Enhancing Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment

228 Pages·2016·6.15 MB·English

by  Sabrina Neugebauer

Enhancing Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment
Tiered Approach and new Characterization Models for
Social Life Cycle Assessment and Life Cycle Costing

vorgelegt von
Dipl.-Wirtschaftsing.
Sabrina Neugebauer
geb. in Hilden

von der Fakultät III – Prozesswissenschaften
der Technischen Universität Berlin

zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades
Doktor der Ingenieurwissenschaften
– Dr.-Ing. –
genehmigte Dissertation
Promotionsausschuss:
Vorsitzende: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Vera Susanne Rotter
Gutachter: Prof. Dr. Matthias Finkbeiner
Prof. Dr. Rainer Grießhammer
Tag der wissenschaftlichen Aussprache: 21. November 2016
Berlin 2016
By changing nothing, nothing changes!
Acknowledgement
Acknowledgement
Writing a Ph.D. thesis is comparable to a roller-coaster-ride through different emotional lev-
els – enthusiasm, motivation, procrastination, anger, and finally relief and happiness. Fortu-
nately, many colleagues, friends and relatives supported and encouraged me for reaching
those last two levels of positive emotion.
First of all, I sincerely thank my supervisors Prof. Dr. Matthias Finkbeiner and Prof. Dr. Rainer
Grießhammer for their valuable feedback and comments.
Sincerely, I also thank all my co-authors for their helpful ideas and comments, which in the
first place enabled but also improved the publications, upon which this dissertation is based.
Very special thanks go to Dr.-Ing. Marzia Traverso, Dr. Julia Martinez-Blanco, and Silvia Forin.
Special thanks also go to the students and the colleagues from the CRC 1026 project, who
supported the data collection for the case studies included in this thesis – especially: Julia
Ivanova, Natalia Finogenova, Stephan Benecke, Bernd Peukert and Tom Buchert.
Moreover, I thank my colleagues Yasmine Emara and Dr.-Ing. Markus Berger for the time and
effort they sacrificed while reading and commenting on the complete 150 pages of the very
draft version of this thesis.
Warm thanks go to all my friends and family, who encouraged me but also distracted me,
when I needed a break – especially: Ness, Barbs, Vreni, Theresa, Chrizzl, all my hiking girls,
and the beachvolleyball crew.
Finally, I want to thank Max for supporting me in whatever I want to do or be.
iii
Abstract
Abstract
Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA) is often described as the most advanced approach
for sustainability assessment, as its implementation allows for identifying trade-offs between
the environmental, social and economic dimension. Yet, shortcomings for its practical imple-
mentation exist, as the three related methods – Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), Social Life Cycle
Assessment (SLCA) and Life Cycle Costing (LCC) – do not have the same level of methodolog-
ical and practical maturity. While LCA is widely implemented and standardized through the
ISO-series 14040 and 14044, consensus on how to implement SLCA and LCC is missing.
In this context, the discussion on adopting the commonly followed structure of LCA for SLCA
and LCC plays a key role. While LCA includes well defined characterization models, SLCA
misses concrete impact category definitions and LCC lacks an impact level at all. This further
leads to inconsistent assessment approaches for SLCA and LCC. In addition, lacking guidance
on the indicators´ and impact categories´ selection creates further obstacles for practical im-
plementation. All this impairs the achievement of methodological improvements.
Therefore, this thesis pursues a twofold approach by addressing both – the lack of guidance
as well as the methodological shortcomings of SLCA and LCC. An in-depth review of existing
LCSA indicators and impact categories is carried out, which builds the basis for the methodo-
logical developments addressing relevant topics of the social and economic dimension. In a
first step, a criteria-based selection of impact categories and indicators is provided for the
three methods – LCA, SLCA and LCC. The considered criteria are: practicality, relevance and
method robustness.
The resulting Tiered approach concept includes a hierarchical structure guiding practitioners
through LCSA. Therefore, the basic ‘sustainability footprint’ at Tier 1 provides a starting point
with simple but meaningful indicators – including global warming potential for the environ-
mental dimension, fair wages for the social dimension, and value added for the economic
dimension. Consecutively, additional impact and cost categories are implemented towards a
comprehensive assessment level. Tier 2 in this context broadens the assessment by including
iv
Abstract
indicators suggested by relevant institutions, such as the Joint Research Centre of the Euro-
pean Commission. Tier 3 also includes challenging indicators worth future consideration, such
as land use and cultural heritage. Although, the implemented hierarchy itself provides focus
on which impact categories and indicators to consider, it hardly contains solutions for the
inherent methodological challenges. Yet, the Tier 1 level provides the basis for the methodo-
logical improvements targeted within this work.
To tackle methodological differences and to align the three LCSA methods, it is focused on
the different demands of SLCA and LCC. For SLCA concrete characterization models and im-
pact descriptions are needed, while LCC requires the definition of an impact level in the first
place. Accordingly, for SLCA a characterization model for fair wages is developed by also ad-
dressing the related impact pathway. With regard to the economic dimension, a new frame-
work for economic assessments by means of Economic Life Cycle Assessment (EcLCA) is sug-
gested defining different economic impact categories, followed by the development of a spe-
cific characterization model considering value added at Tier 1.
With the fair wage characterization model a consistent and quantitative way of determining
a specific set of social impacts along a product’s life cycle is presented. The inclusion of fair
wages at the midpoint level allows to account for workers´ economic situation and embodies
a necessary requirement for an adequate living standard. The performed case studies con-
firmed the general applicability of both the fair wage method and the associated database.
Certain specifics of the characterization model require further investigations, such as the in-
cluded inequality factor and the results´ relation to the functional unit.
With the definition of the EcLCA framework and the coherent economic midpoint and end-
point impact categories as well as economic areas of protection, a broader perspective for
the economic dimension within the LCSA framework is provided. Relevant relations between
the midpoint and endpoint level are displayed through the defined impact pathway, e.g. the
connection between a product´s or organization’s value added and an economy´s prosperity
is addressed. Following on the conceptual nature of the EcLCA approach and enabling the
development of concrete characterization models, a starting point is provided with a defined
v
Abstract
impact category ‘profitability’, which connects the value added indicator to an economic im-
pact pathway. The developed characterization model allows for displaying economic impacts
by means of the value added along a product´s life cycle. Therewith, the different production
locations can be compared and differences and imbalances between them can be displayed.
Nonetheless, the performed case studies revealed some challenges with regard to the reflec-
tion of producers far up- or downstream the supply chain. While primary data can typically
be gathered for the direct producer, no economic secondary database has so far been estab-
lished reflecting the up- or downstream supply chain.
Despite those challenges, the impact categories considered within the ‘sustainability foot-
print’ represent crucial topics of production processes, by including global warming potential
representing an important environmental concern, fair wage representing the workers´ situ-
ation, and profitability addressing the organizations´ performance. Furthermore, the Tiered
approach as well as the methodological developments show that an alignment of the differ-
ent maturity levels of LCA, SLCA and LCC (by means of EcLCA) is possible. Moreover, it shows
that quantitative and applicable characterization models can be achieved for SLCA and that
impact categories as well as characterization models can be defined for the economic dimen-
sion of LCSA.

