By Tom Swarr, Manager, Environmental Programs, United Technologies Corporation and Jim Fava, Managing Director, Five Winds International
Companies have traditionally set environmental goals to reduce wastes from manufacturing operations year to year- less is better. However, goals based on pounds alone can not distinguish between a large operation and a sloppy operation. Life cycle assessment is a tool that takes a holistic view of the full product system, from extraction to final disposal, or preferably reuse or recycle, to understand how to deliver the desired functionality with the minimum impact. The genesis of life cycle assessment can be traced to Coca Cola Company studies of packaging conducted in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s. Harry E. Teasley, Jr. conceived of a study that would quantify the energy, material, and environmental consequences of the entire life cycle of a package from the extraction of raw materials to final disposal to better understand the potential impacts of a proposed switch from returnable glass bottles to disposable plastic bottles.
Improved methodologies and data access
There has been considerable progress in advancing the methodology since those early studies. Today, instead of mechanical calculators or cumbersome decks of computer punch cards, practitioners can choose from among numerous user- friendly commercial software packages that greatly simplify building LCA models, e.g. SimaPro and GaBi. Reduced cost packages are typically available for students and educators. Simplified programs, such as BEES are available free online. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory and its partners have created the U.S. Life-Cycle Inventory (LCI) Database. This summer, the Swiss Center for Life Cycle Inventories will be releasing ecoinvent v2.0, a compilation of some 3,500 unit processes. Impact assessment methodology is being developed to include more impact categories. Land use in LCA has just been added as a new subject category in The International Journal of Life Cycle Analysis. The UN Environmental Programmes, in partnership with the Society for Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry launched the life cycle initiative in 2002 to identify available data sources and impact assessment methodologies, assess needs for further development, and provide guidance for expanding the sound and consistent application of LCA methods. Despite these advances, there is a sense that LCA has had limited application in policy or business decision making processes.
Application in making difficult decisions
There are numerous efforts underway to expand the role of LCA in guiding difficult decisions to balance the conflicting goals of economic development, environmental protection, and social equity. Green building initiatives lead the way in using life cycle measures to influence purchasing decisions in an attempt to create market pressure for more sustainable manufacturing. The US Green Building Council is evaluating how to incorporate LCA into the LEED rating system. Green Globes is an on-line tool for designers and property owners and managers assess and rate existing buildings against best practices and standards.
Companies are exploring ways to use LCA methods to create competitive advantage. The Product Sustainability Roundtable is a group of global corporations that meets 2 -3 times per year to informally benchmark product- oriented environmental management practices. Participants represent multiple functions from within the companies to share what works- and what does not- in efforts to integrate life cycle thinking into practice.
BASF is using technical conferences, third- party reviews, and offering training sessions and consulting services to brand its eco- efficiency analysis. The company worked through a cross sector partnership to create a center of excellence in Latin America, the Espaço ECO Foundation to promote implementation and dispersion of the eco-efficiency analysis.
The UNEP/ SETAC life cycle initiative has launched its Phase II programs to more effectively link LCA studies of production systems with corresponding sectors of consumption- such as buildings, transport, food, and energy. The program recognizes that there cannot be sustainable manufacturing without sustainable consumption, and seeks to build institutional capacity to make better use of the tools and methodologies that already exist.
EU initiatives around integrated product policy, such as the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive and the Energy- using Products Directive or are another strong incentive for companies to develop practical methods to address these emerging requirements. The European platform on life cycle assessment is designed to support business and policy making decisions.
There is progress on better integration of economic and social factors. A SETAC working group is developing a code of practice for life cycle costing. Researchers are developing quantified measures for the social dimension modeled on the WHO’s disability adjusted life years (DALYs). Quality- of – life adjusted years (QALYs) are determined using quantified measures longevity, health, autonomy, safety and security, equal opportunity, and participation. Furthermore, a working group on identification of social impacts has begun within the UNEP/ SETAC Initiative. Sustainability impact assessment methodology is being developed to better understand the complex trade- off of costs and benefits resulting from international commerce.
Opportunities and barriers
In a recent editorial, Jacqueline Aloisi de Larderel, former Director Division Technology, Industry and Economics , UNEP suggested that LCA and life cycle management are approaches that could help society develop policies for long lasting economic growth built on sound environmental practices that preserved critical life supporting ecosystems. She cited the need for “validated metrics, for more transparent and reliable data collection and, in general, for consistency.”
