4.3 On the Limitations of LCA for Environmental Footprints: A Case Study of OEF
65
likely subject to overcounting. We illustrate this with a brief example. Suppose we
calculate the life cycle-based OEF of a copper wire manufacturer. It will be based on
cradle-to-gate impacts of its copper wire. Just a few street blocks further, a manufacturer of electrical equipment is using copper wire from the first company. The life
cycle-based OEF of the second company will include all cradle-to-gate impacts of
its materials, so also of the copper wire. This means that the OEFs of the two plants
add to a too big number because we are double-counting the impacts of copper wire.
The sum of the parts is bigger than the total; that is a truly holistic LCA! A similar
argument was made in the context of product LCAs by Cullen and Allwood (2009).
If one includes the upstream impacts in an organization’s footprint, a retailer’s
footprint will be very high. Likewise, a company that just transports or sells energy
(such as a transmission network company or a gas station) would have an excessively large footprint. On the other hand, flexible permission is given by the EC
(2015b) either to include or exclude downstream activities could perhaps avoid
double-counting, but also add uncertain and arbitrary results. There is a need to
understand the risks to the environment and investors while recognizing that multiple
stakeholders have different needs (Marland et al. 2013). This illustrates a very important point, where LCA can be used only for the final consumers in an economy
(Lenzen et al. 2007), rather than for those which serve as both upstream consumers
and downstream producers. The solution is to look at the added footprint instead of
the life cycle footprint, much as an economist looks at the added value. To find the
added footprint of an organization, we must subtract the cradle-to-gate impacts of the
inputs from the cradle-to-gate impacts of the outputs, just like a business economist
calculates the value added by subtracting the cost of the inputs from that of the
outputs. Thus, we can elegantly formulate our framework as:
O E F =
P E F out −
P E F in
(4.1)
Notice that this formula contains two LCA-based expressions to calculate the
OEF. In this sense, therefore, the OEF could be argued to be based on LCA or even
doubly so. But notice well that the OEF is defined as a difference between two PEFs,
so all overlapping parts of the life cycle are effectively removed.
In conclusion, there is still room for a footprint family without a life cycle
approach. Obviously, the definition of the indicators, in terms of how resources and/or
emissions are combined into footprints, needs to be aligned between life cycle-based
and non-life cycle-based footprints, so between the PEF and the OEF. It would be
strange to have a different global warming potential list when doing a PEF and an
OEF. In fact, by defining the OEF in terms of a difference between life cycle-based
PEFs, a natural harmonization, in terms of method and scope, is achieved.
65
likely subject to overcounting. We illustrate this with a brief example. Suppose we
calculate the life cycle-based OEF of a copper wire manufacturer. It will be based on
cradle-to-gate impacts of its copper wire. Just a few street blocks further, a manufacturer of electrical equipment is using copper wire from the first company. The life
cycle-based OEF of the second company will include all cradle-to-gate impacts of
its materials, so also of the copper wire. This means that the OEFs of the two plants
add to a too big number because we are double-counting the impacts of copper wire.
The sum of the parts is bigger than the total; that is a truly holistic LCA! A similar
argument was made in the context of product LCAs by Cullen and Allwood (2009).
If one includes the upstream impacts in an organization’s footprint, a retailer’s
footprint will be very high. Likewise, a company that just transports or sells energy
(such as a transmission network company or a gas station) would have an excessively large footprint. On the other hand, flexible permission is given by the EC
(2015b) either to include or exclude downstream activities could perhaps avoid
double-counting, but also add uncertain and arbitrary results. There is a need to
understand the risks to the environment and investors while recognizing that multiple
stakeholders have different needs (Marland et al. 2013). This illustrates a very important point, where LCA can be used only for the final consumers in an economy
(Lenzen et al. 2007), rather than for those which serve as both upstream consumers
and downstream producers. The solution is to look at the added footprint instead of
the life cycle footprint, much as an economist looks at the added value. To find the
added footprint of an organization, we must subtract the cradle-to-gate impacts of the
inputs from the cradle-to-gate impacts of the outputs, just like a business economist
calculates the value added by subtracting the cost of the inputs from that of the
outputs. Thus, we can elegantly formulate our framework as:
O E F =
P E F out −
P E F in
(4.1)
Notice that this formula contains two LCA-based expressions to calculate the
OEF. In this sense, therefore, the OEF could be argued to be based on LCA or even
doubly so. But notice well that the OEF is defined as a difference between two PEFs,
so all overlapping parts of the life cycle are effectively removed.
In conclusion, there is still room for a footprint family without a life cycle
approach. Obviously, the definition of the indicators, in terms of how resources and/or
emissions are combined into footprints, needs to be aligned between life cycle-based
and non-life cycle-based footprints, so between the PEF and the OEF. It would be
strange to have a different global warming potential list when doing a PEF and an
OEF. In fact, by defining the OEF in terms of a difference between life cycle-based
PEFs, a natural harmonization, in terms of method and scope, is achieved.