, leading to increasing environmental impacts in primary production, would have been covered by the themes approach as in terms of acidification, climate change, etc. Similarly, energy is a concern also because of costs and supply security, hardly being environmental issues. There are more fossil fuel resources available than the earth can accommodate pleasantly for mankind. The climate issue was there already, and it still is. It does not require a special energy impact, although, of course, energy use plays a dominant role in the climate problem. Depending on the way exergy and heat are produced and used, and on the volumes involved, there will be environmental impacts in terms of the LCA themes, including climate change. The specification of ‘waste’ now tends to include waste to-be-processed, to focus on recycling issues, implying a system boundary not with the environment. When looking at the environmental issues covered in the public discussions on firms, there is a clear tendency to shift to domain-specific indicators in the chain, again leaving the principle of system definition to cover all processes to linking to the environment.

The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI, 2012) covers the environmental reporting of firms, especially multinational ones. They do not adhere to a themes approach and tend to apply indicators ‘within the system,’ to use traditional LCA terms. For example, there are customized indices for sectors like financial services, electric utilities, NGOs, food processing, mining & metals, airport operators, and construction & real estate. The reporting is to cover what to external parties is deemed relevant. There is no well-defined conceptual basis for specifying such concerns. The once globally dominant position of the EU in conceptualizing environmental policy seems to have been eroded. The environmental themes approach is no longer the dominant mode of goal setting in environmental policy in the EU, and it never has been in the US and Japan.

This shift in public and private concerns may have severe impacts on the development of LCA. With the impact assessment shifting to in-system subjects, system boundaries become less clearly defined, and the environmental issues of the themes approach are not covered by ‘full system analysis.’ The overall analytics of the impact assessment in terms of midpoints categories and endpoint categories is left with the new impacts of energy, resources and waste, very similar to the old ones of early LCA in the US in the Seventies.

Box 1.1 The Role of Life Cycle Assessment in Unilever (a Personal Account)

Back in 1991, Chris Dutilh, then Development and Environmental Manager of Unilever’s margarine company in the Netherlands (then called Van den Bergh & Jurgens) got approval from his Managing Director to hire someone to do Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). The undersigned was the lucky man. LCA in those days was an emerging concept. SETAC (Society for Environmental Technology and Chemistry) had taken the lead in methodology development. Application of LCA in food and agriculture had not really been done yet. But in the Netherlands the first Covenant on Packaging had been signed between industry and government. The Covenant called for voluntary reductions (on the part of industry) of packaging volumes used, and LCA seemed an appropriate tool to analyse various options.

   Between 1991 and 1993, I had the pleasure of conducting various LCAs of different packaging systems. Unilever Netherlands had taken the lead on the product group mayonnaise, mustard, jams and dressings (anything in jars and bottles that was not a drink). We used LCAs to investigate various options to reduce weight of glass jars (always good), switch from glass to plastics (not always straightforward), or change the cap material (very dependent on recycling options of the cap material). Glass recovery and recycling was already at rather high level in the Netherlands at the time (over 80% of packaging glass recovered, if memory serves me well). We also investigated a re-use scenario. One way glass packaging had been introduced some fifteen odd years before. The result of our scenario study (which was supported by the Unilever engineering department, to get the details of our glass jar washing plant as realistic as possible) was that reuse of glass jars had considerable environmental benefit, but also serious cost implications, mostly labour cost. In other words: negative environmental impact could be reduced by putting more labour in the supply chain.

   The work on LCA moved to Unilever R&D in Port Sunlight, UK, and became a department within Unilever’s Safety and Environmental Assurance Centre (SEAC). Over the years, dozens of LCA’s of Unilever products and supply chains were done. This experience came in handy when Unilever prepared its Sustainable Living Plan (launched in November 2010, see http://www.sustainable-living.unilever.com/). In the plan, Unilever focuses on carbon footprints and water footprints across the entire value chain. In order to calculate a baseline (2008), we performed LCAs on 1600 representative products, combined with consumer use data of 14 countries around the world. The combined outcome represents about 70% of Unilever’s sales value (which was 45 billion Euro in 2010). It showed us that of our carbon footprint, only 3% is in our own factories: 26% is upstream, with suppliers of our raw materials, 2% is in transport throughout the value chain, 1% is in post-consumer waste disposal, and a whopping 68% is in consumer use in the household.

   Performing LCAs has become part of everyday decision making in Unilever. We have learned many lessons, as a result.

   Dr. Jan Kees Vis

   Global Director Sustainable Sourcing Development

   Unilever R&D Vlaardingen

1.9 Overview of the Book

As we already mentioned, the last several decades have seen a dramatic rise in the application of LCA in decision making. The interest in the life cycle concept as an environmental management and sustainability tool continues to grow. This book was created to concisely and clearly present the various aspects of LCA in order to help the reader to better understand the subject. The content of the book was designed with a certain flow in mind. After a high level overview to describe current views and state-of-the-practice of LCA, it presents chapters that address specific LCA methodological issues. These are followed by example applications of LCA. Finally, the book concludes with chapters that link LCA and responsible decision making and how the life cycle concept is a critical element in environmental sustainability.

