280 A. Brekke et al.
which could potentially result in a life cycle sustainability assessment, where
all aspects of sustainability are ideally covered (Sala et al., 2016, p. 9).
In reality, however, social LCA (S- LCA) is in an early stage of development and there is still a large need to define the relevant impact categories
and indicators to quantify the social dimension. There is also a question of
whether all social issues should be quantified, or if qualitative information is
sufficient for governance. Still, the LCA framework can be useful to identify
which people in which locations are affected by a decision.
Life cycle costing has followed a different path of development than LCA
and although many LCA practitioners are trying to merge the two, there are
also other scientists and practitioners developing life cycle costing in other
directions. This means that system boundaries and data might be incompatible
and the two cannot be put in the same equation proposed by Kloepffer
(2008).
Here, the emphasis is placed on possible pitfalls related to social LCA and
life cycle costing. One should be aware, however, that the models used to
assess various environmental impacts in LCA are also in different stages of
development. While the impact assessment models for climate change and
acidification, for example, are mature and give results with small uncertainties, other impact assessment models, for instance for toxicity from heavy
metals or ocean acidification, are in an early stage of development.
Scientific communities will most likely continue to expand models to
include more possible impacts, and public and private policymakers who, for
instance, work with the UN Sustainable Development Goals (United
Nations, 2015) back this trend.
LCA as a method can provide a calculation procedure to give a result as an
output. Just as important in terms of governance are, however, the discussions
relating to specific methodological issues. These discussions reveal important
aspects of society where science is unable to produce a clear- cut answer.
There is, however, also the opportunity for life cycle principles to guide governance on a more general level than as results and methods – namely as a
mindset or worldview.
There is, for instance, no single correct way to define the functional unit,
but one might learn something about what functions we ask for and how
they can be fulfilled when trying to put the functional unit into words. Similarly, there is no correct way to perform allocation, but the attempt at allocating displays features of the industrial system of relevance for governance.
How much credit should the production of biofuels get for the simultaneous
production of by- products? Furthermore, the choice between attributional
and consequential LCA is not a choice between the better type of method to
apply but rather the outcome of a conscious process towards defining the
information one wants.
which could potentially result in a life cycle sustainability assessment, where
all aspects of sustainability are ideally covered (Sala et al., 2016, p. 9).
In reality, however, social LCA (S- LCA) is in an early stage of development and there is still a large need to define the relevant impact categories
and indicators to quantify the social dimension. There is also a question of
whether all social issues should be quantified, or if qualitative information is
sufficient for governance. Still, the LCA framework can be useful to identify
which people in which locations are affected by a decision.
Life cycle costing has followed a different path of development than LCA
and although many LCA practitioners are trying to merge the two, there are
also other scientists and practitioners developing life cycle costing in other
directions. This means that system boundaries and data might be incompatible
and the two cannot be put in the same equation proposed by Kloepffer
(2008).
Here, the emphasis is placed on possible pitfalls related to social LCA and
life cycle costing. One should be aware, however, that the models used to
assess various environmental impacts in LCA are also in different stages of
development. While the impact assessment models for climate change and
acidification, for example, are mature and give results with small uncertainties, other impact assessment models, for instance for toxicity from heavy
metals or ocean acidification, are in an early stage of development.
Scientific communities will most likely continue to expand models to
include more possible impacts, and public and private policymakers who, for
instance, work with the UN Sustainable Development Goals (United
Nations, 2015) back this trend.
LCA as a method can provide a calculation procedure to give a result as an
output. Just as important in terms of governance are, however, the discussions
relating to specific methodological issues. These discussions reveal important
aspects of society where science is unable to produce a clear- cut answer.
There is, however, also the opportunity for life cycle principles to guide governance on a more general level than as results and methods – namely as a
mindset or worldview.
There is, for instance, no single correct way to define the functional unit,
but one might learn something about what functions we ask for and how
they can be fulfilled when trying to put the functional unit into words. Similarly, there is no correct way to perform allocation, but the attempt at allocating displays features of the industrial system of relevance for governance.
How much credit should the production of biofuels get for the simultaneous
production of by- products? Furthermore, the choice between attributional
and consequential LCA is not a choice between the better type of method to
apply but rather the outcome of a conscious process towards defining the
information one wants.