51
were ‘life cycle sustainability assessment*’ OR ‘life cycle sustainability analys*’
for the time span = 2000–2014 (accessed on 24/11/2014). The result of this bibliometric analysis is shown in Table 3.1 . References basically covering the same topic
and originating from the same research institute were grouped together. For example, Heijungs et al. ( 2010 ), Guinée and Heijungs ( 2011 ) and Guinée et al. ( 2011 )
basically cover the same topic (presenting an LCSA framework covering all three
dimensions of the LCSA defi nition) and originate from the same research institute
(CML). In addition, references that despite the use of LCSA had little or no connection to LCSA and the two questions posed here were eliminated from the results.
Put more precisely, a reference was excluded from further analysis if it could not
comply with one or more of the following criteria:
• The term LCSA was used to refer to one of the two (revised or otherwise) defi nitions of LCSA discussed above.
• If the reference focused on broadening of impacts, it should include analyses of
all three pillars (e.g. LCA + LCC + SLCA).
• If the reference focused on broadening of the level of analysis and/or deepening
the analysis, it should do so as part of LCSA.
The resulting (groups of) references were then analysed on their coverage of the
three dimensions mentioned above (see also Table 3.1 ).
The bibliometric analysis resulted in about 30 articles covering the topic of LCSA
(Table 3.1 ). Table 3.1 shows that almost all of the LCSA studies published so far
focus on the ‘broadening of impacts’ dimension: LCSA = LCA + LCC + SLCA. Among
these studies are many case studies. In addition, explorations have been made to
widen the scope of the three pillars to include, for example, cultural aspects (Pizzirani
et al. 2014 ). Along a similar line, Jørgensen et al. ( 2013 ) argue that when fully
adopting the WCED ( 1987 ) defi nition of sustainability, LCA and SLCA in particular ‘should be expanded to better cover how product life cycles affect poverty and
produced capital’. Only a few studies report on the ‘broadening of the level of analysis’ and/or ‘deepening’ dimensions; most of these studies are reviews or methodological by nature.
The main keywords popping up among the ISIE-LCSA membership from the
response concerning the question on their preferred defi nition of LCSA are
‘environmental- social-economic’ besides ‘product’, ‘sustainability’ and ‘assessment’.
From both the bibliometric analysis and the brief questionnaire, it becomes obvious that the vast majority of LCSA articles have focused on the ‘broadening of
impacts’ dimension: LCSA = LCA + LCC + SLCA. However, this may rather be a
limitation of our bibliometric analysis since we only searched for articles including
the terms life cycle sustainability assessment(s) or life cycle sustainability
analysis(es), while many articles in the ‘broadening of the level of analysis’ (like
IOA) and ‘deepening’ (like rebound modelling and uncertainty analysis) domains
may not use these terms in their topical descriptions. This immediately touches
upon a problem of too encompassing or too strict defi nitions: the Guinée et al.
( 2011 ) defi nition of LCSA includes broadening of the level of analysis and deepen3 Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment: What Is It and What Are Its Challenges?
were ‘life cycle sustainability assessment*’ OR ‘life cycle sustainability analys*’
for the time span = 2000–2014 (accessed on 24/11/2014). The result of this bibliometric analysis is shown in Table 3.1 . References basically covering the same topic
and originating from the same research institute were grouped together. For example, Heijungs et al. ( 2010 ), Guinée and Heijungs ( 2011 ) and Guinée et al. ( 2011 )
basically cover the same topic (presenting an LCSA framework covering all three
dimensions of the LCSA defi nition) and originate from the same research institute
(CML). In addition, references that despite the use of LCSA had little or no connection to LCSA and the two questions posed here were eliminated from the results.
Put more precisely, a reference was excluded from further analysis if it could not
comply with one or more of the following criteria:
• The term LCSA was used to refer to one of the two (revised or otherwise) defi nitions of LCSA discussed above.
• If the reference focused on broadening of impacts, it should include analyses of
all three pillars (e.g. LCA + LCC + SLCA).
• If the reference focused on broadening of the level of analysis and/or deepening
the analysis, it should do so as part of LCSA.
The resulting (groups of) references were then analysed on their coverage of the
three dimensions mentioned above (see also Table 3.1 ).
The bibliometric analysis resulted in about 30 articles covering the topic of LCSA
(Table 3.1 ). Table 3.1 shows that almost all of the LCSA studies published so far
focus on the ‘broadening of impacts’ dimension: LCSA = LCA + LCC + SLCA. Among
these studies are many case studies. In addition, explorations have been made to
widen the scope of the three pillars to include, for example, cultural aspects (Pizzirani
et al. 2014 ). Along a similar line, Jørgensen et al. ( 2013 ) argue that when fully
adopting the WCED ( 1987 ) defi nition of sustainability, LCA and SLCA in particular ‘should be expanded to better cover how product life cycles affect poverty and
produced capital’. Only a few studies report on the ‘broadening of the level of analysis’ and/or ‘deepening’ dimensions; most of these studies are reviews or methodological by nature.
The main keywords popping up among the ISIE-LCSA membership from the
response concerning the question on their preferred defi nition of LCSA are
‘environmental- social-economic’ besides ‘product’, ‘sustainability’ and ‘assessment’.
From both the bibliometric analysis and the brief questionnaire, it becomes obvious that the vast majority of LCSA articles have focused on the ‘broadening of
impacts’ dimension: LCSA = LCA + LCC + SLCA. However, this may rather be a
limitation of our bibliometric analysis since we only searched for articles including
the terms life cycle sustainability assessment(s) or life cycle sustainability
analysis(es), while many articles in the ‘broadening of the level of analysis’ (like
IOA) and ‘deepening’ (like rebound modelling and uncertainty analysis) domains
may not use these terms in their topical descriptions. This immediately touches
upon a problem of too encompassing or too strict defi nitions: the Guinée et al.
( 2011 ) defi nition of LCSA includes broadening of the level of analysis and deepen3 Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment: What Is It and What Are Its Challenges?