A Comparison of Methods for the Application of Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment

Abstract

ABSTRACT. Growing environmental awareness and stringent environmental regulations are urging companies to look for sustainable opportunities in their supply chain (SC) that reduce environmental impacts while achieving economic and social benefits [1,2]. This interrelationship between the three dimensions of sustainability is addressed in the life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) methodology [3-6]. However, LCSA is still faced with the difficulty of integrating the three components of sustainability [6] for different types of LCSA methodologies (consequential, lead firm and educative). There are LCSA studies that have made efforts to help meet this challenge [e.g.7-13]. This review lays the foundation for a PhD project on developing a decision-making approach using LCSA that can guide large greenhouse gas emitters in Alberta, Canada develop sustainable strategies along their SC.

In light of the recent developments in LCSA, new approaches and methods proposed for the integration of environmental, economic and social dimensions of LCSA are reviewed [7-13] with the objective of identifying their strengths and weaknesses. A systematic comparison between these methods is made, focusing on the following factors: - Objective - Inventory indicators and categories for each dimension - Impact assessment method for each dimension - Aggregation procedure for the results of the three dimensions - Results presentation in decision-making - Outcome - Case study product systems

The review indicates that these frameworks have succeeded to integrate the three dimensions of sustainability and present the LCSA results. Yet, these approaches need further improvements. There are data quality, aggregating, and weighting issues that could increase uncertainty and subjectivity of LCSA results. In the reviewed approaches, not all relevant indicators, especially qualitative social indicators, were considered. Most of these approaches were examined for one or two case studies, making the implications difficult to generalize. Current approaches proposed were only applicable to consequential LCSA in order to compare sustainability performance of alternatives. There is still lack of lead firm LCSA approaches which evaluate the sustainability performance of companies and identify possible areas of sustainability improvements, targeting their processes.

By pointing out the strengths and limitations of LCSA methods and highlighting areas that call for new contributions, this work helps advance the development of this emergent field.

Citations

1. Ashby A., Leat M., Hudson-Smith M., 2012. Making connections: a review of supply chain management and sustainability literature. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 17(5), 497-516.

2. Beske, P., Seuring, S., 2014. Putting sustainability into supply chain management. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 19(3), 322-331.

3. Zamagni Alessandra, 2012. Life cycle sustainability assessment. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 17, 373-376.

4. Valdivia, S., Ugaya, CML., Sonnemann, G., &Hildenbrand, J. (eds.), 2011. Towards a life cycle sustainability assessment. Making informed choices on products. ISBN: 978-92-807-3175-0 Paris 2011. Retrieved from http://www.unep.org/pdf/UNEP_LifecycleInit_Dec_FINAL.pdf

5. United Nation Environment Program, UNEP/SETAC, 2011. Towards life cycle sustainability assessment: Making informed choices on products, Retrieved from http://www.unep.org/pdf/UNEP_LifecycleInit_Dec_FINAL.pdf

6. Valdivia S., Ugaya C.M.L., Hildenbrand J., Traverso M., Mazijm B., Sonnemann G., 2013. A UNEP/SETAC approach toward a life cycle sustainability assessment – our contribution to Rio+20. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 18, 1673-1685.

7. Traverso M., FinkbeinerM., Jorgensen A., Schneider L., 2012a. Life cycle sustainability dashboard. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 16(5), 680-688.

8. Traverso M., Asdrubali F., Francia A., Finkbeiner M., 2012b. Toward life cycle sustainability assessment: an implementation to photovoltaic modules. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 17, 1068-1079.

9. Basurko O.C., Mesbahi E., 2014. Methodology for the sustainability assessment of marine technologies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 68, 155-164.

10. Foolmaun, R.K. and Ramjeawon, T., 2012. Life cycle sustainability assessments (LCSA) of four disposal scenarios for used polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles in Mauritius. Environmental Development Sustainability, 15, 783-806.

11. Finkbeiner, M., Schau, E.M., Lehmann, A., Traverso, M., 2010. Towards life cycle sustainability assessment. Sustainability, 2, 3309-3322. doi:10.3390/su2103309

12. Vinyes E., Oliver-Sola J., UgayaC., Rieradeyall J., Gasol C.M., 2013. Application of LCSA to used cooking oil waste management. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 18, 445-455.

