47
which unfortunately resulted in divergence in methods again. New approaches were
developed with respect to system boundaries and allocation methods (e.g. consequential LCA; see also Chap. 2 of this book), dynamic LCA, spatially differentiated
LCA, environmental input–output-based LCA (EIO-LCA) and hybrid LCA. On top
of this, various life cycle costing (LCC) and social life cycle assessment (SLCA)
approaches were proposed and/or developed. This broadening of environmental
LCA to LCC and SLCA draws on the three-pillar (or triple bottom line, TBL) model
of sustainability, distinguishing environmental, economic and social impacts of
product systems along their life cycle. The original conception of LCA only dealt
with the environmental or ecological component, whereas with these latter developments, LCA broadened itself from a merely environmental LCA to a more comprehensive life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA).
1 This broadening is consistent
with developments in IE, for which sustainability and the three-pillar model are
principal motivations (Allenby 1999 ; Graedel and Allenby 1999 ).
As a matter of course, a subject section was formed within the International Society
for Industrial Ecology (ISIE) in 2011, to focus on life cycle assessment (LCA) as currently existing and on life cycle sustainability analysis (LCSA) as a direction in which
LCA was developing. Meanwhile several journals have opened up special sections on
LCSA, clearly confi rming that we are in the middle of the ‘LCSA age’.
While several researchers have proposed defi nitions and methods for LCSA over
the past recent years, many practitioners are still left in confusion on what LCSA
exactly is, what its methods are and when to apply what. An interesting question
therefore is what are LCSA practitioners doing in practice? We distinguished two
sub-questions:
• Which defi nition(s) do they adopt?
• What challenges do they face?
In this chapter, these questions will be addressed by fi rst discussing two different
defi nitions of LCSA and the interpretations of sustainability that these defi nitions
are grounded in and then analysing the LCSA research published over the past half
decade replenished by inputs from members of the ISIE-LCSA section
2 on adopted
defi nitions of LCSA and main challenges faced. We will conclude with our top three
of the main challenges.
3
1 Sometimes LCSA is taken as life cycle sustainability analysis. For a discussion on the different
reasons for adopting assessment or analysis, we here refer to Zamagni et al. ( 2009 ) and Sala et al.
( 2013b ). Here we adopt assessment to stay close to the ISO defi nition of LCA.
2 In order to learn what exactly the understanding of LCSA is by members of the ISIE-LCSA
section, a questionnaire was issued. All members were invited through the section’s electronic
platform and through e-mail invitations to provide their views on:
1. Their (preferred) defi nition of life cycle sustainability assessment
2. Their top three of (scientifi c and/or practical) challenges for LCSA
Seventeen people reacted on this invitation and their inputs are gratefully used below.
3 Note that this does not imply that there are no other challenges; it just refl ects the author’s top three.
3 Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment: What Is It and What Are Its Challenges?
which unfortunately resulted in divergence in methods again. New approaches were
developed with respect to system boundaries and allocation methods (e.g. consequential LCA; see also Chap. 2 of this book), dynamic LCA, spatially differentiated
LCA, environmental input–output-based LCA (EIO-LCA) and hybrid LCA. On top
of this, various life cycle costing (LCC) and social life cycle assessment (SLCA)
approaches were proposed and/or developed. This broadening of environmental
LCA to LCC and SLCA draws on the three-pillar (or triple bottom line, TBL) model
of sustainability, distinguishing environmental, economic and social impacts of
product systems along their life cycle. The original conception of LCA only dealt
with the environmental or ecological component, whereas with these latter developments, LCA broadened itself from a merely environmental LCA to a more comprehensive life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA).
1 This broadening is consistent
with developments in IE, for which sustainability and the three-pillar model are
principal motivations (Allenby 1999 ; Graedel and Allenby 1999 ).
As a matter of course, a subject section was formed within the International Society
for Industrial Ecology (ISIE) in 2011, to focus on life cycle assessment (LCA) as currently existing and on life cycle sustainability analysis (LCSA) as a direction in which
LCA was developing. Meanwhile several journals have opened up special sections on
LCSA, clearly confi rming that we are in the middle of the ‘LCSA age’.
While several researchers have proposed defi nitions and methods for LCSA over
the past recent years, many practitioners are still left in confusion on what LCSA
exactly is, what its methods are and when to apply what. An interesting question
therefore is what are LCSA practitioners doing in practice? We distinguished two
sub-questions:
• Which defi nition(s) do they adopt?
• What challenges do they face?
In this chapter, these questions will be addressed by fi rst discussing two different
defi nitions of LCSA and the interpretations of sustainability that these defi nitions
are grounded in and then analysing the LCSA research published over the past half
decade replenished by inputs from members of the ISIE-LCSA section
2 on adopted
defi nitions of LCSA and main challenges faced. We will conclude with our top three
of the main challenges.
3
1 Sometimes LCSA is taken as life cycle sustainability analysis. For a discussion on the different
reasons for adopting assessment or analysis, we here refer to Zamagni et al. ( 2009 ) and Sala et al.
( 2013b ). Here we adopt assessment to stay close to the ISO defi nition of LCA.
2 In order to learn what exactly the understanding of LCSA is by members of the ISIE-LCSA
section, a questionnaire was issued. All members were invited through the section’s electronic
platform and through e-mail invitations to provide their views on:
1. Their (preferred) defi nition of life cycle sustainability assessment
2. Their top three of (scientifi c and/or practical) challenges for LCSA
Seventeen people reacted on this invitation and their inputs are gratefully used below.
3 Note that this does not imply that there are no other challenges; it just refl ects the author’s top three.
3 Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment: What Is It and What Are Its Challenges?