165
porting scientifi c research and innovation; materiality studies); and/or qualitative
inputs, such as expert opinions, stakeholder concerns, consumer attitudinal and
behavioral insights, etc. This trend appears to be most prominent among productand sector-level hotspots analysis methodologies.
This observation does not preclude the fact that the majority of methodologies
share a common foundation in that they utilize a life cycle approach to hotspots
analysis. Most of the methodologies reviewed by the authors also follow a pragmatic
approach that includes the identifi cation of all life cycle aspects and impacts within
a study boundary before applying materiality criteria or signifi cance thresholds in
order to defi ne which ones are “hot”. In some circumstances (not necessarily for the
key methodologies identifi ed) a methodology may not consider the whole life cycle
at the start, since there may be suffi cient existing studies for the same sector or
product category suggesting that the hotspots always lie in one or more specifi c life
cycle stages.
The initiation of methodology development stems from a variety of different
organisations, and is often linked to a specifi c objective. Governments may act in
relation to policy objectives or priorities, whereas the private sector may act based
on a recognition of a business case for action. NGOs may be informed by recognition that a methodology can help in articulating the need for action in line with their
objectives.
5.3 Commonalities
Common features of all the methodologies identifi ed by the authors are their
engagement with a wide stakeholder base in development and their quantitative
nature, though some methodologies also incorporate qualitative information drawn
from a range of sources. The majority are focused on multiple impacts and issues,
with most covering a core set of environmental issues, though issue-specifi c methods
also exist. The national-level methodologies reviewed exclusively utilize a quantitative approach which addresses environmental impacts, while sectoral- and productlevel methodologies tend to be more diverse in the impacts and issues they address,
as well as utilising qualitative elements.
While the hybrid funding of methodology development and application appears
to be dominant among the methodologies, there is no common model applied at a
national, sector, or product level.
5.4 Ease of Use
Another interesting observation that was alluded to in the analysis was that none of
the hotspots analysis methodologies listed was “easy” to use. More than half were
considered to be “diffi cult” requiring some expert knowledge or experience; and the
12 Hotspots Analysis: Providing the Focus for Action
porting scientifi c research and innovation; materiality studies); and/or qualitative
inputs, such as expert opinions, stakeholder concerns, consumer attitudinal and
behavioral insights, etc. This trend appears to be most prominent among productand sector-level hotspots analysis methodologies.
This observation does not preclude the fact that the majority of methodologies
share a common foundation in that they utilize a life cycle approach to hotspots
analysis. Most of the methodologies reviewed by the authors also follow a pragmatic
approach that includes the identifi cation of all life cycle aspects and impacts within
a study boundary before applying materiality criteria or signifi cance thresholds in
order to defi ne which ones are “hot”. In some circumstances (not necessarily for the
key methodologies identifi ed) a methodology may not consider the whole life cycle
at the start, since there may be suffi cient existing studies for the same sector or
product category suggesting that the hotspots always lie in one or more specifi c life
cycle stages.
The initiation of methodology development stems from a variety of different
organisations, and is often linked to a specifi c objective. Governments may act in
relation to policy objectives or priorities, whereas the private sector may act based
on a recognition of a business case for action. NGOs may be informed by recognition that a methodology can help in articulating the need for action in line with their
objectives.
5.3 Commonalities
Common features of all the methodologies identifi ed by the authors are their
engagement with a wide stakeholder base in development and their quantitative
nature, though some methodologies also incorporate qualitative information drawn
from a range of sources. The majority are focused on multiple impacts and issues,
with most covering a core set of environmental issues, though issue-specifi c methods
also exist. The national-level methodologies reviewed exclusively utilize a quantitative approach which addresses environmental impacts, while sectoral- and productlevel methodologies tend to be more diverse in the impacts and issues they address,
as well as utilising qualitative elements.
While the hybrid funding of methodology development and application appears
to be dominant among the methodologies, there is no common model applied at a
national, sector, or product level.
5.4 Ease of Use
Another interesting observation that was alluded to in the analysis was that none of
the hotspots analysis methodologies listed was “easy” to use. More than half were
considered to be “diffi cult” requiring some expert knowledge or experience; and the
12 Hotspots Analysis: Providing the Focus for Action