Environmental Life Cycle Costing - Chapter 9 doc

157
9
Outlook
Role of Environmental
Life Cycle Costing in
Sustainability Assessment
Walter Klöpffer
9.1 SUSTAINABILITY
The term “sustainability” was introduced into the political, as well as public, discus-
sion by the World Commission on Environmental and Development in the well-cited
report Our Common Future (Brundtland Commission 1987). This document under-
lined the responsibility humankind has toward the future generations with an elegant
denition that has had far-reaching acceptance from governments, NGOs, as well as
private organizations:
Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of present without com-
promising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. (24 p)
Although this laudable claim was not easy to operationalize, it has been very
successful in environmental politics as well as in mobilization. Indeed, the United
Nations declared sustainability as the guiding principle for the 21st century at the
World Conference in Rio de Janeiro and promoted a concrete action plan, Agenda 21
(United Nations Environment Programme [UNEP] 1992). The conrmation of this
concept, in Johannesburg in 2002, introduced the life cycle aspect. Furthermore, the
joint UNEP–SETAC Life Cycle Initiative was started just prior to the Johannesburg
forum (Töpfer 2002). This initiative aims at a global promotion and use of life cycle
thinking, life cycle assessment (LCA), and life cycle management (LCM).
Acting sustainability will require its quantication, the identication of appro-
priate and valid indicators, as well as associated thresholds. How this is achieved
will be the topic of debate, though there is widespread belief that sustainability
will involve an economic axis that will require life cycle costing. The standard
model, which is well accepted by industry and often referred to as the triple bottom
line, is a 3-pillar interpretation of sustainability. It states, essentially, that environ-

mental, economic, and social aspects have to be tuned and checked against each
another. One of the 1st uses of 3 dimensions in a life cycle method for products has
been called “Produktlinienanalyse” (Öko-Institut 1987). This “product line analy-
sis” was a proto-LCA (i.e., a life cycle assessment before the name, harmonization,
and nally standardization of the different methods began approximately in 1990;
© 2008 by the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC)
158 Environmental Life Cycle Costing
Klöpffer 2006). Product line analysis included an impact assessment, as the reader
would refer to it today, with 3 dimensions — ecology, economy, and society. This
clearly shows that the 3-pillar interpretation of sustainability is neither new nor an
invention by industry. It is, therefore, rather straightforward to propose the follow-
ing scheme in Equation (1) for sustainability assessment (SustAss) of products:
SustAss = LCA + ELCC + SLCA (1)
LCA is the environmental life cycle assessment (SETAC 1993; ISO 14040/44 2006).
ELCC stands for environmental life cycle costing (see Chapter 3), while SLCA
stands for societal life cycle assessment. There are some prerequisites that have to be
fullled in using Equation (1), the most important of which is that the system bound-
aries of the 3 assessments are consistent. This includes, of course, that in all 3 pillars
of sustainability assessment the physical, as opposed to the marketing, life cycle is
used for the life cycle inventory (LCI; ISO 14040/44 2006). The 3 pillars may even
be able to utilize the same inventory data, using the language of ISO 14040, with the
caveat being that SLCA may require the introduction of geographically specic data
(Hunkeler 2006).
The underlying driver as to why sustainability assessment methods (ELCC and
SLCA) have to be life cycle based is rather easily explained (Klöpffer 2003):
Only in this way, trade-offs can be recognized and avoided. Life cycle thinking is the
prerequisite of any sound sustainability assessment. It does not make any sense at all to
improve (environmentally, economically, socially) one part of the system in one coun-
try, in one step of the life cycle or in one environmental compartment, if this “improve-
ment” has negative consequences for other parts of the system which may outweigh the

advantages achieved. Furthermore, the problems shall not be shifted into the future.
The last point, avoiding the shifting of problems into the future, is of paramount
importance due to the request for intergenerational justice (Brundtland Commission
1987). Life cycle thinking alone is not enough, however, since in order to estimate
the magnitude of the trade-offs, which are nearly always present, the instruments
required have to be as quantitative as possible. Since we are living in a global econ-
omy, the system boundaries used in the methods must also be global. Within this
context, the UNEP–SETAC life cycle initiative deserves attention and support.
9.2 STATUS OF DEVELOPMENT
9.2.1 L
IFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT (LCA)
LCA is the only internationally standardized environmental assessment method (ISO
14040 series). The historical development of LCA, beginning with the proto-LCAs
of the 1970s and 1980s, such as Hunt and Franklin (1974) or Ökoinstitut (1987),
has been summarized (Klöpffer 2006). The international standards have recently
been slightly revised with the modied standards ISO 14040/44 2006 in October
2006 (Finkbeiner et al. 2006) superseding the older series ISO 14040 (1997), 14041
(1998), 14042 (2000a), T9043 (2000b). On the other hand, it is well known that
© 2008 by the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC)
Outlook 159
LCA is an active research eld, so further methodological developments are to be
expected. A recent textbook on LCA outlines the development as well as the method
and the most important applications (Baumann and Tillman 2004). The Dutch LCA
guidelines can be considered a comprehensive recent monograph, based on the ISO
series of LCA standards (Guinée et al. 2002). A similar endeavor from the Danish
point of view dates back to the late 1990s (Wenzel et al. 1997; Hauschild and Wenzel
1998). The basic principles of LCA, which together distinguish this method from
other environmental assessment methods, are as follows:
The analysis is conducted “from cradle to grave.”r
All mass and energy ows, resource and land use, as well as potential r

