1

Whenever applying the Life-Cycles Assessment ISO standard, the scope defined prior to LCI and LCIA seems to be arbitrarily choosable, which apparently was a framework design choice, such that exactly what "should be measured" can be measured.

With these arbitrary leeway, how do you as a sustainability professional make sure the numbers you present are comparable to alternative investment opportunities, especially considering:

  • Including the whole system as a scope is increasingly complex (thus requiring more resources, data, time and effort)
  • LCA results are oftentimes not using the exact same scope and components
  • LCA results are sometimes only published in an aggregated form (1 definite number X of 1 unit of product Y produced in company Z)
  • LCA results are mostly reported as absolute numbers thus neglecting uncertainty, seasonality, variance, volatility, and product, market and actor heterogenity
  • LCA scope of other studies is oftentimes not explicitly reported to the full extent

Do you consider this somewhat a design flaw of the LCA method, or a necessary restraint to limit tool complexity?

ABC
  • 11
  • 2
  • Is it normal for a 'sustainability professional' responsible for Life-Cycle Assessments to also be involved in comparing these products to each other if their primary task is to see that the measurements are done, and interpret and write up the report? With comparing products come value judgements. Not sure whose role that it. Bias is a serious threat here. Maybe get AI onto that. How can the complexity of comparing products be a trade-off, other than by economic considerations such as how long it takes to do the comparison? – MocBird Dec 08 '22 at 06:10

0 Answers0