166
remainder were considered as “moderate” and may require some expert guidance in
order to use. As a tool that is used to facilitate decision-making as a precursor to (or
in lieu of) a more detailed analysis, hotspots analysis still seems to require at least
some expert input.
5.5 Gaps
In terms of gaps, few methods appear to incorporate fi nancial data, in particular on
the costs and benefi ts of addressing hotspots. The methods are generally linked to
quantifi cation activity. Links to identifi cation of a range of associated opportunities
or solutions to reduce the impact of hotspots identifi ed are often sparse, with notable
exceptions in the methodologies developed by The Sustainability Consortium and
WRAP’s Product Sustainability Forum. Whilst the need for action is recognized in
principle, its incorporation into methods is generally limited. In particular, there is
a lack of guidance on how to assess the potential for reducing a hotspot.
6 Challenges and Next Steps
Currently there is no common global approach to hotspots analysis; nor has there
been any effort to bring together or share best practice amongst those organizations
or initiatives currently developing and using these methods. There is also no
accepted guidance on how to translate and apply the results of hotspots analysis into
meaningful sustainability information and insight for use by industry, governments
and other stakeholders.
Recognizing that this situation may result in a range of negative impacts, including
a lack of consistency in the methodological approach, diffi culties in comparing the
results of hotspots studies and the potential for confl icting sustainability information in the marketplace; the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative established Flagship
Project 3a to address these and other issues as noted in the introduction to this
chapter.
The primary focus of this project is to identify existing methodologies, tools and
resources that can or could be applied at three scales or levels of detail, namely at
the national, sector or product category-level. A secondary research objective is to
seek to determine the potential use, adoption or adaptation of these methodologies
by developing countries, emerging economies, SMEs or for use at the city-scale.
During the fi rst phase of the project, the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative
conducted a study to map existing hotspots analysis methodologies and studies
world- wide (Barthel et al. 2014 ).
Phase 2 of this fl agship project is seeking to respond to the urgent timeframes
and requirements of a number of implementation programs within the UNEP’s 10
Year Framework of Programmes on SCP (10YFP), and the 10YFP Secretariat’s
M. Barthel et al.
remainder were considered as “moderate” and may require some expert guidance in
order to use. As a tool that is used to facilitate decision-making as a precursor to (or
in lieu of) a more detailed analysis, hotspots analysis still seems to require at least
some expert input.
5.5 Gaps
In terms of gaps, few methods appear to incorporate fi nancial data, in particular on
the costs and benefi ts of addressing hotspots. The methods are generally linked to
quantifi cation activity. Links to identifi cation of a range of associated opportunities
or solutions to reduce the impact of hotspots identifi ed are often sparse, with notable
exceptions in the methodologies developed by The Sustainability Consortium and
WRAP’s Product Sustainability Forum. Whilst the need for action is recognized in
principle, its incorporation into methods is generally limited. In particular, there is
a lack of guidance on how to assess the potential for reducing a hotspot.
6 Challenges and Next Steps
Currently there is no common global approach to hotspots analysis; nor has there
been any effort to bring together or share best practice amongst those organizations
or initiatives currently developing and using these methods. There is also no
accepted guidance on how to translate and apply the results of hotspots analysis into
meaningful sustainability information and insight for use by industry, governments
and other stakeholders.
Recognizing that this situation may result in a range of negative impacts, including
a lack of consistency in the methodological approach, diffi culties in comparing the
results of hotspots studies and the potential for confl icting sustainability information in the marketplace; the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative established Flagship
Project 3a to address these and other issues as noted in the introduction to this
chapter.
The primary focus of this project is to identify existing methodologies, tools and
resources that can or could be applied at three scales or levels of detail, namely at
the national, sector or product category-level. A secondary research objective is to
seek to determine the potential use, adoption or adaptation of these methodologies
by developing countries, emerging economies, SMEs or for use at the city-scale.
During the fi rst phase of the project, the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative
conducted a study to map existing hotspots analysis methodologies and studies
world- wide (Barthel et al. 2014 ).
Phase 2 of this fl agship project is seeking to respond to the urgent timeframes
and requirements of a number of implementation programs within the UNEP’s 10
Year Framework of Programmes on SCP (10YFP), and the 10YFP Secretariat’s
M. Barthel et al.