impacts connected with these “interventions” are set in relation to a func-
tional unit as a quantitative measure of the benet of the system(s).
The method is comparative; LCAs are restricted to improvements of only 1 r
system, even if the future state is compared to the present one.
The advantage, at least theoretically, of the completeness is partly offset by the uncer-
tainty regarding where and when exactly some of the processes or emissions occur,
which ecosystems or how many humans may be harmed, and whether or not thresh-
olds of effects are really surpassed due to the emissions or other effects that can be
attributed to the systems studied. Furthermore, the magnitude of the reference ows,
which quantify the functional unit, is usually xed arbitrarily. As a consequence, the
absolute amount of the “interventions” (i.e., emissions and use of resources) has no
meaning, and concentrations of emitted substances cannot be calculated (hence, no
risk assessment is possible). The additional use of other absolute, noncomparative
methods (e.g., risk assessment, material, and substance ow analysis) is, therefore,
recommended for the sake of decision making. It is difcult, however, to integrate
such additional methods directly into LCA studies. This may be seen as a disadvan-
tage, though it is outweighed by the advantages of standardization of LCA, such as a
clear structure and measures against misuse, for example in marketing. Sonnemann
et al. (2003) describe, for industrial processes, the integration of LCA and environ-
mental risk assessment.
The ISO structure of LCA goes back to a very similar scheme proposed by SETAC
(1993) and now consists of the following four components (ISO 14040/44 2006):
Goal and scope denitionr
Inventory analysisr
Impact assessmentr
Interpretationr
If comparative assertions (e.g., system A is better than or equal to system B in regard
to its environmental aspects) are part of an LCA and are intended to be made avail-
able to the public, a critical review is mandatory according to the panel method (i.e.,
by at least 3 reviewers; ISO 14040/44 2006). This and many other “obstacles” were

built into the ISO series of LCA standards in order to prevent their misuse, especially
by false public claims. As a consequence of these preventive measures, a full LCA to
© 2008 by the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC)
160 Environmental Life Cycle Costing
be used publicly has become a somewhat lengthy procedure. Of course, the learning
process is more rewarding in a long and carefully conducted LCA study compared
to a “quick and dirty” one.
It has been widely observed that the design phase permits, quite often, only cur-
sory assessments, and, therefore, simplied methods were proposed and also com-
pared with each other (Hunt et al. 1998). In design for environment, a compromise
has to be found between a reasonably comprehensive coverage of the life cycle, the
impact categories, and the time needed for data collection and modeling. The actual
calculation process is rapid due to the elaborate LCA software that is now available.
It is also true that additional and higher quality data have become available recently
(Frischknecht et al. 2005). It should also be noted that the standards are much more
exible and less demanding if the results are used internally. In this case, the criti-
cal review is optional and can be performed by a single internal or external expert
instead of a panel according to ISO 14040/44 (2006), and weighing between results
of different impact categories is allowed.
9.2.2 LIFE CYCLE COSTING (LCC)
LCC is older than LCA, though it is not yet standardized. It also has a large potential
for extending the scope of LCA in the direction of sustainability assessment (Hun-
keler and Rebitzer 2001; Norris 2001; Rebitzer 2002; Klöpffer 2003; Klöpffer and
Renner 2008). This environmental LCC (see Chapter 3) is based on the physical life
cycle used in LCA and avoids the monetization of externalities that are not to be
internalized in the decision-relevant future, since this would mean a double count-
ing: environmental impacts are quantied in the life cycle impact assessment (LCIA)
component of LCA in physical units (ISO 14040/44 2006).
It should be noted that LCC includes the use and end-of-life phases (i.e., from
cradle to grave, as in LCA), so that the result cannot be approximated by the price

