Skip to main content

Life Cycle Assessment of Organizations

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Special Types of Life Cycle Assessment

Abstract

In order to protect the environment in a credible manner, organizations need to rely on stable schemes. The most applied and widespread approaches for environmental assessments at the organization level have only recently considered the full value chain and mostly concentrate on a single aspect. Carbon footprinting, for example, has shown that the environmental impacts beyond the walls of the organization can play an important role in the overall impact of an organization. While life cycle assessment (LCA) was originally conceived to be applicable only for products, its benefits and potential might also be extended for organizational assessme nt. The discussions on the carbon footprint of organizations and the development of the Scope 3-standard of the GHG (greenhouse gas) Protocol promoted the future use of a corporate approach. Several initiatives are on the way for the LCA of organizations: UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative proposes organizational LCA (O-LCA), using as a backbone ISO/TS 14072; moreover, the European Commission launched a guide for the Organisation Environmental Footprint (OEF). The main new elements of the methodology are at the scope and inventory phase, when the unit of analysis and the system boundary are defined, as well as the approach for data collection. LCA of organizations may represent a key element in the internal decision-making system of an organization, as it can provide insight on the organization and value chain and identify hotspots where action is more needed. It may also provide information and support the organization for voluntary or mandatory reporting to third parties and in its communication plan. This chapter aims to discuss the need and features of the LCA of organizations, present the several initiatives that currently exist, provide an overview of the technical framework and proposals to streamline the application of the methodology, and finally to illustrate each one with two case studies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Activities from sites that are owned or controlled by the reporting organization (UNEP 2015).

  2. 2.

    Activities that are a consequence of the operations of the reporting organization, but occur at sites owned or controlled by another organization (upstream or downstream) (UNEP 2015).

  3. 3.

    The Sustainable Development Department of Accor supported the drafting of this section, particularly Arnaud Hermann and Pascal Fillon, the VP and Environment and ISO14001 manager, respectively. The text is based on (Accor 2011a, b, 2014).

  4. 4.

    In this section we use Accor’s terminology (see, for instance, Accor 2001b). It does not refer to the Organizational Environmental Footprint, OEF, presented in Sect. 1.4.3.

  5. 5.

    Water consumption label was used by Accor and it is also used here, although it does not refer to the common definition of water consumption, including evaporative effect (see Berger and Finkbeiner 2010). The rationale behind this indicator refers to water use.

  6. 6.

    The Safety & Environmental Assurance Centre of Unilever supported the drafting of this section, particularly Dr. Henry King, the team leader of Science & Technology – Sustainability. The text is based on Unger et al. (2011), Unger and King (2013), and Unilever (2013, 2014a).

  7. 7.

    In this section we use Unilever’s terminology (see, for instance, Unger and King 2013). It does not refer to the Organizational Environmental Footprint, OEF, presented in Sect. 1.4.3.

  8. 8.

    http://www.unilever.com/sustainable-living-2014/reducing-environmental-impact/eco-efficiency-in-manufacturing/

Abbreviations

CDP:

Carbon disclosure project

CSR:

Corporate Social Responsibility

EMAS:

Eco-Management and Audit Scheme

EMS:

Environmental management system

GHG:

Greenhouse gas

GRI:

Global Reporting Initiative

IPCC:

Intergovernmental panel on climate change

ISO:

International Organization for Standardization

NACE codes:

Nomenclature générale des activités economiques dans les communautés européennes

OBIA:

Overall business impact assessment

OEF:

Organisation Environmental Footprint

OEFSRs:

Organisation Environmental Footprint Sector Rules

O-LCA:

Organizational LCA (used by UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative)

OLCA:

Organizational LCA (used by ISO)

OEF:

Organisation Environmental Footprint

PEF:

Product Environmental Footprint

SETAC:

Society of environmental toxicology and chemistry

SMEs:

Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs)

UNEP:

United Nations Environment Program

USLP:

Unilever sustainable living plan

References

  • Accor (2011a) Accor group’s environmental footprint (confidential). Pricewaterhouse Coopers Advisory, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Accor (2011b) The Accor group’s Environmental Footprint. Accor Sustainable Development Department, Paris, http://www.accor.com/fileadmin/user_upload/Contenus_Accor/Developpement_Durable/pdf/earth_guest_research/2011_12_08_accor_empreinte_environnementale_dp_bd_en.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  • Accor (2014) Accor Group website. http://www.accor.com

