280
1 Introduction
The life cycle community has come far since SETAC and ISO fi rst started working
on standardizing methodologies in the 1990s. Tools have been developed, studies
have been undertaken and some forward thinking companies and governments have
integrated life cycle thinking into their policies and strategies (United Nations
Environment Programme 2012 ).
Despite this positive development, the widespread take up of life cycle based
methodologies and use of information has yet to happen. Decision makers for
example still tend to simplify, zooming in on one environmental problem to fi nd a
quick fi x that may have broader implications over time.
Some LCAs are also done just to tick the box for e.g. a building standard, or
because a client needed it, without any further consideration. Above all, since the
global economic crisis in 2008, a number of companies and governments have simply
taken anything “environmental” off the agenda or reduced their efforts (Geels 2013 ).
2 Missing Links
As sustainability challenges continue to increase along with a rise in attention and
global recognition of the associated issues, some life cycle based approaches, such
as for example the Green House Gas Protocol or the European Commission’s
Product Environmental Footprint (PEF), are starting to be tested or are already
applied (European Commission 2015 ). However, despite this positive development,
life cycle based approaches are yet to be applied on a large scale to achieve tangible
results. Currently, only a limited number of companies apply life cycle methodologies in their businesses to enhance the sustainability performance of their products.
And due to the lack of a broad understanding of the public about life cycle approaches
and methodologies, these companies are struggling to communicate their efforts in
a way that resonates with the average consumer. In return, companies’ efforts are
currently not properly recognized by customers which reduces their efforts’ value
for marketing purposes. A coordinated and strong push to promote the uptake of life
cycle based methodologies and concepts in companies is thus needed more than
ever, coupled with an equally strong communication effort.
While the life cycle community has matured enough to address remaining
methodological challenges, it is, however, still not good at explaining what it does to
people who do not have a thesis in environmental chemistry or chemical engineering.
Which is, however, exactly what is needed: explaining life cycle based approaches in
clear terms and how they help provide solutions to many challenges facing business
and government today. And it needs to be done with a global voice that takes into
account modern, collaborative ways of working together, as neither individual companies nor select circles of researchers and scientist or life cycle assessment (LCA)
networks are currently able to successfully drive the communication effort needed.
P. Strothmann et al.
1 Introduction
The life cycle community has come far since SETAC and ISO fi rst started working
on standardizing methodologies in the 1990s. Tools have been developed, studies
have been undertaken and some forward thinking companies and governments have
integrated life cycle thinking into their policies and strategies (United Nations
Environment Programme 2012 ).
Despite this positive development, the widespread take up of life cycle based
methodologies and use of information has yet to happen. Decision makers for
example still tend to simplify, zooming in on one environmental problem to fi nd a
quick fi x that may have broader implications over time.
Some LCAs are also done just to tick the box for e.g. a building standard, or
because a client needed it, without any further consideration. Above all, since the
global economic crisis in 2008, a number of companies and governments have simply
taken anything “environmental” off the agenda or reduced their efforts (Geels 2013 ).
2 Missing Links
As sustainability challenges continue to increase along with a rise in attention and
global recognition of the associated issues, some life cycle based approaches, such
as for example the Green House Gas Protocol or the European Commission’s
Product Environmental Footprint (PEF), are starting to be tested or are already
applied (European Commission 2015 ). However, despite this positive development,
life cycle based approaches are yet to be applied on a large scale to achieve tangible
results. Currently, only a limited number of companies apply life cycle methodologies in their businesses to enhance the sustainability performance of their products.
And due to the lack of a broad understanding of the public about life cycle approaches
and methodologies, these companies are struggling to communicate their efforts in
a way that resonates with the average consumer. In return, companies’ efforts are
currently not properly recognized by customers which reduces their efforts’ value
for marketing purposes. A coordinated and strong push to promote the uptake of life
cycle based methodologies and concepts in companies is thus needed more than
ever, coupled with an equally strong communication effort.
While the life cycle community has matured enough to address remaining
methodological challenges, it is, however, still not good at explaining what it does to
people who do not have a thesis in environmental chemistry or chemical engineering.
Which is, however, exactly what is needed: explaining life cycle based approaches in
clear terms and how they help provide solutions to many challenges facing business
and government today. And it needs to be done with a global voice that takes into
account modern, collaborative ways of working together, as neither individual companies nor select circles of researchers and scientist or life cycle assessment (LCA)
networks are currently able to successfully drive the communication effort needed.
P. Strothmann et al.