Towards harmonizing natural resources as an area of protection in life cycle impact assessment

Purpose. In this paper, we summarize the discussion and present the findings of an expert group effort under the umbrella of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)/Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) Life Cycle Initiative proposing natural resources as an Area of Protection (AoP) in Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA). Methods: As a first step, natural resources have been defined for the LCA context with reference to the overall UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) framework. Second, existing LCIA methods have been reviewed and discussed. The reviewed methods have been evaluated according to the considered type of natural resources and their underlying principles followed (use-to-availability ratios, backup technology approaches, or thermodynamic accounting methods). Results and discussion. There is currently no single LCIA method available that addresses impacts for all natural resource categories, nor do existing methods and models addressing different natural resource categories do so in a consistent way across categories. Exceptions are exergy and solar energy-related methods, which cover the widest range of resource categories. However, these methods do not link exergy consumption to changes in availability or provisioning capacity of a specific natural resource (e.g., mineral, water, land etc.). So far, there is no agreement in the scientific community on the most relevant type of future resource indicators (depletion, increased energy use or cost due to resource extraction, etc.). To address this challenge, a framework based on the concept of stock/fund/flow resources is proposed to identify, across natural resource categories, whether depletion/dissipation (of stocks and funds) or competition (for flows) is the main relevant aspect. Conclusions. An LCIA method—or a set of methods—that consistently address all natural resource categories is needed in order to avoid burden shifting from the impact associated with one resource to the impact associated with another resource. This paper is an important basis for a step forward in the direction of consistently integrating the various natural resources as an Area of Protection into LCA

Adjusting the social footprint methodology based on findings of subjective wellbeing research

Purpose: Following some years of practical application, some weaknesses have been identified in the original 2018 version of the ‘social footprint’ methodology, where wellbeing was seen as exclusively related to consumption activities and as inseparably linked to production through the budget constraint, implying that the value of wellbeing was limited to be a mirror of the value of production. Several improvements in both methodology and data are presented here. Methods: The theoretical improvements are inspired by the suggestion of Juster et al. (Rev Income Wealth 27: 1–31, 1981) that wellbeing can be seen as the sum of the value added generated from work and the intrinsic activity benefits, i.e. the positive affect from performing or taking part in specific work or leisure activities. This implies a relatively low preference for income relative to intrinsic activity benefits, which is confirmed by recent findings of subjective wellbeing research. Other findings of subjective wellbeing research provide a constraint on the conversion factor between Disability-Adjusted Life-Years (DALY) and Quality-Adjusted person-Life-Years (QALY), leading to a surprising 0.3 QALY/DALY, against the more intuitive 1 QALY/DALY. These theoretical improvements, combined with the availability of more recent country-specific data on impacts on wellbeing, allow to calculate a global potential level of wellbeing of 0.958 QALY/person-life-year, replacing the global potential productivity of the 2018 version of the ‘social footprint’ methodology. Results and discussion: The new country-specific data allows the valuation of impacts on wellbeing to be assessed separately from the valuation of inequality, the latter now done with equity weights relative to country-specific average income baselines, rather than to the global baseline used in the 2018 version. Conclusion: The new data confirm the dominating role of impacts of missing governance, now quantified at 78% of all sustainability impacts, which was the original motivation and rationale behind the 2018 version of the ‘social footprint’ methodology.</p

The computational structure of environmental life cycle costing

Existing computational methods for life cycle costing (LCC) are few and appeared inconsistent with the very definition of LCC. This article improves the common matrix-based approach in life cycle assessment as applied to LCC, correcting previous errors. Reusing a simple and hypothetical example, the authors derive the LCC from both the physical and monetary technology matrices. Accounting for the added value of all activities in the life cycle leads to a simplified computational structure for LCC. The results show that the definition of LCC and computational structure can be fully harmonized with life cycle assessments (LCAs) and simplified. In addition to eco-efficiency calculations, the vector of added values, if disaggregated over social groups, allows for distributional analysis. It is furthermore shown how LCC can account for costs shifting (economic externalities) in the same way as LCA highlights shifting of environmental externalities between different products, life cycle stages or actors. Life cycle costing as defined by the sum of the added value over the life cycle is consistent with LCA and cradle to gate assessments in particular. The authors simplified the computation of LCC with either the matrix-based approach or the added values of upstream activities as an elementary exchange vector or matrix