  • ADEME (2010) Bilan carbone companies and local authorities version. Methodological guide version 6.1: objectives and principles for the counting of greenhouse gas emissions. French Agency for the Environment and Energy Management. http://www.associationbilancarbone.fr/sites/default/files/guide_methodologique_v6_euk-v.pdf

  • Bare JC (2009) Life cycle impact assessment research developments and needs. Clean Techn Environ Policy 12:341–351

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berger M, Finkbeiner M (2010) Water footprinting: how to address water use in life cycle assessment? Sustainability 2:919–944

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CDP (2014) Carbon disclosure project – climate change program guidance website. https://www.cdp.net/en-US/Pages/guidance-climate-change.aspx

  • Clift R, Wright L (2000) Relationships between environmental impacts and added value along the supply chain. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 65:281–295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Curran M, Hellweg S, Beck J (2014) Is there any empirical support for biodiversity offset policy? Ecol Appl 24:632. doi:10.1890/13-0243.1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Downie J, Stubbs W (2011) Evaluation of Australian companies’ scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions assessments. J Clean Prod 56:156–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Draucker L (2013) GHG protocol: moving Corporate Accounting Beyond GHGs. Abstr. B. SETAC North Am. 34th annual meeting, Nashville

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2009) Regulation (EC) No 1221/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the voluntary participation by organisations in a Community eco-management and audit scheme (EMAS), repealing Regulation (EC) No 761/2001 and Commission Deci. Off J Eur Union

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2010a) International reference life cycle data system (ILCD) handbook – general guide for life cycle assessment – detailed guidance. European Commission – Joint Research Centre – Institute for Environment and Sustainability. http://bookshop.europa.eu/en/international-reference-life cycle-data-system-ilcd-handbook-general-guide-for-life cycle-assessment-detailed-guidance-pbLBNA24708/

  • European Commission (2010b) International reference life cycle data system (ILCD) handbook – analysing of existing environmental impact assessment methodologies for use in life cycle assessment. European Commission – Joint Research Centre – Institute for Environment and Sustainability, http://eplca.jrc.ec.europa.eu/uploads/ILCD-Handbook-LCIA-Background-analysis-online12March2010.pdf

  • European Commission (2011) Analysis of existing environmental footprint methodologies for products and organisations: recommendations, rationale, and alignment. European Commission – Joint Research Centre – Institute for Environment and Sustainability. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/pdf/Deliverable.pdf

  • European Commission (2013a) Organisation environmental footprint guide. European Commission – Joint Research Centre – Institute for Environment and Sustainability. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/JOHtml.do?uri=OJ:L:2013:124:SOM:EN:html

  • European Commission (2013b) Commission recommendation of 9 April 2013 on the use of common methods to measure and communicate the life cycle environmental performance of products and organisations (2013/179/ EU). Off J Eur Union

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2013c) Building the single market for green products facilitating better information on the environmental performance of products and organisations. Communication COM/2013/0196 final

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2013d) Guidance for the implementation of the EU OEF during the EF Pilot Phase – Ver 3.1. European Commission – Joint Research Centre – Institute for Environment and Sustainability. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/smgp/pdf/Guidance_organisations.pdf. 20 May 2001

  • Finkbeiner M (2013) Product environmental footprint – breakthrough or breakdown for policy implementation of life cycle assessment? Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:266–271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finkbeiner M, König P (2013) Carbon footprint and life cycle assessment of organizations. J Environ Account Manag 1:55–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finkbeiner M, Wiedemann M, Saur K (1998) A comprehensive approach towards product and organisation related environmental management tools. Int J Life Cycle Assess 3:169–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finkbeiner M, Ackermann R, Bach V, Berger M, Brankatschk G, Chang Y-J, Grinberg M, Lehmann A, Martínez-Blanco J, Minkov N, Neugebauer S, Scheumann R, Schneider L, Wolf K (2014) Challenges in life cycle assessment: an overview of current gaps and research needs. Chapter 7 “Background and Future Prospects in Life Cycle Assessment” (Klöpffer W ed). In: Klöpffer W, Curran MA, (eds) LCA compendium – the complete world of life cycle assessment. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 207–258

