Life cycle thinking

The limitations of LCA

Despite the effectiveness of the ISO 14040 framework in assessing environmental impacts, it encounters several challenges. One of the main limitations is the challenge of comparing assessments. The application of different models, various system boundaries, and making diverse assumptions hinders the ability to make fair comparisons between products. Specialists can explain and communicate their assumptions; however, there remains a lack of clear criteria to define the functional unit, system boundaries, and selection of indicators. Consequently, it can be difficult to communicate LCA results to target audiences (e.g. decision-makers) (Valdivia et al., 2021).

The broad scope, linear modelling, and holistic approach inherent in LCA are also bound by limitations including technical assumptions, value choices, simplifications, and considerations that are made to analyse every aspect of the LCA. Additionally, LCA assumes that the impact remains constant regardless of when it occurs in time (Jolliet et al., 2015). To address these issues, efforts have been intensified by experts and practitioners. More stringent methodologies, such as the Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) and Global Guidance on Environmental Life Cycle Impact Assessment Indicators (GLAM), have been introduced to refine and standardise the assessment processes. These approaches aim to establish more uniform criteria and enhance the comparability and communicability of environmental assessments.

Standardised data

LCA practitioners frequently encounter challenges due to their reliance on databases that are not regularly updated, contain information of uncertain quality, and lack clarity due to the visualisation of different processes rather than the individual stages. These make the information and the LCA inputs difficult to compare themselves (de Haes, 2001). One opportunity area for this methodology is the standardisation of the database format.

Local impacts are not assessed within the standard framework of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), but there is potential to refine the methodology to scale down and interpret impacts more precisely. This adjustment allows for a detailed analysis of where the impacts (both positive and negative) are originating from, enhancing the ability to predict other critical aspects of the life-cycle study. LCA serves as a support for decision-making, however, it does not make or shortlist those decisions. It is an analytical tool that only displays results (de Haes, 2001).