64
4 Life Cycle Assessment: Nice to Have or Essential …
The WDF has much in common with the RDF. Following this idea, one can easily
formulate a suite of environmental footprints which characterize the extractions or
emissions through their respective contributions to specific impact categories in a
consistent manner. However, although the LCA community has taken an important
step in characterizing multiple impact categories, the discrepancy between different
characterization models for the same substance and impact category is still large. To
fill in this gap, a lot of work needs to be done in the future.
4.2.3 Summary
As such, we underline the wide application and good performance of LCA in footprint
studies and, in turn, of the usefulness of footprint principles in LCA studies. It is
widely accepted that the product carbon footprint (PCF) or a broader PEF should be
based on LCA. LCA is typically an integrative approach in two ways: it covers many
types of impacts, and it covers the full life cycle. The full life cycle is analyzed to
make sure there is no problem shifting from the use phase to the production phase or
the disposal phase. The same is true for the broad spectrum of impacts: it is needed
to ensure a more complete picture and prevent sub-optimization. Restricting an LCA
to a PCF potentially creates blind spots where problem shifting can occur. Extending
a PCF with more impact categories to obtain a full PEF is therefore a natural step.
4.3 On the Limitations of LCA for Environmental
Footprints: A Case Study of OEF
In their recent article, Ridoutt and Pfister (2013) call for an integrated family of
footprint indicators, for which they highlighted the imperative of a “universal” footprint definition that is entirely based on LCA. That is to say, footprints which are
not consistent with a comprehensive LCA (including the description of the goal and
scope, inventory analysis, impact assessment, and the interpretation of the inventory
and impact assessment results) should be disqualified from the footprint family. We
believe that Ridoutt and Pfister overestimated the necessity of LCA to support the
establishment of footprints in general or of a footprint family. There are more footprints than product footprints and national footprints. An important and upcoming
type is the footprint of an organization (such as a company or an enterprise). In a
policy context, the OEF has been described as based on a life cycle (Chomkhamsri
and Pelletier 2011; European Commission (EC 2015a), without any motivation. We
are concerned that such unfounded claims are reinforced by Ridoutt and Pfister,
again without proper justification. It is our conviction that a life cycle-based OEF is
4 Life Cycle Assessment: Nice to Have or Essential …
The WDF has much in common with the RDF. Following this idea, one can easily
formulate a suite of environmental footprints which characterize the extractions or
emissions through their respective contributions to specific impact categories in a
consistent manner. However, although the LCA community has taken an important
step in characterizing multiple impact categories, the discrepancy between different
characterization models for the same substance and impact category is still large. To
fill in this gap, a lot of work needs to be done in the future.
4.2.3 Summary
As such, we underline the wide application and good performance of LCA in footprint
studies and, in turn, of the usefulness of footprint principles in LCA studies. It is
widely accepted that the product carbon footprint (PCF) or a broader PEF should be
based on LCA. LCA is typically an integrative approach in two ways: it covers many
types of impacts, and it covers the full life cycle. The full life cycle is analyzed to
make sure there is no problem shifting from the use phase to the production phase or
the disposal phase. The same is true for the broad spectrum of impacts: it is needed
to ensure a more complete picture and prevent sub-optimization. Restricting an LCA
to a PCF potentially creates blind spots where problem shifting can occur. Extending
a PCF with more impact categories to obtain a full PEF is therefore a natural step.
4.3 On the Limitations of LCA for Environmental
Footprints: A Case Study of OEF
In their recent article, Ridoutt and Pfister (2013) call for an integrated family of
footprint indicators, for which they highlighted the imperative of a “universal” footprint definition that is entirely based on LCA. That is to say, footprints which are
not consistent with a comprehensive LCA (including the description of the goal and
scope, inventory analysis, impact assessment, and the interpretation of the inventory
and impact assessment results) should be disqualified from the footprint family. We
believe that Ridoutt and Pfister overestimated the necessity of LCA to support the
establishment of footprints in general or of a footprint family. There are more footprints than product footprints and national footprints. An important and upcoming
type is the footprint of an organization (such as a company or an enterprise). In a
policy context, the OEF has been described as based on a life cycle (Chomkhamsri
and Pelletier 2011; European Commission (EC 2015a), without any motivation. We
are concerned that such unfounded claims are reinforced by Ridoutt and Pfister,
again without proper justification. It is our conviction that a life cycle-based OEF is