49
3. Deepening: including other than just technological relations, such as physical,
economic and behavioural relations
To better understand the different LCSA defi nitions above, we need to discuss
the interpretations of ‘sustainability’ that the different defi nitions of LCSA are
grounded in.
3 Sustainability
As mentioned above, the Projektgruppe ökologische Wirtschaft ( 1987 ) fi rstly introduced a life cycle approach including all three dimensions of sustainability. The
year of publication of their ‘Produktlinienanalyse’ coincided with the year of publication of the Brundtland report ‘Our Common Future’ (WCED 1987 ). The
Projektgruppe ökologische Wirtschaft obviously did not yet use the term
‘sustainability’.
Klöpffer ( 2008 ; English version of Klöpffer and Renner ( 2007 ); see also Klöpffer
( 2003 )) extensively discusses what exactly they mean by LCSA. They adopted the
‘triple bottom line’ (Elkington 1998 ) or the ‘three-pillar’ interpretation of sustainability, referred to as ‘people, planet and prosperity’ at the World Summit on
Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in 2002. The triple bottom line approach
basically says that for achieving more sustainable futures, environmental, economic
as well as social impacts of activities have to be taken into account. In the World
Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in 2002, also life cycle analysis ( http://www.un-documents.net/jburgpln.htm ) was introduced, and thus, Klöpffer
( 2003 ) argues that ‘any environmental, economic, or social assessment method for
products has to take into account the full life cycle from raw material extraction,
production to use and recycling or waste disposal. In other words, a systems
approach has to be taken’. The background for the LCSA defi nition by Klöpffer
( 2008 ) and Klöpffer and Renner ( 2007 ) is thus the ‘triple bottom line’ or ‘threepillar’ interpretation of sustainability, which is a very common interpretation (e.g.
Mitchell et al. 2004 ; Blewitt 2008 ) adopting a system approach.
The Guinée et al. ( 2011 ) LCSA framework is based on the work done as part of
the EU FP6 CALCAS (Co-ordination Action for innovation in Life Cycle Analysis
for Sustainability ) project ( http://www.calcasproject.net/ ). The interpretation of
sustainability is similar to Klöpffer ( 2008 ) and Klöpffer and Renner ( 2007 ), but two
additions were made: broadening of the level of analysis and deepening the analysis
itself. The rationales behind these two additions originate from:
(a) An analysis of the bioenergy debate and the role of LCA in this debate (Zamagni
et al. 2009 )
(b) The simple observation that although huge efforts have been made to improve
the environmental performance of products applying LCA, little or no progress
has been made improving the environmental sustainability of the global economy as a whole (Rockström et al. 2009 ; EPA 201 3; PBL 2013 )
3 Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment: What Is It and What Are Its Challenges?
3. Deepening: including other than just technological relations, such as physical,
economic and behavioural relations
To better understand the different LCSA defi nitions above, we need to discuss
the interpretations of ‘sustainability’ that the different defi nitions of LCSA are
grounded in.
3 Sustainability
As mentioned above, the Projektgruppe ökologische Wirtschaft ( 1987 ) fi rstly introduced a life cycle approach including all three dimensions of sustainability. The
year of publication of their ‘Produktlinienanalyse’ coincided with the year of publication of the Brundtland report ‘Our Common Future’ (WCED 1987 ). The
Projektgruppe ökologische Wirtschaft obviously did not yet use the term
‘sustainability’.
Klöpffer ( 2008 ; English version of Klöpffer and Renner ( 2007 ); see also Klöpffer
( 2003 )) extensively discusses what exactly they mean by LCSA. They adopted the
‘triple bottom line’ (Elkington 1998 ) or the ‘three-pillar’ interpretation of sustainability, referred to as ‘people, planet and prosperity’ at the World Summit on
Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in 2002. The triple bottom line approach
basically says that for achieving more sustainable futures, environmental, economic
as well as social impacts of activities have to be taken into account. In the World
Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in 2002, also life cycle analysis ( http://www.un-documents.net/jburgpln.htm ) was introduced, and thus, Klöpffer
( 2003 ) argues that ‘any environmental, economic, or social assessment method for
products has to take into account the full life cycle from raw material extraction,
production to use and recycling or waste disposal. In other words, a systems
approach has to be taken’. The background for the LCSA defi nition by Klöpffer
( 2008 ) and Klöpffer and Renner ( 2007 ) is thus the ‘triple bottom line’ or ‘threepillar’ interpretation of sustainability, which is a very common interpretation (e.g.
Mitchell et al. 2004 ; Blewitt 2008 ) adopting a system approach.
The Guinée et al. ( 2011 ) LCSA framework is based on the work done as part of
the EU FP6 CALCAS (Co-ordination Action for innovation in Life Cycle Analysis
for Sustainability ) project ( http://www.calcasproject.net/ ). The interpretation of
sustainability is similar to Klöpffer ( 2008 ) and Klöpffer and Renner ( 2007 ), but two
additions were made: broadening of the level of analysis and deepening the analysis
itself. The rationales behind these two additions originate from:
(a) An analysis of the bioenergy debate and the role of LCA in this debate (Zamagni
et al. 2009 )
(b) The simple observation that although huge efforts have been made to improve
the environmental performance of products applying LCA, little or no progress
has been made improving the environmental sustainability of the global economy as a whole (Rockström et al. 2009 ; EPA 201 3; PBL 2013 )
3 Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment: What Is It and What Are Its Challenges?