13. Zhang, H., Haapala, K.R., 2014. Integrating sustainability manufacturing assessment into decision making for a production work cell. Journal of Cleaner Production, 1-12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.01.038

Full text

A Comparison of Methods for the Application
of Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment
Marwa Hannouf & Getachew Assefa
Faculty of Environmental Design
Institute for Sustainable Energy, Environment and Economy
University of Calgary
Alberta, Canada

Presentation Outline
• Aims
• Study framework
• Comparison of life cycle sustainability assessment
approaches
• Results
• Strengths and Limitations
• Conclusions

Aims
1. To conduct a systematic review of approaches proposed for
the application of LCSA
2. To assess strengths and weaknesses of different methods
used to apply LCSA

1. Selection of studies
Study Framework
2. Identification of methods used to apply LCSA
3. Comparison of these methods
4. Assessment of strengths and limitations

Selection of studies
Inclusion criteria
• Keyword “LCSA”
• Articles used LCSA framework proposed by UNEP/SETAC
Exclusion criteria
• Articles were not focused on the three dimensions of
sustainability
• Articles focused only on some specific issues in LCSA
• Articles proposed a macro-level sustainability assessment
(input-output analysis)

Selection of studies!
Theme Year
1 Marine technologies (ballast water treatments) 2014
2 Disposal methods of post-consumer Polythylene Terephthalate bottles 2013
3 Used cooking oil collection systems 2013
4 Bioethanol production pathways 2015
5 Manufactured alternators 2012
6 Manufacturing work cell scenarios 2014
7 Solar photovoltaic 2015
8 Photovolatic modules 2012
9 Mid-rise residential buildings 2015
10 Hard floor coverings 2012

Our criteria to identify the approaches used to
apply LCSA
Focusing on the following factors:
1. Objective
2. Inventory indicators and categories for each dimension
3. Impact assessment method for each dimension
4. Aggregation procedure for the results of the three dimensions
5. Results presentation in decision-making
6. Case studies

Comparison of the LCSA approaches
Based on each factor

Results
1. Objective
1. Comparison between alternative actions ✓
2. Market communication ✗
3. Identification of possible improvements in companies’ processes ✗#
No studies considered the other two applications for LCSA
#

2. Inventory indicators and impact categories
Results
ELCA and LCC:
• Most indicators and impact categories are considered ✓
SLCA:
• Most studies focused on quantitative indicators ✗
• Limited number of qualitative indicators were included ✗
• Some indicators were limited to workers or consumers stakeholders ✗
Need to focus on qualitative and semi-quantitative indicators in the social
dimension

Eco-
indicator99
Recipe Total life
cycle costs =
LCC-LCR
Net present
value
Weighting
and
normalizing
the social
impacts
Contribution
percentages
and scores to
indicators
Life cycle
sustainability
dashboard!
Analytical
hierarchy
process
!
ELCA% ✓%✓%✓%✓%✓%
LCC% ✓%✓%✓%✓%
SLCA% ✓%✓%✓%✓%
Weighting issues could increase uncertainty and subjectivity of results
%
Results
3. Impact assessment method

Results
4. Aggregation Procedure for the results of the three
dimensions
• Three methods were used
• No aggregation

Results
First Method:
Arithmetic average of all
dimensions scores using life
cycle sustainability dashboard
(LCSD)
E.g. : Traverso et al. (2012)%

Traverso et al. (2012)
• Aggregated the results automatically (using color scale) ✓
• Handled only quantitative data ✗
• Weights given to indicators and dimensions can increase the
uncertainty and subjectivity of the results ✗

Results
Second Method:
Assigning weights to each sustainability dimension and
calculating a final score for every scenario:
E.g. Index of sustainability = ∑ (Ij * Wd )
“Ij”: Index calculated for each sustainability dimension
“Wd”: Weight given for each sustainability dimension
(Basurko and Mesbahi, 2014)
Weights assigned to the three sustainability dimensions can make wrong
evaluations and increase uncertainty ✗

Results
Third method:
Analytical hierarchy process (AHP):
• Evaluating the weights of all indicators and each sustainability
dimension using some experts’ judgment, measures of importance and
pairwise comparisons
• Integrated weight = ∑ weight for each dimension (Wk) * weigh for each
indicator in this dimension (Wk,n)
• Provides mathematical solution to determine weights ✓
• Complexity and confusion ✗

5. Results presentation in decision-making
First method:
Ranking scores for alternatives based on the results
E.g.
Results
Scenario Weight Rank
1 0.0456 4
2 0.5443 1
3 0.1113 3
4 0.3544 2