Keywords: life cycle sustainability assessment, life cycle assessment, social life cycle assess-
ment, life cycle costing, economic life cycle assessment, tiered approach, impact pathway,
impact category, characterization model

vi
List of abbreviations
List of abbreviations
AERA - American Educational Research Association
Al - Aluminum
anod - anodized
AoP - area of protection
CTU - comparative toxic unit for ecosystems
e
DALY - disability adjusted life years
EC - half maximal effective concentration
50
EcLCA - Economic Life Cycle Assessment
EEA - European Environment Agency
EoL - end of life
EPA - Environmental Protection Agency
eq. - equivalents
FAO - Food and Agriculture Organization
FWN - Fair Wage Network
FWP - fair wage potential
galv - galvanized
GDP - gross domestic product
GNP - gross national product
GRI - Global Reporting Initiative
GWP - global warming potential
HC - hazardous concentration affecting half of the species at EC level
50 50
ILCD - International Reference Life Cycle Data (System)
vii
List of abbreviations
IMF - International Monetary Fund
IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
JPI - Joint Programming Initiative
OECD - Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development
LCA - Life Cycle Assessment
LCI - life cycle inventory
LCC - Life Cycle Costing
LCIA - life cycle impact assessment
LCSA - Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment
MMTF - modular machine tool frame
NZ - New Zealand
Pedelec - pedal electric cycle
pwc - powder coated
REED - Rural Energy Enterprise Development
R&D - research and development
SELCA - social and environmental life cycle assessment
SLCA - Social Life Cycle Assessment
sold - soldered
St - Steel
Ti - Titanium
UBA - Umweltbundesamt (German EPA)
UN - United Nations
UNECE - United Nations Economic Commission for Europe
viii
List of abbreviations
UNEP - United Nations Environment Programme
UNESCO - United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
weld - welded
WHO - World Health Organization
WMO - World Meteorological Organization
WRI - World Resources Institute
WSN - wireless sensor nodes
ix
Table of content
Table of content
Acknowledgement .................................................................................................................... iii
Abstract .................................................................................................................................... iv
List of abbreviations ................................................................................................................ vii
Table of content ........................................................................................................................ x
1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1
2 Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment ................................................................................... 5
2.1 Methodological background and status ....................................................................... 6
2.1.1 LCA – status and implementation ......................................................................... 8
2.1.2 SLCA – status and implementation ..................................................................... 10
2.1.3 LCC – status and implementation ....................................................................... 16
2.1.4 Concluding remarks on LCSA´s status ................................................................. 20
2.2 General implementation challenges .......................................................................... 21
2.2.1 Specific implementation challenges of SLCA ...................................................... 22
2.2.2 Specific implementation challenges of LCC ........................................................ 24
2.2.3 Summary of LCSA´s challenges and further research directions ........................ 27
2.3 LCSA topics covered in impact categories and indicators .......................................... 31
2.3.1 Addressed impact categories and indicators in LCA ........................................... 31
2.3.2 Addressed impact categories and indicators in SLCA ......................................... 34
2.3.3 Addressed cost categories and indicators in LCC ................................................ 38
2.3.4 Concluding remarks on LCSA´s covered topics ................................................... 40
3 Tiered approach concept .................................................................................................. 41
3.1 Idea and development of the Tiered approach concept ............................................ 41
3.2 Criteria-based hierarchy of impact and cost categories ............................................ 44
x