After the inventory analysis comes the third phase of the LCA, the Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA). Here, inventory data are linked to environmental impacts. This phase aims at understanding and evaluating the environmental impacts of a product system.
LCIA includes three important steps on the way to obtaining the results (ISO, 2006):
The selection of impact categories, category indicators and characterisation models,
Classification: assigning inventory results to relevant impact categories.
Conversion of LCI results into common units, e.g., the characterisation factor 'Global Warming Potential' (GWP, kg of CO2-eq to air) is used in the impact category for climate change. This approach simplifies the evaluation of a environmental impacts across different substances and categories (Hauschild et al., 2013).
Additionally, additional steps may be needed to prepare the results, such as normalisation and weighting (depending on the goal).
In Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA), we look at various impact categories which are aspects of the environment and human health affected by a product's life cycle. Special models calculate indicators that represent the environmental or health stress for each unit of emission or resource use within each category. This allows us to compare different emissions, resource use, and product options across these indicators. The results can be expressed as midpoint indicators which report a common environmental impact for all contributing substances. This is how we can use a single measure of CO2-equivalents to represent climate change and not require the GWP of each individual substance for example. Further data processing can aggregate the output into endpoint indicators, which include natural resources, ecosystem quality, and human health (Hauschild et al., 2013).
Midpoint indicators help us focus on singular environmental issues, providing a detailed view of the problems arising at intermediate stages in the cause-effect chain. By honing in on these midpoint impacts, LCIA allows for a deeper understanding of how certain emissions or resource consumption contribute to environmental challenges, Some common impact categories include the following:
Global warming potential (GWP): Measures the potential of emissions to contribute to climate change by quantifying their warming effect in terms of CO2 equivalents.
Acidification potential: Quantifies the potential to cause acid rain, often measured in sulfur dioxide (SO2) or nitrogen oxide (NOx) equivalents.
Eutrophication potential: Assesses the potential to cause excessive nutrient enrichment in ecosystems, leading to problems like algal blooms and oxygen depletion in water bodies.
Ozone depletion potential: Evaluates the potential to deplete the ozone layer, usually measured in terms of CFC-equivalents.
Human health impacts: These can include categories like 'Human health cancer impact' and 'Human health non-cancer impact', which quantify potential health risks to humans from exposure to toxic substances.
Ecosystem quality: Measures the potential damage to ecosystems, including categories like Biodiversity, Ecotoxicity, and Freshwater Ecotoxicity.
Resource depletion: Evaluates the consumption and potential depletion of various natural resources, such as minerals, water, and fossil fuels.
Water use: Assesses the quantity and potential environmental impact of water consumption in the life cycle.
Land use: Measures the land area required for a specific product or process, which can affect biodiversity and ecosystems.
Particulate matter formation: Focuses on the formation of particulate matter, which has implications for air quality and human health.
Endpoint indicators mark the final part of the cause-and-effect sequence and consolidate environmental effects into broader 'areas of protection' (EC, 2010; Finnveden et al., 2009). Areas of protection represent key environmental aspects that society aims to protect or sustain (Hauschild et al., 2013; Bruijn et al., 2002). The main areas of protection typically include:
Natural resources: This considers the depletion and degradation of natural resources such as minerals, water, and land. It aims to assess the impact on resource availability and quality.
Ecosystem quality: Ecosystem quality focuses on the impact of a product or service on ecosystems and biodiversity. It evaluates factors like habitat disruption, species loss, and ecosystem functioning.
Human health: Human health is a critical indicator, addressing the potential impact on public health. It examines factors such as exposure to hazardous substances and their effects on human well-being.
These areas of protection are used to organise and categorise the various environmental impacts identified during LCIA. They help decision-makers and stakeholders understand the significance of these impacts and make informed choices to minimise or mitigate them. The selection of specific indicators may vary depending on the goals and scope of the LCA study.
LCIA methods evaluate the impact of either emissions, resource use, or a combination of both. Emission-based models include the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), resource-based methods like Cumulative Exergy Extraction from the Natural Environment (CEENE), or a hybrid approach such as ReCiPe and Environmental Footprint Method (Dewulf et al., 2007; Huijbregts et al. 2017; IPCC, 2019). Furthermore, the European Commission has encouraged the use of standardised methods for assessing and communicating environmental performance, leading to the development of unified approaches for evaluating products and organisations (Pelletier et al., 2014).
PEF methodology and environmental impact categories: The Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) methodology ensures that essential environmental impact categories and life cycle activities relevant to specific product categories are considered comprehensively (European Commission, 2022).
OEF methodology and holistic assessment: The Organisation's Environmental Footprint (OEF) methodology extends its scope to encompass organisational activities in their entirety, including supply chain operations. These methodologies are structured with general requirements and principles, partly derived from ISO standards and the ILCD Handbook, with the primary goal of standardising environmental assessments for products. This standardisation aims to facilitate easier comparisons of study results related to the same products or sectors (European Commission, 2022).
ISO 14040 environmental management – life cycle assessment – principles and framework: International Organization for Standardization (ISO), Geneva, 2006.
Recent developments in life cycle assessment: Finnveden, G., Hauschild, M.Z., Ekvall, T., Guinée, J., Heijungs, R., Hellweg, S., Koehler, A., Pennington, D. and Suh, S., J. Environ. Manag. 2009, 91 1-21.
Identifying best existing practice for characterization modeling in life cycle impact assessment: Hauschild, M.Z., Goedkoop, M., Guinée, J., Heijungs, R., Huijbregts, M., Jolliet, O., Margni, M., De Schryver, A., Humbert, S., Laurent, A., Sala S. and Pant, R. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2013, 18, 683-697.
Handbook on life cycle assessment: operational guide to the ISO standards: Bruijn, H., Duin, R., Huijbregts, M.A.J., Guinee, J.B., Gorree, M., Heijungs, R., Huppes, G., Kleijn, R., Koning, A., Oers, L., Sleeswijk, A.W., Suh, S. and Udo de Haes, H.U. (Eds.), Springer, Dordrecht, 2002.
Cumulative exergy extraction from the natural environment (CEENE): a comprehensive life cycle impact assessment method for resource accounting: Dewulf, J., Bösch, M.E., De Meester, B., Van der Vorst, G., Van Langenhove, H., Hellweg, S., Huijbregts, M.A.J., Environ. Sci. Technol. 2007, 41, 8477-8483.
ReCiPe2016: a harmonised life cycle impact assessment method at midpoint and endpoint level: Huijbregts, M.A.J., Steinmann, Z.J.N., Elshout, P.M.F., Stam, G., Verones, F., Vieira, M., Zijp, M., Hollander, A. and van Zelm, R., Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2017, 22, 138-147.
International reference life cycle data system (ILCD) handbook: Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2010.
2019 refinement to the 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories: International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2019.
The European Commission organisation environmental footprint method: comparison with other methods, and rationales for key requirements: Pelletier, N., Allacker, K., Pant, K. and Manfredi, S., Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2014, 19, 387-404.
Guide for interpreting life cycle assessment result: Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2016.
Understanding product environmental footprint and organisation environmental footprint methods: Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2022.