107
only one other representative from the LCA community. In the meantime, we have
seen overviews of more than 100 initiatives to develop natural capital methodologies, all outside the LCA community, all reinventing the wheel and forgetting that
the very fi rst serious impact assessment method based on monetization was developed by Bengt Steen in 1989. The big idea is to develop metrics that are understood
by the CFO (chief fi nancial offi cer) and CEO (chief executive offi cer). Developing
metrics that assure results are compelling for the business is probably something the
LCA community could learn from.
Another development which is largely missed by the LCA community is the
methodology developed by the sustainability consortium. They started out developing an LCA based method to assess products on a large scale, but failed to do so.
Therefore, they switched to a procedure that focuses on hotspots and improvement
opportunities in the lifecycle. This shift seems to be working very well and we
should learn from this.
Coming from another angle, but with the same core idea to make results more
meaningful and also to give guidance to the management is the recent discussion to
link metrics to planetary boundaries. One idea is to develop a “planetary boundary
enabled LCA method”. The Stockholm Resilience institute identifi ed eight planetary boundaries, or levels of impacts we should not pass. Initiated by Unilever, a
“planetary boundary enabled LCA method” is being developed by a group of experts
led by the University of Surrey, with the involvement of Unilever.
2.2 The Risk of Ignoring These Trends
In our vision we cannot ignore these trends if we want to ensure a relevant role in
policy and business. The assumption in the LCA community is: What gets measured will get managed. This works if managers understand the measurements and
can set goals. This works when they talk about revenues, ROI and strategic targets,
but what to make of LCA results? Should they set a reduction target of 20 %? Why
20? And why not 5 or 50 %? They do not have a reference, do not have a gut feeling
and often not a clear vision about what LCA results can mean for them. This is what
these new concepts do so well; they come with a vision that is understandable, that
is actionable and often simply “feels good”, or they come with a fi nancial metric
that managers (think) they understand, or a reference to something like planetary
boundaries. In the case of TSC, the idea is that KPIs and improvement opportunities
are based on a general consensus from science, NGO and industry. All these “alternatives” seem often more attractive than an accountancy-like calculation procedure
that reports indicators in incomprehensible midpoints. However, there is hope. LCA
is the only systematic way to measure, or at least it is much more consistent and
transparent than any of these alternatives.
9 How to Make the Life Cycle Assessment Team a Business Partner
only one other representative from the LCA community. In the meantime, we have
seen overviews of more than 100 initiatives to develop natural capital methodologies, all outside the LCA community, all reinventing the wheel and forgetting that
the very fi rst serious impact assessment method based on monetization was developed by Bengt Steen in 1989. The big idea is to develop metrics that are understood
by the CFO (chief fi nancial offi cer) and CEO (chief executive offi cer). Developing
metrics that assure results are compelling for the business is probably something the
LCA community could learn from.
Another development which is largely missed by the LCA community is the
methodology developed by the sustainability consortium. They started out developing an LCA based method to assess products on a large scale, but failed to do so.
Therefore, they switched to a procedure that focuses on hotspots and improvement
opportunities in the lifecycle. This shift seems to be working very well and we
should learn from this.
Coming from another angle, but with the same core idea to make results more
meaningful and also to give guidance to the management is the recent discussion to
link metrics to planetary boundaries. One idea is to develop a “planetary boundary
enabled LCA method”. The Stockholm Resilience institute identifi ed eight planetary boundaries, or levels of impacts we should not pass. Initiated by Unilever, a
“planetary boundary enabled LCA method” is being developed by a group of experts
led by the University of Surrey, with the involvement of Unilever.
2.2 The Risk of Ignoring These Trends
In our vision we cannot ignore these trends if we want to ensure a relevant role in
policy and business. The assumption in the LCA community is: What gets measured will get managed. This works if managers understand the measurements and
can set goals. This works when they talk about revenues, ROI and strategic targets,
but what to make of LCA results? Should they set a reduction target of 20 %? Why
20? And why not 5 or 50 %? They do not have a reference, do not have a gut feeling
and often not a clear vision about what LCA results can mean for them. This is what
these new concepts do so well; they come with a vision that is understandable, that
is actionable and often simply “feels good”, or they come with a fi nancial metric
that managers (think) they understand, or a reference to something like planetary
boundaries. In the case of TSC, the idea is that KPIs and improvement opportunities
are based on a general consensus from science, NGO and industry. All these “alternatives” seem often more attractive than an accountancy-like calculation procedure
that reports indicators in incomprehensible midpoints. However, there is hope. LCA
is the only systematic way to measure, or at least it is much more consistent and
transparent than any of these alternatives.
9 How to Make the Life Cycle Assessment Team a Business Partner