    Google Scholar 

  • Galatola M, Pant R (2014) Reply to the editorial “Product environmental footprint—breakthrough or breakdown for policy implementation of life cycle assessment?” written by Finkbeiner M (Int J Life Cycle Assess 19(2): 266–271). Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:1356–1360. doi: 10.1007/s11367-014-0740-3

    Google Scholar 

  • Garcia-Suarez T, Sim S, Mauser A, Marshall P (2008) Greenhouse gas assessment of Ben & Jerry’s ice-cream: communicating their “Climate Hoofprint.” In: Proceedings of the 6th international conference on LCA agri-food sect, Nov 12–14, Zurich, pp 341–351

    Google Scholar 

  • GRI (2013) Sustainability reporting guidelines, G4. Global reporting initiative. https://www.globalreporting.org/reporting/g4/Pages/default.aspx

  • Guinée JB (2001) Life cycle assessment: an operational guide to the ISO standards. Part 1 and 2. Ministry of Housing. Spatial Planning and Environment (VROM) and Centre of Environmental Science (CML). The Netherlands

    Google Scholar 

  • Hillier J, Walter C, Malin D, Garcia-Suarez T, Mila-i-Canals L, Smith P (2011) A farm-focused calculator for emissions from crop and livestock production. Environ Model Software 26:1070–1078. doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2011.03.014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hillier J, Brentrup F, Wattenbach M, Walter C, Garcia-Suarez T, Mila-i-Canals L, Smith P (2012) Which cropland greenhouse gas mitigation options give the greatest benefits in different world regions? Climate and soil-specific predictions from integrated empirical models. Glob Chang Biol 18:1880–1894. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2012.02671.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang YA, Lenzen M, Weber CL, Murray J, Matthews HS (2009a) The role of input-output analysis for the screening of corporate carbon footprints. Econ Syst Res 21:217–242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang YA, Weber CL, Matthews HS (2009b) Categorization of scope 3 emissions for streamlined enterprise carbon footprinting. Environ Sci Technol 43:8509–8515

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • ISO (2004) ISO 14001: environmental management systems – requirements with guidance for use. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • ISO (2006a) ISO 14044: environmental management – life cycle assessment – requirements and guidelines. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • ISO (2006b) ISO 14040: environmental management – life cycle assessment – principles and framework. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • ISO (2006c) ISO 14025: environmental labels and declarations – type III environmental declarations – principles and procedures. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • ISO (2006d) ISO 14064-1: greenhouse gases – part 1: specification with guidance at the organization level for quantification and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions and removals. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • ISO (2013a) ISO/TS 14067: greenhouse gases – carbon footprint of products – requirements and guidelines for quantification and communication. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • ISO (2013a) ISO/TR 14069: greenhouse gases – quantification and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions for organizations – guidance for the application of ISO 14064-1. Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • ISO (2014a) ISO/TS 14072: environmental management – life cycle assessment – requirements and guidelines for organizational life cycle assessment. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • ISO (2014b) ISO/TS 14071: environmental management – life cycle assessment – critical review processes and reviewer competencies: additional requirements and guidelines to ISO 14044:2006. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • Lave LB, Cobas-Flores E, Hendrickson C, McMichael FC (1995) Life cycle assessment: using input-output analysis to estimate economy-wide discharge. Environ Sci Technol 29:420–426

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Makower J, Mattison R, Salo J, Kelley D (2014) State of green business 2014. GreenBiz Group and Trucost. http://www.trucost.com/_uploads/publishedResearch/SOGB2014.pdf

  • Martínez-Blanco J, Inaba A, Finkbeiner M (2015a) Activities of guidance of organizational LCA by UNEP/SETAC WG. Jpn J Life Cycle Assess 11(2):97–103

    Google Scholar 

  • Martínez-Blanco J, Inaba A, Finkbeiner M (2015b) Scoping organizational LCA – challenges and solutions. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20(6):829–841

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martínez-Blanco J, Lehmann A, Chang Y-J, Finkbeiner M (2015c) Social organizational LCA (SOLCA) – a new approach for implementing social LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20(11):1586–1599

