Page 89 - Materials Chemistry, Second Edition

84 4. Life cycle sustainability assessment: An ongoing journey

4.5 Outlook: Perspective and opportunities

As sustainability is widely recognized as the real challenge of our generation and life cycle
thinking, in this sense, as the proper theoretical framework for sustainability application, its
assessment must be regarded as a strategic decision-support element for planning at indus-
trial, operational, and policy level (Ramos, 2019). For this reason, the identification of the fore-
front of both theory development and practical implications could represent the first step
towards the LCSA of tomorrow, which, as underlined by Pope et al. (2014), should move from
the ex post assessment framework to a preeminent role into ex ante toolbox for eco-design of
products, processes, and systems.
Several challenges have been identified in literature (Zamagni, 2012; Guin’ee, 2016) and
more are posed by everyday practice, such as a deeper integration of the three pillars into
LCSA and harmonization among the existing models, the implementation of a multimethod
approach to address uncertainties, and the broadening of impacts and scope of the LCSA, in
terms of both temporal and spatial dimensions and dynamics. As conclusion for the present
chapter, a brief excursus of solutions offered in literature to the abovementioned issues is pro-
vided in the following.

4.5.1 Integration and harmonization
Several authors (Zamagni, 2012; Guin’ee, 2016; Gloria et al., 2017; Kua, 2017) spread out the
call for a deeper integration among different aspects of LCSA, namely environmental, social,
and economic, with particular regard to their mutual relationship and reciprocal effects. As
they are currently addressed separately, following the scheme proposed by Kl€ opffer (2003),in
terms of both independent inventories and analyses, even when developed under the same
premises, rules, and scopes, they are unable to deliver an overall assessment. Thus, the direct
application of LCSA as sum of ELCA+SLCA+LCC is actually failing in providing a result
going beyond the sum of impacts of its different constituents (Lee and Kirkpatrik, 2001;
Zamagni, 2012). In a context of difficult data collection, where SLCA still results under devel-
opment and it could be affected by higher uncertainties, compared to ELCA and LCC, the
conceptual framework appears inadequate to fully depict the interrelationships and interde-
pendencies of the three pillars’ assessments (Zamagni et al., 2013).
In this sense, the effort towards standardization and harmonization of different existing
tools would support the construction of a common pathway for researchers, in analogy with
what is already proposed and accomplished for ELCA, supporting the identification and
prioritization of common goals and methods. Zamagni (2012), following the same founda-
tion stone of the approach, which calls directly to humankind and generational equity as
yardstick for sustainability (Bruntland, 1987), attempted a holistic perspective in posing
the human at the very center of LCSA, and proposing “well-being adjusted life years” as
a unique LCSA indicator. Within the body of literature, new approaches emerged during
the last years, such as life cycle sustainability unified analysis (LiCSUA, proposed by
Kua (2017), incorporating key features of LCSA framework (Kl€ opffer and Renner, 2007),
and the life cycle sustainability analysis framework proposed under CALCAS. Corona
et al. (2017), on the other hand, accepted the three-pillar model of LCSA, applying the same