Explore the vast range of titles available.

Purpose and contextThis paper aims to establish principles for the increased application and use of life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA). Sustainable development (SD) encompassing resilient economies and social stability of the global system is growingly important for decision-makers from business and governments. The “17 SDGs” emerge as a high-level shared blueprint for peace, abundance, and prosperity for people and the planet, and “sustainability” for supporting improvements of products and organizations. A “sustainability” interpretation—successful in aligning stakeholders’ understanding—subdivides the impacts according to a triple bottom line or three pillars: economic, social, and environmental impacts. These context and urgent needs inspired the LCSA framework. This entails a sustainability assessment of products and organizations in accordance with the three pillars, while adopting a life cycle perspective.MethodsThe Life Cycle Initiative promotes since 2011 a pragmatic LCSA framework based on the three techniques: LCSA = environmental life cycle assessment (LCA) + life cycle costing (LCC) + social life cycle assessment (S-LCA). This is the focus of the paper, while acknowledging previous developments. Identified and reviewed literature shows challenges of addressing the three pillars in the LCSA framework implementation like considering only two pillars; not being fully aligned with ISO 14040; lacking interconnectedness among the three pillars; not having clear criteria for results’ weighting nor clear results’ interpretation; and not following cause-effect chains and mechanisms leading to an endpoint. Agreement building among LCSA experts and reviewing processes strengthened the consensus on this paper. Broad support and outreach are ensured by publishing this as position paper.ResultsFor harmonizing practical LCSA applications, easing interpretation, and increasing usefulness, consensed ten LCSA principles (10P) are established: understanding the areas of protection, alignment with ISO 14040, completeness, stakeholders’ and product utility considerations, materiality of system boundaries, transparency, consistency, explicit trade-offs’ communication, and caution when compensating impacts. Examples were provided based on a fictional plastic water bottleConclusionsIn spite of increasing needs for and interest in SD and sustainability supporting tools, LCSA is at an early application stage of application. The 10P aim to promote more and better LCSA applications by ensuring alignment with ISO 14040, completeness and clear interpretation of integrated results, among others. For consolidating its use, however, more consensus-building is needed (e.g., on value-laden ethical aspects of LCSA, interdependencies and interconnectedness among the three dimensions, and harmonization and integration of the three techniques) and technical and policy recommendations for application.

PurposeLife cycle assessment (LCA) has been used to assess freshwater-related impacts according to a new water footprint framework formalized in the ISO 14046 standard. To date, no consensus-based approach exists for applying this standard and results are not always comparable when different scarcity or stress indicators are used for characterization of impacts. This paper presents the outcome of a 2-year consensus building process by the Water Use in Life Cycle Assessment (WULCA), a working group of the UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle Initiative, on a water scarcity midpoint method for use in LCA and for water scarcity footprint assessments.MethodsIn the previous work, the question to be answered was identified and different expert workshops around the world led to three different proposals. After eliminating one proposal showing low relevance for the question to be answered, the remaining two were evaluated against four criteria: stakeholder acceptance, robustness with closed basins, main normative choice, and physical meaning.Results and discussionThe recommended method, AWARE, is based on the quantification of the relative available water remaining per area once the demand of humans and aquatic ecosystems has been met, answering the question “What is the potential to deprive another user (human or ecosystem) when consuming water in this area?” The resulting characterization factor (CF) ranges between 0.1 and 100 and can be used to calculate water scarcity footprints as defined in the ISO standard.ConclusionsAfter 8 years of development on water use impact assessment methods, and 2 years of consensus building, this method represents the state of the art of the current knowledge on how to assess potential impacts from water use in LCA, assessing both human and ecosystem users’ potential deprivation, at the midpoint level, and provides a consensus-based methodology for the calculation of a water scarcity footprint as per ISO 14046.

Several recent publications reflect debate on the issue of “endocrine disrupting chemicals” (EDCs), indicating that two seemingly mutually exclusive perspectives are being articulated separately and independently. Considering this, a group of scientists with expertise in basic science, medicine and risk assessment reviewed the various aspects of the debate to identify the most significant areas of dispute and to propose a path forward. We identified four areas of debate. The first is about the definitions for terms such as “endocrine disrupting chemical”, “adverse effects”, and “endocrine system”. The second is focused on elements of hormone action including “potency”, “endpoints”, “timing”, “dose” and “thresholds”. The third addresses the information needed to establish sufficient evidence of harm. Finally, the fourth focuses on the need to develop and the characteristics of transparent, systematic methods to review the EDC literature. Herein we identify areas of general consensus and propose resolutions for these four areas that would allow the field to move beyond the current and, in our opinion, ineffective debate.