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milà i Canals L, Sim S, García-Suárez T, Neuer G, Herstein K, Kerr C, Rigarlsford G, King H (2010) Estimating the greenhouse gas footprint of Knorr. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16:50–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pelletier N, Allacker K, Pant R, Manfredi S (2013) The European Commission Organisation Environmental Footprint method: comparison with other methods, and rationales for key requirements. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:387–404

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor AP, Postlethwaite D (1996) Overall business impact assessment (OBIA). In: Proceedings of the 4th SETAC case study symposium, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • UN (2002) Report of the world summit on sustainable development. Johannesburg, South Africa, 26 Aug–4 Sept 2002. United Nations, New York. http://www.un.org/jsummit/html/documents/summit_docs/131302_wssd_report_reissued.pdf

  • UNEP (2015) Guidance on organizational life cycle assessment. Life-Cycle Initiative, United Nations Environment Programme and Society for Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Paris, http://www.lifecycleinitiative.org/resources/reports/

    Google Scholar 

  • UNEP/SETAC (2012) Greening the economy through life cycle thinking: ten years of the UNEP/SETAC life cycle initiative. Life Cycle Initiative, United Nations Environment Programme and Society for Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Paris, http://www.lifecycleinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/2012_LCI_10_years_28.3.13.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  • UNEP/SETAC (2014) Life cycle initiative website. http://www.lifecycleinitiative.org/

  • Unger N, King H (2013) Use of the life cycle approach on company, category and product level to support the greenhouse gas strategy in a multinational company. 6th int. conf. life cycle manag – LCM 2013. Gothenburg, Sweden. ISBN NO: 978-91-980973-5-1, Gothenburg, pp 63–66

    Google Scholar 

  • Unger N, King H, Calvert S (2011) How to measure and manage the life cycle greenhouse gas impact of a global multinational company. In: Finkbeiner M (ed) Towards life cycle sustainability management. Springer, Netherlands, pp 207–215

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • UNIDO (2006) Responsible trade and market access: opportunities or obstacles for SMEs in developing countries? United Nations Industrial Development Organization, Private Sector Development Branch. http://www.unido.org/fileadmin/user_media/Publications/Pub_free/Responsible_trade_and_market_access.pdf

  • Unilever (2012) Unilever sustainable living plan. Progress report 2011. Unilever. http://www.unilever.com/images/uslp-Unilever_Sustainable_Living_Plan_Progress_Report_2011_tcm13-284779.pdf

  • Unilever (2013) Unilever sustainable living plan. Progress report 2012. Unilever. http://www.unilever.co.uk/Images/USLP-Progress-Report-2012-FI_tcm28-352007.pdf

  • Unilever (2014a) Unilever website. http://www.unilever.com

  • Unilever (2014b) Unilever sustainable living plan 2013: Making progress, driving change. Unilever. http://www.unilever.com/images/slp_Unilever-Sustainable-Living-Plan-2013_tcm13-388693.pdf

  • WRI, WBCSD (2004) GHG protocol corporate accounting and reporting standard. World Resources Institute and World Business Council for Sustainable Development. http://www.ghgprotocol.org/files/ghgp/public/ghg-protocol-revised.pdf

  • WRI, WBCSD (2011) Corporate value chain (Scope 3) accounting and reporting standard – supplement to the GHG protocol corporate accounting and reporting standard. World Resources Institute and World Business Council for Sustainable Development. http://www.ghgprotocol.org/files/ghgp/public/Corporate-Value-Chain-Accounting-Reporing-Standard_041613.pdf

  • WRI, WBCSD (2013) Technical guidance for calculating scope 3 emissions – supplement to the corporate value chain (Scope 3) accounting & reporting standard. World Resources Institute and World Business Council for Sustainable Development. http://www.ghgprotocol.org/feature/scope-3-calculation-guidance

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Julia Martínez-Blanco .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Martínez-Blanco, J., Inaba, A., Finkbeiner, M. (2016). Life Cycle Assessment of Organizations. In: Finkbeiner, M. (eds) Special Types of Life Cycle Assessment. LCA Compendium – The Complete World of Life Cycle Assessment. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-7610-3_8

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics