Life cycle assessment, quo vadis? Supporting or deterring greenwashing? A survey of practitioners†

Abstract

Life cycle assessment (LCA) has been recognised as an important environmental systems analysis tool due to its potential for providing systematic results about the environmental impacts of alternative production and consumption systems that can lead to decisions towards greater sustainability in both private and public-policy contexts. However, LCA has been under increased scrutiny due to the wide range of published results on similar systems, such as biofuels, which can be contrasting. This variability is, in part, due to the proliferation of guidelines that have emerged over the last 20 years, which may undermine the perceived robustness of LCA as a decision-support tool. Following some interesting discussions on this topic in different fora, we took the pulse of the LCA community via a survey. We received 124 responses from respondents who varied in their background and experience in LCA (most were academics and/or had more than 10 years' experience), as well as in their opinions on whether they saw the inconsistency of published results problematic, or not, for decision making. Results suggest that respondents are of the opinion that (i) there is no single right way of performing LCA; (ii) the ISO 14040-44 standards were failing in their guiding of LCA practice, and that (iii) further efforts in harmonizing LCA practice would be beneficial, despite mixed opinions shown by respondents, which indicates the divisive nature of this topic in the LCA community. For example, there was no clear agreement on whether the significant flexibility with which practitioners perform LCA undermines its validity as a robust tool for decision making, though practitioners concerned with greenwashing were unified in the need for improved guidelines and harmonisation. Further harmonisation would help to ensure consistency in the application of the tool by practitioners which, in turn, would ensure results would be less variable, arguably more meaningful, and less prone to greenwashing. It is likely that methodological issues will remain unresolved in the near future, as some practitioners value the flexibility with which the ISO standards can be applied, even if that leads to inconsistent results. We recommended tighter standardization.