Purpose While the environmental and economic aspects of sustainability have been extensively studied, social sustainability has been largely neglected and necessitates a thorough investigation. The study examines the intricate nature of social impact assessments, considering the substantial significance of the textile industry in the global economy and its wide-ranging social implications. This study comprehensively examines critical social subcategories used in the life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology to highlight the social sustainability of the textile sector. The objective of the study is to enhance and optimize the subcategories proposed by UNEP/SETAC for social LCA by examining, expanding, and adapting them specifically to the textile industry, offering a more focused and sector-specific viewpoint on key metrics. Methods The study examines its use in textile production and distribution by first carefully evaluating the subcategories established by UNEP/SETAC for social LCA. A systematic assessment of positive and negative social impacts throughout the entire supply chain is examined through global standards, textile-specific standards, and literature. Analysis of semi-structured stakeholder interviews and a comprehensive literature review reveals important social subcategories, some of which go beyond the S-LCA guidelines. Results New social metrics, including quality, women’s rights, gender pay gap, collaboration with NGOs, academic research, circularity implementation, and environmental issues, were formulated from stakeholders’ perspectives, tailored specifically for the textile sector. Conclusions The results of the study aim to promote a socially sustainable textile industry by guiding stakeholders to make informed decisions and adopt methods that prioritize social responsibility as well as environmental and economic factors.

PURPOSE: As a class of environmental metrics, footprints have been poorly defined, have shared an unclear relationship to life cycle assessment (LCA), and the variety of approaches to quantification have sometimes resulted in confusing and contradictory messages in the marketplace. In response, a task force operating under the auspices of the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative project on environmental life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) has been working to develop generic guidance for developers of footprint metrics. The purpose of this paper is to introduce a universal footprint definition and related terminology as well as to discuss modelling implications. METHODS: The task force has worked from the perspective that footprints should be based on LCA methodology, underpinned by the same data systems and models as used in LCA. However, there are important differences in purpose and orientation relative to LCA impact category indicators. Footprints have a primary orientation toward society and nontechnical stakeholders. They are also typically of narrow scope, having the purpose of reporting only in relation to specific topics. In comparison, LCA has a primary orientation toward stakeholders interested in comprehensive evaluation of overall environmental performance and trade-offs among impact categories. These differences create tension between footprints, the existing LCIA framework based on the area of protection paradigm and the core LCA standards ISO14040/44. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: In parallel to area of protection, we introduce area of concern as the basis for a universal footprint definition. In the same way that LCA uses impact category indicators to assess impacts that follow a common cause-effect pathway toward areas of protection, footprint 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 necessarily part of a framework intended for comprehensive environmental performance assessment. The area of concern paradigm is needed to support the development of footprints in a way that fulfils their distinctly different purpose. It is also needed as a mechanism to extricate footprints from some of the provisions of ISO 14040/44 which are not considered relevant. Specific issues are identified in relation to double counting, aggregation and the selection of relevant indicators. CONCLUSIONS: The universal footprint definition and related terminology introduced in this paper create a foundation that will support the development of footprint metrics in parallel with LCA.

Purpose This paper provides global weights (weighting factors) for the three endpoint impact categories (areas of protection (AoPs)) of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Life Cycle Initiative’s “Global Guidance for Life Cycle Impact Assessment Indicators and Methods” (GLAM) project, namely human health, ecosystem quality, and natural resources and ecosystem services. Methods A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was conducted to elicit the preferences of respondents on the GLAM AoPs, and they were then used to calculate the respective weights. Responses were obtained from a subset of countries pertaining to each income level defined by the World Bank (i.e. low, lower-middle, upper-middle, and high). The adimensional (between 0 and 1) weights were derived using two different approaches: econometric and multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA). The econometric approach obtained weights by transforming the estimated preference parameters from a multinomial logit model. The MCDA approach obtained weights representing the vectors that best reconstitute the choices of each individual, using linear programming to fit an additive value function. Results When considering responses from all income groups, the weights from the econometric approach are 0.42, 0.31, and 0.26 for human health, ecosystem quality, and natural resources and ecosystem services, respectively. Following the same order for the AoPs, the weights from the MCDA approach are 0.41, 0.32, and 0.27. For high-income countries, ecosystem quality has the highest weight; for upper-middle-income countries, ecosystem quality and human health have the same weights using the econometric approach, while in the MCDA approach, human health is weighted higher than ecosystem quality. For the two lower income country groups, the priority is given to human health with both approaches. Recommendations for the use of these weights are also provided, as well as a comparison with other existing weights. Conclusion The two methods obtained similar weights overall, although with some differences when disaggregated by income groups. The weights proposed in this paper are suitable for decision-makers or users who want to use survey-derived weights for endpoint-based LCA when using the AoPs of GLAM. These weights can be used in projects where the decision-makers do not want to or have no resources to identify a set of weights themselves, or when decision-makers are not involved.

