222
model and LCIA model as well as characterization factors. On the other hand,
indirect policy options – with its “backoffi ce” use of LCA – generally may have less
strict technical requirements than direct options. Moreover, it was shown, that
sometimes, voluntary policy options have stricter requirements than mandatory
options, for example with regard to communication as they require a specifi c
communication format to reach the consumer.
The technical requirements of the particular policy options also determine their
applicability (efforts), comparability, robustness, relevance or stakeholder acceptance, and thus are relevant for their feasibility and probability of implementation.
The SWOT and RACER analysis from different stakeholder perspectives revealed
that generally highest relevance regarding CO 2 reduction, but also highest efforts
for implementation seem to be related to the mandatory-performance-direct
option. Moreover, it was shown that robustness and credibility can principally be
guaranteed by all policy options and that acceptance strongly depends on the
perspective of the stakeholders. Generally, it can be assumed that if the policy
options are implemented properly, the acceptance is high, but if there is a risk of
poor implementation the acceptance would be low.
4 Conclusions and Outlook
Within the fi rst phase of the research process, promising policy options were identifi ed
and their characteristics were described. It was found that theoretically a broad
range of options for implementing LCA into policy exists and that practically (with
focus on the EU) some of them are already implemented in real world legislation.
Moreover, it was shown that there is no clear analytical, scientifi c overall preference
for one single policy option: for example, possible trade-offs were revealed (e.g.
showing that some technical requirements may be lower for a particular policy
option, others may be higher) and naturally no “black-and-white” results from
the SWOT and RACER analysis were obtained. Also, it was found that technical
implementation strongly depends on the implementation level and that solutions for
most technical requirements are already available,
4 but that a consensus on the
proper setting of these requirements is missing.
The selected portfolio of policy options and the knowledge on their potential
benefi ts and shortcomings allow the development of a concept of how an LCA
methodology can be used in future automotive emission regulations. Preliminary
implementation scenarios were already described (but are not addressed in this
4 For example, different available LCA methodologies (e.g., ISO 14044, Product Environmental
Footprint (PEF)), databases for background data (Sonnemann et al. 2011 ), e.g., European
Reference Life Cycle Data System (ELCD) from the European Commission (EC n.d.), ecoinvent,
PE International) or data collection formats (Finkbeiner et al. 2003 ), models (e.g., UCSB model
by WorldAutoSteel or the model from the European Aluminum Association (EAA)) or communication formats (e.g., EPDs, labels).
A. Lehmann et al.
model and LCIA model as well as characterization factors. On the other hand,
indirect policy options – with its “backoffi ce” use of LCA – generally may have less
strict technical requirements than direct options. Moreover, it was shown, that
sometimes, voluntary policy options have stricter requirements than mandatory
options, for example with regard to communication as they require a specifi c
communication format to reach the consumer.
The technical requirements of the particular policy options also determine their
applicability (efforts), comparability, robustness, relevance or stakeholder acceptance, and thus are relevant for their feasibility and probability of implementation.
The SWOT and RACER analysis from different stakeholder perspectives revealed
that generally highest relevance regarding CO 2 reduction, but also highest efforts
for implementation seem to be related to the mandatory-performance-direct
option. Moreover, it was shown that robustness and credibility can principally be
guaranteed by all policy options and that acceptance strongly depends on the
perspective of the stakeholders. Generally, it can be assumed that if the policy
options are implemented properly, the acceptance is high, but if there is a risk of
poor implementation the acceptance would be low.
4 Conclusions and Outlook
Within the fi rst phase of the research process, promising policy options were identifi ed
and their characteristics were described. It was found that theoretically a broad
range of options for implementing LCA into policy exists and that practically (with
focus on the EU) some of them are already implemented in real world legislation.
Moreover, it was shown that there is no clear analytical, scientifi c overall preference
for one single policy option: for example, possible trade-offs were revealed (e.g.
showing that some technical requirements may be lower for a particular policy
option, others may be higher) and naturally no “black-and-white” results from
the SWOT and RACER analysis were obtained. Also, it was found that technical
implementation strongly depends on the implementation level and that solutions for
most technical requirements are already available,
4 but that a consensus on the
proper setting of these requirements is missing.
The selected portfolio of policy options and the knowledge on their potential
benefi ts and shortcomings allow the development of a concept of how an LCA
methodology can be used in future automotive emission regulations. Preliminary
implementation scenarios were already described (but are not addressed in this
4 For example, different available LCA methodologies (e.g., ISO 14044, Product Environmental
Footprint (PEF)), databases for background data (Sonnemann et al. 2011 ), e.g., European
Reference Life Cycle Data System (ELCD) from the European Commission (EC n.d.), ecoinvent,
PE International) or data collection formats (Finkbeiner et al. 2003 ), models (e.g., UCSB model
by WorldAutoSteel or the model from the European Aluminum Association (EAA)) or communication formats (e.g., EPDs, labels).
A. Lehmann et al.