Attributional or consequential Life Cycle Assessment: A matter of social responsibility

Abstract Results of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) are critically dependent on the system boundaries, notably the choice of attributional or consequential modelling. Published LCA studies rarely specify and justify their modelling choices. Since LCA studies are typically performed within the context of social responsibility and product life cycle management, this article investigates the relationship between social responsibility paradigms and the system modelling choices in LCA. We identify three different social responsibility paradigms: Value chain responsibility, Supply chain responsibility and Consequential responsibility. We point out that while there is no generally right or wrong choice of system model, each responsibility paradigm implies a specific matching system model. We then argue that all responsibility paradigms ultimately imply a consequential perspective, namely that of responding to the concerns of the system stakeholders. Although value or supply chains are systems defined without concern for consequences, and thus may include activities that the decision maker cannot influence, the chosen system is still analysed and assessed by accounting for its social consequences, and it is for these consequences that social responsibility is then taken. We argue that it is inconsistent to exclude consequences of own actions (i.e. the consequential system) while including consequences from actions of others in value chain or supply chain. We thus conclude that a consistent socially responsible decision-maker must always take responsibility for the activities in the consequential product life cycle and may additionally take responsibility for the consequences of other activities in the value chain or supply chain. We end the article with recommendations on reporting on LCA system models that are more specific than those of the current LCA standards.

[1]  Stefan Giljum,et al.  Designing an indicator of environmental responsibility , 2006 .

[2]  Yuichi Moriguchi,et al.  CO2 Emissions in Japan: Influences of imports and exports , 1998 .

[3]  Tiago Domingos,et al.  Consumer and producer environmental responsibility: Comparing two approaches , 2008 .

[4]  Manfred Lenzen,et al.  Conceptualising environmental responsibility , 2010 .

[5]  Tiago Domingos,et al.  International trade and the geographical separation between income and enabled carbon emissions , 2013 .

[6]  M. Porter.  Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance , 1985 .

[7]  B. Weidema.  Market information in life cycle assessment , 2003 .

[8]  F. Power.  Moral education: a handbook , 2009 .

[9]  Jesper Munksgaard,et al.  CO2 accounts for open economies: producer or consumer responsibility? , 2001 .

[10]  Mary Ann Curran,et al.  The international workshop on electricity data for life cycle inventories , 2005 .

[11]  M. D. Haan,et al.  The System of Environmental and Economic Accounts—2003 and the Economic Relevance of Physical Flow Accounting , 2006 .

[12]  E. Hertwich,et al.  Post-Kyoto greenhouse gas inventories: production versus consumption , 2008 .

[13]  Vincent Moreau,et al.  The computational structure of environmental life cycle costing , 2015, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[14]  M. Cellura,et al.  Economic Allocation in Life Cycle Assessment , 2012 .

[15]  Ardente Fulvio,et al.  Economic Allocation in Life Cycle Assessment: The State of the Art and Discussion of Examples , 2012 .

[16]  J. Ruggie.  Clarifying the concepts of "sphere of influence" and "complicity" : , 2008 .

[17]  Finkbeiner Matthias,et al.  Guidance on Organizational Life Cycle Assessment , 2015 .

[18]  Bo Pedersen Weidema.  Estimation of the size of error introduced into consequential models by using attributional background datasets , 2016, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[19]  Tomas Ekvall,et al.  Moral Philosophy, Economics, and Life Cycle Inventory Analysis , 2000 .

[20]  M. Lenzen,et al.  Shared producer and consumer responsibility — Theory and practice , 2007 .

[21]  Michael Narodoslawsky,et al.  What environmental pressures are a region's industries responsible for? A method of analysis with descriptive indices and input–output models , 1999 .

[22]  Bo Weidema,et al.  In Search of a Consistent Solution to Allocation of Joint Production , 2018 .

[23]  Bruce Vigon,et al.  Global guidance principles for life cycle assessment databases: development of training material and other implementation activities on the publication , 2013, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[24]  João F. D. Rodrigues,et al.  Income-based environmental responsibility , 2012 .

[25]  M. Lenzen,et al.  A consistent input–output formulation of shared producer and consumer responsibility , 2005 .

[26]  Jiun-Jiun Ferng,et al.  Allocating the responsibility of CO2 over-emissions from the perspectives of benefit principle and ecological deficit , 2003 .