The application of LCA and life cycle thinking to the complex problem of sustainability attempts to provide both an objective measure of “What is” and a sound, scientific basis for deciding “What should be.” The conflicting demands of metrics to support learning and continuous improvement and metrics to support accountability and compliance may be the primary obstacle to successful integration of LCA into business and policy decision- making.
This conflict can be illustrated by the early studies at Coca Cola. LCA helped justify the transition from reusable glass bottles to single use disposable plastic bottles, because reduced transport impacts associated with lighter weight helped offset the impacts of plastic bottles. Yet most of us environmental advocates would argue you should select reusable packaging over disposable packaging. Other LCA studies on packaging showed advantages of steel cans over aluminum cans, but aluminum took over the market because consumers preferred the convenience of the pull tabs, a feature that steel cans could not match.
Rapid innovation continues to throw out new externalities. CFCs eliminated toxic and flammable refrigerants, but damaged the ozone layer. Automobiles eliminated the health risks of horse manure, but imposed new health effects from air pollution. Sustainability is a complex issue characterized by uncertainty and ignorance. Flexibility to adapt as we learn is critical to effective integration of LCA methods into routine practice. LCA is its present form can give us information on the various trade- offs between lead- free and traditional lead- base electrical solders. However, LCA cannot tells us how the market will find new uses for lead no longer used as solder.
The need for flexibility and dynamic modeling conflicts with the normative perspective of corporate responsibility. External stakeholders want standardized metrics with verifiable audit trails to support corporate environmental claims. Common measures that facilitate comparison are necessary for accountability. Attempting to extend these accountability requirements into internal business decision- making processes development practices is not compatible with the current pace of change in the global economy. It is important that we do not become so focused on finding the “right” answers that we forget to make sure we are asking the “right” questions. A more productive approach for the integration of LCA is to extend the flexible, learning- based metrics out to inform social and economic policy. This would require a level of trust between the civil society and business that is significantly higher than what currently exists.
We — civil society and business — are in this together. How do we promote an atmosphere of trust where we can openly share information to create the “lasting economic growth built on sound environmental practices that preserved critical life supporting ecosystems” envisioned by Jacqueline Aloisi de Larderel?
Resources:
BASF Eco-efficiency Analysis
BEES (Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability)
EU Integrated Product Policy
European platform on life cycle assessment
Green Globes Environmental Assessments for Buildings
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment
NREL U.S. Life Cycle Inventory Database
Product Sustainability Roundtable
Sustainability impact assessments
Swiss Center for Life Cycle Inventories
UNEP/ SETAC Life Cycle Initiative
US Green Building Council LEED
March 5th, 2007 at 10:11 am Life Cycle Assessment is a good way to make assumptions and algorithms used for conclusions more explicit. However, those conclusions are too laden with value judgments on how much to weight each factor and suffers from lack of data and uncertainty to achieve consensus amongst all stakeholders. But it is great for dialog and moving toward better, more aware solutions. More important is integrating “life cycle thinking” into everyone’s approach to problem-solving. Life cycle thinking is a way of thinking that evaluates consequences (intentional or unintentional) upstream, downstream and sideways for anything you do. (And anyone - be it companies and individuals in their personal life - should practice it!) Furthermore, as you point out, it is a learning process that continually seeks and evaluates changing information that ranges from hard physical data to perceptions of feelings for right and wrong. The measure of success should be whether companies (and individuals) are continually trying to better understand the consequences of their actions and taking steps to avoid adverse impacts, not whether they have used a “standardized” tool. Georjean Adams, EHS Strategies, Inc.
March 5th, 2007 at 12:08 pm I couldn’t agree more. LCA is a valuable method for structuring a dialogue. Some of the information is scientific and subject to the validity tests appropriate for scientific inquiry. Many of the calculations rely on value judgments, as you point out. LCA can make explicit the boundary between scientific facts and value judgments. The challenge is to continue development of the methodology striving for scientific consensus on the facts, while allowing room for open, political debate around the values. LCA and science can tell us how much our choices will “cost” in terms of environmental impacts. Only we can decide how we want to spend (or preferably invest) our environmental endowment.