Mainstreaming life cycle thinking through a consistent approach to footprints

Over recent years, footprints have emerged as an important means of reporting environmental performance. Some individual footprints have become quite sophisticated in their calculation procedures. However, as an overallclass of environmental metrics they have been poorly defined, having a variety of conceptual foundations and an unclear relationship to LCA. The variety and sometimes contradictory approaches to quantification have also led to confusing and contradictory messages in the marketplace which have undermined their acceptance by industry and governments.In response, a task force operating under the auspices of the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative project on environmental Life Cycle Impact Assessment has been working to develop generic guidance for developers of footprint metrics. The initial work involved forming a consensual position on the difference between footprints and existing LCA impact category indicators. In short, footprints are deemed to have a primary orientation toward society and nontechnical stakeholders and report only on selected topics of concern. On the other hand, LCA impact category indicators have a primary orientation toward technical stakeholders and report in relation to a larger framework designed for comprehensive evaluation of environmental performance and trade-offs. The task force has also developed a universal footprint definition. In parallel to Area of Protection, we introduce Area of Concern. In the same way that LCA uses impact category indicators to assess impacts that follow a common cause-effect pathway toward Areas of rotection, ootprint metrics address Areas of Concern. The critical difference is that Areas of Concern are defined by the interests of stakeholders in society rather than the LCA community. In addition, Areas of Concern are stand-alone and not part of a framework intended for comprehensive environmental performance assessment. Accordingly, footprints are universally defined as metrics used to report life cycle assessment results addressing an Area of Concern

Adoption of an official ISEA glossary

The International Society for Exposure Analysis (ISEA) and its Nomenclature Committee have been involved since the mid-1990s in an intermittent but ongoing effort to develop an official ISEA glossary. Several related activities have stimulated greater interest and discussion nationally and internationally on a common exposure language. Among these activites are a 1997 Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology feature article on exposure and dose definitions and a 1999-initiated project of the International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS) (WHO/ILO/UNEP) to confront terminology issues hindering harmonization in the area of exposure assessment. Recently, the ISEA members voted in support of adopting the IPCS glossary as the official ISEA glossary, and the ISEA Executive Board agreed to accept this recommendation. In this feature article, we (1) describe the process through which the ISEA adopted the IPCS glossary as the official ISEA glossary, (2) present the joint IPCS/ISEA glossary of terms and their definitions, and (3) discuss plans for how the glossary can be used by ISEA and updated over time by ISEA and IPCS. The glossary is intended to be a living document that reflects the latest usage and maintains international harmonization of exposure terminology that can be practically applied to improve communication in exposure and related fields