of a product (so-called cradle to factory gate or cradle to point of sale). Furthermore,
LCC is an assessment method, not an economic cost-accounting method. Potential
links of sustainability assessment and, in particular, LCC with environmental man-
agement accounting have been discussed by Klöpffer and Renner (2007).
9.2.3 SOCIETAL LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT (SLCA)
SLCA is generally considered to be still in its infancy, although the idea is not new
(Öko-Institut 1987; O’Brian et al. 1996). Quite to the contrary, a signicant increase
in the number of papers published can recently be observed:
Dreyer et al. (2006) aim at assessing the responsibility of the companies r
involved, although the products are the point of reference. This necessarily
gives more weight to the foreground activities and to the people involved
in them.
Labuschagne and Brent (2006) strive for completeness of the social indica-r
tors to be used in a social impact assessment.
Weidema (2006) includes elements of cost–benet analysis (CBA) and r
proposes quality-adjusted life years (QALY) as a main measure of human
© 2008 by the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC)
Outlook 161
health and well-being (a common endpoint for toxic and social health
impacts). The author holds the view that social impacts should be treated
within LCA as a special section of impact assessment, that is, a common
inventory (LCI) would be required.
Norris (2006) considers social and socioeconomic impacts leading to poor r
health; life cycle attribute assessment as a web-based instrument should
complement classical LCA methods.
Hunkeler (2006) deals with the connection of societal indicators with the r
functional unit. This is a daunting problem, given the mostly qualitative
nature of societal indicators and the need for quantication in comparative
assessments. It seems to now be near a solution, taking the working hours
spent per functional unit as the link; furthermore, regional income per

hour and the number of working hours needed to satisfy important social
needs (e.g., education and health care) are used to quantify the different
social development statuses of the regions. The higher regional resolution
needed for the establishment of societal life cycle inventories (SLCIs) will
be a challenge for the LCA community, but, on the other hand, there are
researchers claiming for a much better regional resolution in LCA or LCIA,
too (Potting and Hauschild 2006).
9.3 DISCUSSION
There are at least 2 options to include the social aspects into a life cycle–based sus-
tainability assessment. The 1st option corresponds to Equation (1) and is based on 3
separate life cycle assessments with consistent system boundaries and the same func-
tional unit (Klöpffer 2003). A formal weighting between the 3 pillars, although pos-
sible, would, more appropriately, be avoided. The main advantage of this approach
is its transparency. The attribution of advantages and disadvantages in comparative
assessments is clear in this variant; there is no compensation between the pillars. As
a consequence, a favorable (economic) ELCC result for a given product cannot out-
weigh less favorable or even poor results in (environmental) LCA and SLCA. Such
an overweighting of the economic part, as is daily practice in business today, would
perpetuate the (largely unsustainable) status quo of economy.
SustAss = LCA (new, expanded relative to ISO 14040/44 [2006],
and including elements of ELCC and SLCA as additional impacts in LCIA). (2)
The 2nd option (equation (2)) would imply that 1 LCI would be followed up by
3 impact assessments covering the potential environmental, economic, and social
impacts per functional unit of the product system studied. The advantage of this
option would be that the same LCI could be used for all 3 impact assessments, solv-
ing the system boundary problem. Such a solution seems to be preferred by Weidema
(2006). Disregarding for the moment the danger of mixing up the 3 dimensions,
there remains the question of whether or not option 2 is compatible with ISO.
The revised framework standard ISO 14040/44 (2006) says, “LCA addresses the
environmental aspects and potential impacts” throughout a product’s life cycle from

© 2008 by the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC)
162 Environmental Life Cycle Costing
raw material acquisition to production, use, end-of-life treatment, recycling, and nal
disposal (i.e., from cradle to grave). It also noted, “LCA typically does not address the
economic or social aspects of a product, but the life cycle approach and methodolo-
gies described in this International Standard may be applied to these other aspects.”
These statements clearly favor option 1, and future separate standardizations of
ELCC and SLCA would be a logical consequence. On the other hand, ISO 14040/44
(2006) could be revised again in the future and possibly accommodate economic
and societal impact assessments. Since this revision will certainly not begin in the
immediate future, the coming years should be used for discussing the best way to
formalize sustainability assessment. Additional experience with the new social indi-
cators will be required, in particular establishing the means to unambiguously link
them to the functional unit of a product system. The selection and quantication of
the most appropriate metrics per functional unit will be the main scientic problem
regardless of whether option 1 or 2 will be followed. As in LCIA, it will not be pos-
sible to properly quantify all desirable impacts.
© 2008 by the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC)