1
Introduction
To date Life Cycle Assessment (German: “Ökobilanz”) is a method
defined by standards ISO EN 14040 and 14044 to analyse environmental
aspects and impact of product systems. Introduction of the method in
chapters 2 to 5 therefore relates to these standards. As preliminaries, scope
and development of the method are introduced in this chapter.
1.1
What is meant by Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)?
1.1.1
Definition and Limitations
According to our knowledge, the German term Ökobilanz, in the sense of
“ecological balance” or later named life cycle assessment, (LCA), was
initially used in a study by the Environmental Confederation Agency of
Switzerland1. This study had a great influence on the issue, especially in
German speaking countries and from here results the colloquial expression
which is more adequately termed Life Cycle Assessment in English.
In the introductory part of International Standard ISO 140402 serving as
framework, LCA is defined as follows:
“A life cycle assessment (LCA, also known as life cycle analysis,
ecobalance) is a technique for an product related estimation of
environmental aspects and impact … LCA assesses each and every impact
associated with all stages of a process from cradle-to-grave (i.e., from raw
materials through materials processing, manufacture, distribution, use,
repair, maintenance, and disposal or recycling.”
A similar definition of LCA had been adopted as early as 1993 by the
Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC)3 in its
1
German: Schweitzer Bundesamt für Umweltschutz; BUS, 1984
ISO 1997
3
Foundation year 1979
2
“Code of Practice”4.
Similar definitions can be found in basic guidelines of DIN-NAGUS5 as
well as in the “Nordic Guidelines”6 commissioned by Scandinavian
Ministers of the Environment.
Those deliberate limitations of an LCA to analysis and valuation of
environmental impacts has as consequence that the method is restricted
to only quantify7 one, an ecological, aspect of persistence (see Chapter 6).
The exclusion of economical and social factors separates LCA from
product line analysis (PLA) and similar methods8. This separation was
made to avoid a method overload being aware of the fact that with a
development of persistent products these factors cannot and must not be
neglected9.
1.1.2
Life Cycle of a Product
The main idea of an analysis cradle-to-grave or life cycle is illustrated,
simplified, in Fig 1.1. Starting point for building a product tree is the
production of an end product plus the phase of operation. Further
diversification of the boxes in Fig. 1.1 into singular processes, so called
process units as well as the inclusion of transports, diverse energy supply,
by-products, etc. turn this simplistic scheme even with simple products
into very complex “product trees” (diverse raw material and energy supply,
interim products, by-products, waste management including diverse
disposal types or recycling).
<<Fig.1.1>>
Fig. 1.1
Simplified life cycle of an (industrial) product
Interconnected process units (life cycle of product tree) form a system. At
the centre will be a product, a process, a service or human activity 10- in
the widest sense. In an LCA, systems serving a specific function and
which therefore have a benefit will be analysed.
4
SETAC 1993
DIN-Normenausschuss Grundlagen des Umweltschutzes (NAGUS), Germany, 1994
6
Lindfors et al. 1995
7
Klöpffer 2003, 2008
8
Projektgruppe Ökologische Wirtschaft 1987; O‘Brien et al. 1996
9
Klöpffer 2008
10
SETAC 1993
5
Therefore the benefit of a system will be the actual factor of
comparison for a comparison of products. It is regarded as the sole
correct basis for the definition of a “functional unit”11.
1.1.3
Functional Unit
Besides an analysis cradle-to-grave that is thinking in systems, life cycles
or production trees, the functional unit is the other basic term in an LCA
and should therefore already be explained here:
The benefit of a beverage packing is besides a shielding of the liquid
above all transportability and storability. A functional unit will most
frequently be defined as an eligibility of 1000 L liquid in a way to obtain a
technical supply of benefit. This function can for instance be mapped as
follows with packing specifications arbitrarily chosen:
- 5000 0.2 L12 sachets
- 2000 0.5 L reusable bottles of glass
- 1000 1 L single-use beverage cardboard
- 500 2 L PET single-use bottles
Thus, for a comparison of packing systems, the life cycle of 500 barrels,
2000 bottles, 1000 cardboards and 500 2 L PET bottles needs to be
analysed and compared, or four systems serving roughly the same benefit.
Slight variations of benefit (convenience, e.g. weight, customer orientation,
aesthetics, performance, advertising and other commercially exploitable
side effects) do not have to interfere in the simplistic example. It is
important to note that systems (not products) with similar benefit are
compared13. By this it is also possible to compare industrial products
(goods) with services, as long as they have a same or very similar benefit.
Within a LCA, products are defined as goods and services. As with
products, services require energy, transport, etc. Therefore it is possible to
define services as systems and to compare them with industrial product
systems on the basis of equivalent benefit by means of the functional unit.
11
12
13
Fleischer and Schmidt 1996
1L = 2.1 PT
Boustead 1996
1.1.4
LCA as System Analysis
Differently put, a LCA is based on a simplified system analysis.
Simplification consists of extensive linearisation (see system boundary and
cut-off criteria in Section 2.2). Interconnections of parts of the life cycle of
a product which always exist in reality, lead to extremely complex
relationships in the modelling. There are nevertheless possibilities to
handle the formation of loops and other deviations from linear structure e.g.
by an iterative approach or matrices calculus14.
Example
LCA deals with a comparison of product systems not products. What is
meant by this?
Within the product segment towel dispenser, paper towels and fabric
caster are distinguished. The fabric needs to be cleaned to fulfil its
function. This means, the cleansing process (detergent, water and energy
consumption) is part of the product system and must surely be
considered. Washing machines must be applied for cleaning.
Does the production of washing machines also have to be considered?
They are made of steel which is assembled of ore which needs to be
produced etc. Limitations are therefore necessary. On the other hand
nothing essential may be omitted.
System analysis and the selection of system boundaries are therefore
important tasks within a LCA.
The main advantage of this approach lies in its abilities to easily detect
deferrals of environmental loads, so called trade-offs, which for example
occur within substitutions: it is of no use if environmental loads are
seemingly eliminated if, later on or at different places, in different life
cycles or environmental media additional problems will occur, or if an
unrelated entry or resource consumption is involved.
It is not arguable that in rare cases especially in health threatening
circumstances (e.g. substitution of hazardous substances) decisions
categorized as suboptimal must be made.
14
Heijungs 1997; Heijungs and Suh 2002
Example
As fossil resources diminish, substitution of raw material by renewable
resources is an objective of science and development.
By LCA, variants of loose-fill packing substances such as polystryol and
potato starch15 have e.g. been examined As production processes of both
material fundamentally differ, a thorough analysis is necessary. For
instance, the overall agricultural system including growth, maintenance,
and harvest needs to be considered during the production of raw material,
in the other case the raw oil production. Other life cycles of loose-fill
packings differ depending on type of raw material. It cannot be decided
at first sight whether substitution on the basis of raw material will have
an ecological advantage or not.
1.1.5
LCA and Operational Life Cycle Assessment
There is always a risk of problem shift if spatial boundaries and those of
time have been over restrictive. This is often the case, if only operational
life cycle assessments (misguidedly termed ecobalance of the enterprise or
ecobalance without supplementary explanation) have been conducted. If
for instance the system boundary is set equal to site of the enterprise, an
adjustment to the fundamental concept of LCA is not made: Neither the
production of deliveries nor their disposal is considered. Transports,
outsourcing and parts of waste removal will not be accounted.
Example
Pseudo Improvement by Outsourcing
The manufacturer of fine foods had intended not only to advertise his
products based on taste and salubriousness but also by environmental
aspects. For this, data concerning energy and water consumption was
procured in an operational life cycle assessment to allow an allocation of
the salad composition. Potato salad had an immense water supply, the
15
Bifa/IFEU/Flo-Pak 2002
reason being that potatoes were usually covered by earth and had to be
cleaned. The waste water was then assigned to the potato salad. Some
weeks later water supply per salad had drastically diminished. This was
not due to an innovation on the cleansing gadget but because the washing
had been outsourced to another enterprise. For this reason washing water
did not occur in the operational life cycle assessment
Nevertheless operational life cycle assessment may for many applications
be useful, for example as data base in an environmental management
system16.
A simple consideration shows that operational life cycle assessments
provide data bases for product life cycle assessment: every process for the
production of e.g. 500 g potato salad in screwed cap glasses takes place at
a specific place at a specific time. If data, e.g. for energy and water
consumption of the system “1000 screw cap glasses, each containing 500g
potato salad, cucumber, egg and yoghurt dressing” has to be procured,
every company that is part of production and transport of the packed
product as well as businesses for waste disposal, must have their processes
analysed in such a way that these could be allocated to the original product.
This is not trivial: an agricultural corporation, generally does not only
produce milk, dairies not only yoghurt, the manufacturer of glass
manufactures provides glasses for diverse customers, etc. If all entities
involved in the manufacture of the product already disposed of a LCA
containing product related data, these results could be merged. Product
related data acquisition is nevertheless not common practice in operational
life cycle assessments.
Coupling of such operational life cycle assessments along the life cycle of
products would provide the possibility of chaining of agents17. Agents that
are part of a product system could detect and realize a common potential
for optimization. A new state of mind inclined to thinking and, by far,
acting in life cycles (Life Cycle Thinking and Life Cycles Management –
LCM) may emerge.
1.2
History
1.2.1
16
17
Braunschweig and Müller-Wenk 1993; Beck 1993; Schaltegger 1996
Udo de Haes and De Snoo 1996, 1997
Early LCAs
Life Cycle Assessment is a recent technology but not as recent as many
believe. There are approaches to life cycle thinking in literature. Scottish
economist and biologist Patrick Geddes has as early as in the 80s of 19th
century developed a procedure which can serve as precursor for LCA18.
His interest was focused on energy supply, especially of coal.
First LCAs in the modern sense were conducted around the 1970s termed
“Resource and Environmental Pacific Analysis (REPA)” at Midwest
Research Institute in the USA19. As with nearly all early LCAs or
“proto-LCs”20 these were an analysis of resource consumption and
releases of product systems, so called inventories without impact
assessment. To date such studies are mostly called life inventory-LCA
studies21. The new comparative method was first applied for a comparison
of beverage packing. The same applies for the first LCA conducted in
Germany22. The latter was done under an administration of B. Oberbacher
in 1972 at the Battelle-Institute in Frankfurt. The method developed by
Franklin and Hunt was applied with an additional procurement of costs,
among others those of disposal. It is interesting to observe that light
polyethylene sachets now and later on obtained best results23.
Similar early LCAs were conducted by Ian Boustead in the UK24 and
Gustav Sundström in Sweden25. Also Swiss studies26 date back to the
1970s. They were conducted at the EMPA in St. Gallen, see memories of
Paul Fink, former director of the EMPA27.
1.2.2
Environmental Background
Why did the development of LCA start in the 1970s? At least two reasons
can be determined:
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Quoted by Suter et al. 1995
Hunt and Franklin 1996
Klöpffer 2006
ISO 1997
Oberbacher et al. 1996
Schmitz et al. 1995
Boustead 1996
Lundholm and Sundström 1985, 1986
BUS 1984
Fink 1997
1. Rising problems of waste (therefore studies on packing)
2. Short-cuts in energy supply, acknowledgement of limited resources
While the former issue was introduced into a just emerging politics of the
environment, public awareness for the latter was raised by the bestseller
“Limits to Growth” and the report to the Club of Rome28. Something must
have been in the air because the book caused a sensation in the year of its
publication 1972. To date one refers to a change of paradigm taking place:
throw away mentality of post war generation was suddenly under scrutiny.
Theory was confirmed by reality by the first oil crises in 1973. Estimations
in the study concerning the time for exhaustion of resources had been too
rigid, in this respect it was over-pessimistic, it however demonstrates the
vulnerability of an industrial society which to a great extend relies on
crude oil. To date, nothing has changed, on the contrary.
System analysis, well known by specialists for some time since, has had its
breakthrough as a commonly accepted method. The International Institute
for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) at Laxenburg, Vienna, was founded.
In Germany, there have been car-free Sundays to which everyone adhered,
and a spirit of optimism, to date unimaginable, a plethora of ideas on how
alternative as well as common resources of energy could be used more
efficiently. Some of them were realized, but most of them not (yet).
1.2.3
Energy Analysis
On this background it is not surprising that initially an energy analysis or
process chain analysis theoretically evolved as an important contribution
to life cycle analysis29 (see Chapter 3). In Germany this development was
mainly promoted by Professor Schäfer at Technical University in Munich30
but also in industry31. A (primary) energy demand summarized through all
steps of the life cycle was formerly named “equivalent energy value”.