1.9.1 Methodology and Current State of LCA Practice

The book continues with an “Overview of the Life Cycle Assessment Method – Past and Future” in which Heijungs and Guinée describe at a conceptual level the methodology and current state of LCA practice. The chapter also explores present developments that are influencing the evolving method. Detailed discussions on methodology are given in the chapters by Sauer on life cycle inventory (LCI) and by Margni and Curran on life cycle impact assessment (LCIA).

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) relies heavily on both data and software. Reliable data is the driving force behind LCA as large amounts of process and production data are needed. The chapter by Curran on sourcing inventory data discusses historical and current practices in sourcing LCI data and proposes futuristic approaches for reporting process inventory data, including manufacturer self-reporting, using open-source models. Ciroth explores currently available LCA software and highlights the current status and trends for LCA software into the future.

1.9.2 LCA Applications

Through a range of case studies, authors explore how typical methodological issues have been treated and managed in various example applications. Of growing interest is how to model bio-based systems. In “Modeling the Agri-Food Industry with LCA” Notarnicola, Tassielli, and Renzulli emphasize the need for a harmonized framework for conducting food-related LCAs and for collecting and reporting data for agri-food chains in both agricultural and industrial applications.

Landers, Urban and Bakshi note many engineering analyses undervalue or completely ignore the ecosystem goods and services that are essential to all human activities, such as fresh water, soil, carbon and nitrogen cycles, and pollination, and propose a framework that more accurately accounts for them. They present a case study that compares different ecosystem services using exergy and emergy analysis and highlight the importance of “Accounting for Ecosystem Goods and Services in LCA and Process Design.”

In exploring how Fortune 100 companies can better manage the supply chain and improve a product manufacturer’s sustainability metrics, Weisbrod and Loftus of Procter and Gamble present “A Case Study of the Practice of Sustainable Supply Chain Management.” P&G’s sustainable supply chain management program, through collaboration with supply chain partners, enabled the company to link environmental sustainability and social responsibility with business operations and values.

Two chapters look closely at specific aspects of materials management throughout the life cycle. Weitz discusses “End of Life Materials Management” and how taking a life-cycle perspective encourages waste planners to consider the environmental aspects of the entire system including activities that occur outside of the traditional activities of waste disposal. Similarly, but at the other end of the life cycle, environmental impacts of the mining and minerals processing sectors are often inadequately reflected in LCAs. In “Application of LCA in Mining and Minerals Processing” Stewart, Holt and Rouwette describe how LCA is being used in the mining and minerals sector and indicate where LCA needs to be refined to meet the needs of the industry.

Other areas of LCA application are provided in chapters on forest products by Bolin; building systems by Todd; product innovation by daSilva; food waste and packaging by Hanssen, Møller, Svanes and Schakenda; and sustainable chemistry & engineering by Hunter, Helling, and Shiang.

1.9.3 LCA Supports Decision Making and Sustainability

Subsequent chapters then broaden the scope of the book by exploring how LCA can be integrated with economic and social aspects of sustainability to provide a deeper analysis that encompasses relevant dynamic mechanisms. In this vein, Potting, Gheewala, Bonnet, and van Buuren look at four assessment methods associated with human health and environmental impacts (Technology Assessment, Environmental Impact Assessment, Risk Assessment, and LCA) to provide guidance to stakeholders on when to use what assessment method. Prado, Rogers, and Seager also give a critical eye to the interpretation of impacts, specifically how normalization and valuation are applied in the decision making process.

Benoît Norris dedicates a chapter to the newer, fast growing area of social LCA methodology, and why it should be of interest to decision makers along with environmental assessment approaches. Building on social LCA and considering the cost aspect along with LCA, Zamagni, Guinée, Heijungs and Masoni present a framework for “Life Cycle Sustainability Analysis.” LCSA is intended to deepen the scope of analyses by integrating physical, social, economic, cultural, institutional and political considerations into the decision making process. Stevenson and Ingwersen explore environmental product claims that range from simple product characteristic claims made by manufacturers to those based on full LCA with additional metrics

1.9.4 Operationalizing LCA

The final chapters offer a look at the role that life cycle information, in the hands of companies, governments and consumers, may have in improving the environmental performance of products and technologies

LCA practitioners in developed countries struggle to keep up with demand of their services. Developing countries and emerging economies are even less capable of harnessing the potential in LCA for sustainable development. In “Building Capacity for Life Cycle Assessment in Developing Countries” Toolsearam addresses the critical issue of building a critical mass of mass of people with the right capacities in LCA in less developed regions of the world.

