A critical view on scientific consensus building in life cycle impact assessment

Abstract

Finding scientific consensus has been an important driving force for research in life cycle assessment (LCA) over the last 20 years, as marked by reports from the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC), United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), International OrganiZation for Standardization (ISO), and the Joint Research Centre (JRC). In the beginning of the 1990s, the life cycle framework itself was the main topic of debate (Fava et al. 1993, 1994), while life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) methods became part of the scientific consensus discussions in a later stage (Udo de Haes et al. 2002). Operational standards on how to perform an LCA came also in place (ISO 14040, 2006; ISO 14044, 2006; Finkbeiner et al. 2006). Recently, LCIA scientific consensus building entered a new phase with the report on recommended practice for life cycle impact assessment methods in a European context (Joint Research Centre 2011; Hauschild et al. 2013), including the global consensusmodel for addressing toxic impacts in life cycle assessment, i.e., the USEtox model (Rosenbaum et al. 2008). Recently, the search for scientific consensus within the UNEP/ SETAC initiative has been extended, specifically looking for global guidance on a range of LCIA methods (www. lifecycleinitiative.org/activities/phase-iii/), and new developments in the ISO-standard arena (Finkbeiner et al. 2013). Over the years, it has been argued that without scientific consensus, LCA would be easily misused by companies for green washing purposes, as companies may just pick the evaluation method that favor their own product, and that the scientific credibility of LCAwould be at stake. The intention of LCA to contribute to solving environmental problems in our society is most likely also an important driver of the “scientific consensus agenda”. Although my intention in this editorial is not to argue against the significant scientific consensus achievements within the LCA community, I do have a number of concerns that specifically focus on developments in the LCIA domain.