Results!
Second method:
• Graphical representation in LCSD showing the results (e.g. ranking
score and color scale)
• Single score of sustainability
Third method:
• Multi-criteria decision-making methods such as “PROMETHEE”:
Translating the difference between the evaluations of alternatives into a
preference degree (using some equations)
• Ranking alternatives

Results!
All methods have clearly presented the LCSA results ✓
Fourth method:
• Graphical representation showing
the results
• Three sustainability factors
Vinyes et al. (2013)

6. Case studies
• One or two case studies to
develop or examine the
approach
• A variety of case studies but
not covering all topics
Results
Implications are difficult to
generalize
Theme
Marine technologies (ballast water treatments)
Disposal methods of post-consumer Polythylene
Terephthalate bottles
Used cooking oil collection systems
Bioethanol production pathways
Manufactured alternators
Manufacturing work cell scenarios
Solar photovoltaic
Photovolatic modules
Mid-rise residential buildings
Hard floor coverings

Strengths and Limitations
Strengths of LCSA approaches:
• Applied the LCSA framework ✓
• Proposed approaches that compare the sustainability performance of
alternatives in supply chain decision-making ✓
• Integrated the three dimensions of sustainability ✓ ? ? ?
• Clearly Presented the LCSA results in decision-making ✓

Limitations of LCSA approaches:
• Focused only on one application of LCA : comparison of different
alternatives ✗
• Lack of LCSA approaches that target the companies’ supply chain
processes ✗
• Not all indicators of SLCA were taken into account “qualitative” ✗
• Limited number of case studies to generalize implications ✗
• Disadvantages associated with methods used to aggregate the results ✗
Strengths and Limitations

Conclusions
• LCSA is still a new and evolving research area
• Future research needs to take the following into
consideration:
1. Need for a decision-making approach that analyzes the
synergies and tradeoffs between the three dimensions of
sustainability
2. Need to diversify the applications of LCSA
3. Need for an application that target sustainability
improvements in companies' supply chain process

Future Research
• Develop a decision-making approach using LCSA that can
guide large greenhouse gas emitters in Alberta, Canada to
develop sustainable strategies along their supply chain
%

Thank You!
Marwa Hannouf
mhannouf@ucalgary.ca
Getachew Assefa
gassefa@ucalgary.ca
Funding provided by:
Alberta Innovates Bio-solutions
%

References
Basurko O.C., Mesbahi E. (2014). Methodology for the sustainability assessment of marine technologies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 68,
155-164.
Foolmaun, R.K. and Ramjeawon, T. (2012). Life cycle sustainability assessments (LCSA) of four disposal scenarios for used polyethylene
terephthalate (PET) bottles in Mauritius. Environmental Development Sustainability, 15, 783-806.
Hossaini, N., Reza, B., Akhtar, S., Sadiq, R., Hewage, K. (2014). AHP based life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) framework: a case study
of six storey wood frame and concrete frame buildings in Vancouver. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 58(7), 1217-1241. Doi:
10.1080/09640568.2014.920704
Ren, J., Manzardo, A., Mazzi, A., Zuliani, F., Scipioni, A. (2015). Prioritization of bioethanol production pathways in China based on life cycle
sustainability assessment and multicriteria decision-making. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 20, 842-853.
Schau, E.M., Traverso, M., Finkbeiner, M. (2012). Life cycle approach to sustainability assessment: a case study of remanufactured alternators.
Journal of remanufacturing, 2(5), 1-14.
Traverso, M., Finkbeiner, M., Jorgensen, A., Schneider, L., (2012). Life cycle sustainability dashboard. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 16(5),
680-688.
Traverso, M., Asdrubali, F., Francia, A., Finkbeiner, M., (2012). Toward life cycle sustainability assessment: an implementation to photovoltaic
modules. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 17, 1068-1079.
Vinyes, E., Oliver-Sola, J., Ugaya, C., Rieradeyall, J., Gasol, C.M. (2013). Application of LCSA to used cooking oil waste management.
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 18, 445-455.
Yu, M., Halog, A. (2015). Solar Photovoltaic Development in Australia—A Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment Study. Sustainability, 7,
1213-1247. Doi: 10.3390/su7021213
Zhang, H., Haapala, K.R. (2014). Integrating sustainability manufacturing assessment into decision making for a production work cell. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 1-12.
%