Life cycle assessment 287
with other methodologies and types of information such as multi- criteria analysis (Koroneos, Nanaki, Dimitrios & Krokida, 2013) and geographic
information systems (Hiloidhari et al., 2017).
As an alternative to expanding the scope of LCA, a different approach to
LCA in governance and policymaking is to treat different methodologies as
complementary and allow a multiplicity of perspectives before making the
decision. As an example, Mancini, Benini and Sala (2015) compared three
approaches: material flow analysis (MFA), LCA and “resource critical”-based
impact accounting for a better- informed and science- based decision- making.
The future for LCA in governance could thus take different and perhaps multiple paths.
14.6 Conclusions
The role of LCA as a tool for indicating which activities are more or less sustainable can be valuable in governing a transition towards a circular bioeconomy. It comes, however, with both opportunities and pitfalls. Viewing LCA
as results, as a method and as a mindset has revealed different potential
applications of LCA in relation to governance, and all three dimensions can
be useful when applied to provide the right kind of support and to answer
suitable questions. As LCA offers quantitative results, these can be used
directly to benchmark products in order to choose less impacting alternatives.
This dimension, however, blurs important methodological choices made, and
more knowledge about the method applied can also provide broader knowledge on the issues, potential trade- offs and uncertainties at play. On a more
general level, ideas based on life cycle thinking can guide governance towards
certain patterns and priorities such as ideas of circular resource flows in a
circular bioeconomy. Although LCA is based on life cycle thinking, following up broad ideas such as a future circular economy with quantitative assessments brings various methodological challenges to the method of LCA,
which also reflect on results. In addition to this, LCA in relation to governance faces the challenge of providing robust and holistic grounds for decisionmaking while at the same time facing restrictions and uncertainties in terms of
the data used, methodological choices made and challenges in broadening the
scope to include several types of environmental impacts and both economic
and social dimensions of sustainability. While it is clear that LCA for governance is not a simple project, it is also clear that the opportunities at hand can
offer valuable guidance in transitions towards more sustainable modes of
organising human activities, such as a circular bioeconomy.
Note
1 Although the number of environmental impact categories in general has grown,
there has also been an increase in studies focusing on a single indicator, with climate
change at the top of the list. Trends in impact categories’ selection follow the
general societal focus on adverse environmental issues.
with other methodologies and types of information such as multi- criteria analysis (Koroneos, Nanaki, Dimitrios & Krokida, 2013) and geographic
information systems (Hiloidhari et al., 2017).
As an alternative to expanding the scope of LCA, a different approach to
LCA in governance and policymaking is to treat different methodologies as
complementary and allow a multiplicity of perspectives before making the
decision. As an example, Mancini, Benini and Sala (2015) compared three
approaches: material flow analysis (MFA), LCA and “resource critical”-based
impact accounting for a better- informed and science- based decision- making.
The future for LCA in governance could thus take different and perhaps multiple paths.
14.6 Conclusions
The role of LCA as a tool for indicating which activities are more or less sustainable can be valuable in governing a transition towards a circular bioeconomy. It comes, however, with both opportunities and pitfalls. Viewing LCA
as results, as a method and as a mindset has revealed different potential
applications of LCA in relation to governance, and all three dimensions can
be useful when applied to provide the right kind of support and to answer
suitable questions. As LCA offers quantitative results, these can be used
directly to benchmark products in order to choose less impacting alternatives.
This dimension, however, blurs important methodological choices made, and
more knowledge about the method applied can also provide broader knowledge on the issues, potential trade- offs and uncertainties at play. On a more
general level, ideas based on life cycle thinking can guide governance towards
certain patterns and priorities such as ideas of circular resource flows in a
circular bioeconomy. Although LCA is based on life cycle thinking, following up broad ideas such as a future circular economy with quantitative assessments brings various methodological challenges to the method of LCA,
which also reflect on results. In addition to this, LCA in relation to governance faces the challenge of providing robust and holistic grounds for decisionmaking while at the same time facing restrictions and uncertainties in terms of
the data used, methodological choices made and challenges in broadening the
scope to include several types of environmental impacts and both economic
and social dimensions of sustainability. While it is clear that LCA for governance is not a simple project, it is also clear that the opportunities at hand can
offer valuable guidance in transitions towards more sustainable modes of
organising human activities, such as a circular bioeconomy.
Note
1 Although the number of environmental impact categories in general has grown,
there has also been an increase in studies focusing on a single indicator, with climate
change at the top of the list. Trends in impact categories’ selection follow the
general societal focus on adverse environmental issues.