Internationally, the success of the sustainability paradigm needs the participation of many stakeholders, including citizens, corporations, academia, and NGOs. Governments in particular play a very important role with the leverage they have through procurement, regulation, international treaties, tax incentives, public outreach, and other policy tools. In “Environmental Accountability: A New Paradigm for World Trade is Emerging,” Ngo presents her view of a shifting world paradigm where LCA is the foundation of decision-making in regulation and commerce, and poses a number of opportunities and challenges.

And finally, Fava provides personal reflections on how “Life Cycle Information Informs Greener Products.” He points to a trend for incorporating life cycle information into the design and development processes for products and policies, just as quality and safety concerns are now addressed throughout product design and development. He cautions that while recent trends suggest that integration of LCA into all manner of decision making will continue to increase, we must act, by providing education and improved tools and databases, to ensure that it does.

References

Cantono, S., R. Heijungs and R. Kleijn (2008). “Environmental accounting of eco-innovations through environmental input-output analysis: the case of hydrogen and fuel cell buses.” Economic Systems Research 20(3): 303–318.

Dhillon, B.S. (1989). Life Cycle Costing: Techniques, Models and Applications. New York: Gordon and Breach.

Doombosch, R., and R. Steenblik (2007). Biofuels: is the cure worse than the disease? Round Table on Sustainable Development, OECD, Paris. Available at: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/9/3/39411732.pdf, accessed January 2012.

Executive Order 20503 (1971). Quality of Life. Executive Office of the President Office of Management and Budget, Washington 20503, October 5, 1971. Accessed 13 January 2012 at: http://www.thecre.com/ombpapers/QualityofLifel.htm.

Fargione, J., J. Hill, D. Tilman, S. Polasky, and P. Hawthorne (2008). “Land Clearing and the Biofuel Carbon Debt.” Sciencexpress, 7 February 2008, science.1152747.

Fiorello, Marco R. (1975). Problems in Avionics Life-Cycle Analysis. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 1973. http://www.rand.org/pubs/papers/P5136. Also available in print form.

Gupta, Yash, and Wing Sing Chow (1985). “Twenty-Five Years of Life Cycle Costing – Theory and Applications: A Survey.” International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 2, Issue 3, pp.51–76.

Hunt, Robert G., William E. Franklin, and R.G. Hunt (1996). “LCA- How it came about. Personal reflections on the origin and the development of LCA in the USA.” International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment Vol. 1, Nr 1, pp.4–7, DOI: 10.1007/BF02978624.

Huppes, Gjalt, Martijn van Rooijen, René Kleijn, Reinout Heijungs, Arjan de Koning, and Lauran van Oers (2004). Life Cycle Costing and the Environment. Available at: http://www.rivm.nl/milieuportaal/images/Report%20LCC%20April%20%202004%20final.pdf (accessed January 2012).

Klöpffer, Walter (2006). “The Role of SETAC in the Development of LCA.” International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, Volume 11, Supplement 1, 116–122, DOI: 10.1065/lca2006.04.019.

Liefferink, Duncan (1997). “The Netherlands: a net exporter of environmental policy concepts.” Chapter 5 in: Mikael Skou Andersen and Duncan Liefferink (1997). European environmental policy; the pioneers. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Marks, K.E. and H.G. Massey (1971). Life Cycle Analysis Procedures and Techniques: an Appraisal and Suggestions For Future Research. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation, ADA132027.

Novick, David (1959). The federal budget as an indicator of government intentions and the implications of intentions. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation, publication P-1803. A summary is in the Journal of the American Statistical Association, Vol. 55, No. 290, June 1960.

Roo, Gert de (2003). Environmental planning in the Netherlands: too good to be true. From command-and-control planning to shared governance. Farnham: Ashgate, ISBN: 978-0-7546-3845-2.

Searchinger, T., R. Heimlich, R.A. Houghton, F. Dong, A. Elobeid, J. Fabiosa, S. Tokgoz, D. Hayes, and T.H. Yu (2008). “Use of U.S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases Through Emissions from Land Use Change.” Sciencexpress, 7 February 2008, science.1151861.

Staubus, G. (1971). Activity Costing and Input-Output Accounting. Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin.

Winsemius, Pieter (1990). Guests in our own home: thoughts on environmental management. McKinsey & Company. Translation of: Gast in Eigen Huis (1986). Alphen aan den Rijn: Samsom H.D. Tjeenk Willink.

*The views expressed in this chapter are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the US Environmental Protection Agency.

Chapter 2

An Overview of the Life Cycle Assessment Method – Past, Present, and Future

Reinout Heijungs and Jeroen B. Guinée

Institute of Environmental Sciences (CML), Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands

Abstract

This chapter gives an overview of the mainstream method behind Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). It does so on the basis of the generally accepted principles, canonized by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). The first part of the chapter is an overview devoted to the method itself and the current state of the practice. The second part provides a sketch of the historical development that led toward the method. The chapter concludes with a description of present developments that are influencing the evolving method.