161
The purpose of Table 12.2 is to allow visualization of the fl exibility and diversity of
HSA methodologies development and application.
4 Other Tools Used to Identify Sustainability Impacts
A growing number and diversity of tools, resources and methodologies are being
developed and used to identify sustainability impacts. This often leads to confusion
among stakeholders with regards to the best tools for the job and the best way to use
them to generate science-based and actionable outputs and information. Sometimes
this confusion – and the range of tools and methodologies available to users – leads
to erroneous conclusions, such as HSA being superior to, or replacing life cycle
assessment studies (LCA). This section would discuss the roles of HSA and other
methodologies as tools to identify and take action on sustainability impacts.
Life cycle thinking and a value chain perspective is imperative to achieve robust
sustainability assessment results. ISO 14040 ( 2006 ) is the de facto globally accepted
standard for conducting life cycle assessments (LCA) to identify the environmental
impacts of the product or system being analyzed. The precepts and process steps
contained in ISO 14040 have also been adapted to inform the development of other
life cycle-based approaches and analytical tools, including those that focus on
economic impacts (i.e., life cycle or whole life costing) and social impacts (i.e.,
social life cycle assessment). These latter applications are not as well developed, nor
are they used as widely as traditional environmental LCA.
The ISO 14040 series provides a technically rigorous framework for conducting
life cycle assessments (LCA), which is widely used for measuring the environmental dimensions of sustainability. Life cycle costing (LCC) and social life cycle
assessments (S-LCA) also use the ISO 14040 framework with some adaptations.
The UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative’s publication “Towards a Life Cycle
Sustainability Assessment, 2011” elaborates the use of ISO 14040 framework to
conduct environmental LCA and further adapted to conduct LCC and S-LCA
studies in detail (UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative 2011 ).
4.1 Hotspots Analysis Versus Other Tools
Environmental LCA, S-LCA and LCC each quantify specifi c impacts related to
their respective attributes of sustainability as shown in Fig. 12.2 . Hotspots analysis
is more fl exible and can incorporate several attributes of sustainability, such as
economic, environment, social, ethical and governance, depending on the scope and
scale of application, as shown in Table 12.1 . Figure 12.2 shows the scope and
impacts covered by LCA, LCC, S-LCA and hotspots analysis respectively.
Hotspots analysis offers a complementary approach to more traditional life
cycle-based methods; it is not a replacement or competitor to LCA, LCC and
12 Hotspots Analysis: Providing the Focus for Action
The purpose of Table 12.2 is to allow visualization of the fl exibility and diversity of
HSA methodologies development and application.
4 Other Tools Used to Identify Sustainability Impacts
A growing number and diversity of tools, resources and methodologies are being
developed and used to identify sustainability impacts. This often leads to confusion
among stakeholders with regards to the best tools for the job and the best way to use
them to generate science-based and actionable outputs and information. Sometimes
this confusion – and the range of tools and methodologies available to users – leads
to erroneous conclusions, such as HSA being superior to, or replacing life cycle
assessment studies (LCA). This section would discuss the roles of HSA and other
methodologies as tools to identify and take action on sustainability impacts.
Life cycle thinking and a value chain perspective is imperative to achieve robust
sustainability assessment results. ISO 14040 ( 2006 ) is the de facto globally accepted
standard for conducting life cycle assessments (LCA) to identify the environmental
impacts of the product or system being analyzed. The precepts and process steps
contained in ISO 14040 have also been adapted to inform the development of other
life cycle-based approaches and analytical tools, including those that focus on
economic impacts (i.e., life cycle or whole life costing) and social impacts (i.e.,
social life cycle assessment). These latter applications are not as well developed, nor
are they used as widely as traditional environmental LCA.
The ISO 14040 series provides a technically rigorous framework for conducting
life cycle assessments (LCA), which is widely used for measuring the environmental dimensions of sustainability. Life cycle costing (LCC) and social life cycle
assessments (S-LCA) also use the ISO 14040 framework with some adaptations.
The UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative’s publication “Towards a Life Cycle
Sustainability Assessment, 2011” elaborates the use of ISO 14040 framework to
conduct environmental LCA and further adapted to conduct LCC and S-LCA
studies in detail (UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative 2011 ).
4.1 Hotspots Analysis Versus Other Tools
Environmental LCA, S-LCA and LCC each quantify specifi c impacts related to
their respective attributes of sustainability as shown in Fig. 12.2 . Hotspots analysis
is more fl exible and can incorporate several attributes of sustainability, such as
economic, environment, social, ethical and governance, depending on the scope and
scale of application, as shown in Table 12.1 . Figure 12.2 shows the scope and
impacts covered by LCA, LCC, S-LCA and hotspots analysis respectively.
Hotspots analysis offers a complementary approach to more traditional life
cycle-based methods; it is not a replacement or competitor to LCA, LCC and
12 Hotspots Analysis: Providing the Focus for Action