Accurate assessment of changes in climate conditions and their impacts on different sectors including agriculture, animal husbandry, wildlife, environment, and so forth can affect the appropriate natural disaster management. The aridity index defined by the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) is one of the most widely used indices in the evaluation of climate conditions based on the ratio of precipitation (P) and potential evapotranspiration (PET) parameters. In this study, the impact of changes on PET calculation methods (6 PET calculation methods) in values of UNEP aridity index were compared by analyzing the data series of 28 synoptic stations with various climate conditions on monthly and seasonal time scales in Iran from 1967 to 2017. Therefore, it is determined to apply the FAO Penman–Monteith (FPM) equation as the reference method to measure PET. According to the results, based on the GEE method (Backward Generalized Estimating Equations) within monthly and seasonal time scales, calculated UNEP aridity index based on Hargreaves–Samani (HS), Jensen–Haise (JH), and Blaney–Criddle (BC) equations, respectively had the most similarities with calculated UNEP Aridity Index based on FPM method. The clustering analysis indicated that values of calculated UNEP aridity index within the monthly and seasonal time scales using JH, HS and BC equations are strikingly similar to the values of calculated UNEP aridity index using the FPM method. The average similarity rates of the calculated UNEP aridity index using JH and HS equations and by FPM method were 98.35% and 98.34% within a 1-month time scale and 98.11% and 98.09% within a 3-month time scale, respectively.

Purpose: The life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) guidance flagship project of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)/Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) Life Cycle Initiative aims at providing global guidance and building scientific consensus on environmental LCIA indicators. This paper presents the progress made since 2013, preliminary results obtained for each impact category and the description of a rice life cycle assessment (LCA) case study designed to test and compare LCIA indicators. Methods: The effort has been focused in a first stage on impacts of global warming, fine particulate matter emissions, water use and land use, plus cross-cutting issues and LCA-based footprints. The paper reports the process and progress and specific results obtained in the different task forces (TFs). Additionally, a rice LCA case study common to all TF has been developed. Three distinctly different scenarios of producing and cooking rice have been defined and underlined with life cycle inventory data. These LCAs help testing impact category indicators which are being developed and/or selected in the harmonisation process. The rice LCA case study further helps to ensure the practicality of the finally recommended impact category indicators. Results and discussion: The global warming TF concludes that analysts should explore the sensitivity of LCA results to metrics other than GWP. The particulate matter TF attained initial guidance of how to include health effects from PM2.5 exposures consistently into LCIA. The biodiversity impacts of land use TF suggests to consider complementary metrics besides species richness for assessing biodiversity loss. The water use TF is evaluating two stress-based metrics, AWaRe and an alternative indicator by a stakeholder consultation. The cross-cutting issues TF agreed upon maintaining disability-adjusted life years (DALY) as endpoint unit for the safeguard subject 'human health'. The footprint TF defined main attributes that should characterise all footprint indicators. 'Rice cultivation' and 'cooking' stages of the rice LCA case study contribute most to the environmental impacts assessed. Conclusions: The results of the TF will be documented in white papers and some published in scientific journals. These white papers represent the input for the Pellston workshop', taking place in Valencia, Spain, from 24 to 29 January 2016, where best practice, harmonised LCIA indicators and an update on the general LCIA framework will be discussed and agreed on. With the diversity in results and the multi-tier supply chains, the rice LCA case study is well suited to test candidate recommended indicators and to ensure their applicability in common LCA case studies.