48
2 Defi nitions of LCSA
Defi nitions of LCSA are not yet carved in a stone. The fi rst use of the term LCSA
was by Zhou et al. ( 2007 ), but they only addressed climate change and resource
depletion impacts in their LCA and combined it with an LCC, which doesn’t fully
comply with the three-pillar model. Shortly after Zhou et al. ( 2007 ), Klöpffer and
Renner ( 2007 ; see also Klöpffer 2008 ) provided a defi nition of LCSA, and later on,
Guinée et al. ( 2011 ) built on that defi nition. Thus today, at least two defi nitions of
LCSA exist:
• Klöpffer and Renner ( 2007 ; see also Klöpffer 2008 ): ‘Given the widespread
acceptance of the [triple bottom line] model, it is rather straightforward to propose the following scheme for Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA):
LCSA = LCA + LCC + SLCA, where LCA is the SETAC/ISO environmental Life
Cycle Assessment, LCC is an LCA-type (‘environmental’) Life Cycle Costing
assessment and SLCA stands for societal or social Life Cycle Assessment’.
According to this defi nition, LCSA thus broadens ISO-LCA to also include economic and social aspects adopting a life cycle approach. Klöpffer ( 2003 ) already
argued for combining LCA with LCC and SLCA, but he did not use the term
LCSA at that time. As mentioned by Klöpffer and Renner, this TBL-based life
cycle approach was earlier introduced by the German Oeko-Institut in a method
called ‘Produktlinienanalyse’ in 1987 (Projektgruppe ökologische Wirtschaft
1987 ).
• Guinée et al. ( 2011 ): LCSA links ‘life cycle sustainability questions to knowledge needed for addressing them, identifying available knowledge and related
models, knowledge gaps and defi ning research programs to fi ll these gaps. […]
It broadens the scope of current LCA from mainly environmental impacts only
to covering all three dimensions of sustainability (people, planet and prosperity).
It also broadens the object (or level) of analysis from predominantly productrelated questions (product level) to questions related to sector (sector level) or
even economy-wide levels (economy level). In addition, it deepens current LCA
to also include other than just technological relations, e.g. physical relations
(including limitations in available resources and land), economic and behavioural relations, etc. […] LCSA is a trans-disciplinary framework for integration
of models rather than a model in itself. LCSA works with a plethora of disciplinary models and guides selecting the proper ones, given a specifi c sustainability
question’.
Guinée et al. ( 2011 ) basically adopted the defi nition by Klöpffer and Renner
( 2007 ) but added two dimensions and called it a framework rather than a method in
itself. Based on these two defi nitions, we can thus distinguish between three dimensions along which LCSA expands when compared to (environmental) LCA:
1. Broadening of impacts: LCSA = LCA + LCC + SLCA
2. Broadening level of analysis: product-, sector- and economy-wide questions and
analyses
J. Guinée
2 Defi nitions of LCSA
Defi nitions of LCSA are not yet carved in a stone. The fi rst use of the term LCSA
was by Zhou et al. ( 2007 ), but they only addressed climate change and resource
depletion impacts in their LCA and combined it with an LCC, which doesn’t fully
comply with the three-pillar model. Shortly after Zhou et al. ( 2007 ), Klöpffer and
Renner ( 2007 ; see also Klöpffer 2008 ) provided a defi nition of LCSA, and later on,
Guinée et al. ( 2011 ) built on that defi nition. Thus today, at least two defi nitions of
LCSA exist:
• Klöpffer and Renner ( 2007 ; see also Klöpffer 2008 ): ‘Given the widespread
acceptance of the [triple bottom line] model, it is rather straightforward to propose the following scheme for Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA):
LCSA = LCA + LCC + SLCA, where LCA is the SETAC/ISO environmental Life
Cycle Assessment, LCC is an LCA-type (‘environmental’) Life Cycle Costing
assessment and SLCA stands for societal or social Life Cycle Assessment’.
According to this defi nition, LCSA thus broadens ISO-LCA to also include economic and social aspects adopting a life cycle approach. Klöpffer ( 2003 ) already
argued for combining LCA with LCC and SLCA, but he did not use the term
LCSA at that time. As mentioned by Klöpffer and Renner, this TBL-based life
cycle approach was earlier introduced by the German Oeko-Institut in a method
called ‘Produktlinienanalyse’ in 1987 (Projektgruppe ökologische Wirtschaft
1987 ).
• Guinée et al. ( 2011 ): LCSA links ‘life cycle sustainability questions to knowledge needed for addressing them, identifying available knowledge and related
models, knowledge gaps and defi ning research programs to fi ll these gaps. […]
It broadens the scope of current LCA from mainly environmental impacts only
to covering all three dimensions of sustainability (people, planet and prosperity).
It also broadens the object (or level) of analysis from predominantly productrelated questions (product level) to questions related to sector (sector level) or
even economy-wide levels (economy level). In addition, it deepens current LCA
to also include other than just technological relations, e.g. physical relations
(including limitations in available resources and land), economic and behavioural relations, etc. […] LCSA is a trans-disciplinary framework for integration
of models rather than a model in itself. LCSA works with a plethora of disciplinary models and guides selecting the proper ones, given a specifi c sustainability
question’.
Guinée et al. ( 2011 ) basically adopted the defi nition by Klöpffer and Renner
( 2007 ) but added two dimensions and called it a framework rather than a method in
itself. Based on these two defi nitions, we can thus distinguish between three dimensions along which LCSA expands when compared to (environmental) LCA:
1. Broadening of impacts: LCSA = LCA + LCC + SLCA
2. Broadening level of analysis: product-, sector- and economy-wide questions and
analyses
J. Guinée