Recently the expression cumulated energy demand (CED)32 prevails.
By way of political solutions to the oil crisis in the 1980s an interest in
LCA and its precursors declined to experience a totally unexpected upraise
at the end of the decade.
28
29
30
31
32
Meadows et al: 1972, 1973
Mauch and Schäfer 1996
Mauch and Schäfer 1996; Eyrer 1996
Kindler and Nikles 1978, 1979
VDI 1997
1.2.4
The 1980s
Studies on LCA were sparse in the first half of the 1980s. An exception
form the study of BUS, later Federal Agency for Environment, Forestry
and Agriculture, Bern33, which has already been named, a thesis by Marina
Franke at TU Berlin34 and the development of product line analysis (PLA)
by the Ökoinstitut35. PLA supersedes LCA as it includes an analysis on
demand (DA), social (SA) and economical aspects (EA):
PLA = BA + LCA + SA + EA
It therefore comprises all three concepts of sustainability according to the
Brundlandt-Commission36 (see Chapter 6) and Agenda 2137 which passed
legislation at UNO World Conference in Rio de Janeiro, 1992.
1.2.5
The SETAC38 Contribution
A strong upraise of interest in LCA in Europe and North America -where
the designation life cycle analysis and assessment originated- was met by
two international conferences as a starting point for a new development.
In 1990 a workshop was organized by Society of Environmental
Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) in Smugglers Notch39 on A
Technical Framework for Life Cycle Assessment. One month later a
European workshop took place on the same topic in Leuven39.
In Smugglers Notch a famous LCA triangle was conceptualized, later
persiflaged as “holy triangle” (Fig.1.2). From 1990 to 1993 SETAC and
SETAC Europe were leading agents in the development, harmonization
and standardization of LCA. Their reports40 concerning the development
of the methodology were only superseded by German “Ecobalance of
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
BUS 1984
Franke 1984
Projektgruppe Ökologische Wirtschaft 1987
World Commission on Environment and Development 1987
Agenda 21: UNO 1982
Klöpffer 2006
Leuven 1990
SETAC 1991, 1993; SETAC Europe 1992; Fava et al. 1993,1994
Packings 1990”41, updated in 1996 and 199842. The UBA study in 1992
also had great influence43. A French adoption of history and methodology,
“L'Ecobilan”, was published44.
Special contributions from the Centre of Environment of University
Leiden (CML) under the leadership of Professor Helias de Haes were
appreciated in a socio-economic study by Gabathuler45 and in a special
issue of the International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment46. Greatest
achievement of CML was without doubt a stronger focus on ecological
aspects of LCA compared to previously more technical ones. Nevertheless,
a prior Swiss LCA had already featured a simple method of impact
analysis47. In practice, the CML method tended to overstress chemical
releases in the impact analysis, at the same time due to an absence of
generally adhered indicators an overuse of natural resources such as
minerals, fossils, biology and land was shielded48 (see Chapter 4).
1.3
Structure of LCA
1.3.1
Structure according to SETAC
A first attempt to introduce a structure into LCA was the SETAC triangle
of 1990/91 already quoted.
<<Fig. 1.2>>
Fig. 1.2 The SETAC-triangle in LCA guidelines (“Code of Practice”)49
The original components of SETAC 1990/91 were adapted by the UBA 50
Berlin in 1992 as
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
BUWAL 1991
BUWAL 1996, 1998
UBA 1992
Blouet and Rivoire 1995
Gabathuler 1998
Huijbregts et al. 2006
BUS 1984
Klöpffer and Renner 2003
SETAC 1993
UBA 1992
- LCA, Inventory
- Impact Analysis
- Improvement Analysis
Here LCA, formerly called inventory, means material and energy analysis
of the examined system from cradle-to-grave. The resulting inventory table
contains a list of all inputs and outputs (see Fig. 1.3 and Chapter 3).
“Bare numbers” of LCA need an ecological analysis or weighting, inputs
and outputs will be sorted corresponding to their impact to the
environment. Thus for instance all releases into the air causing acid rain
will be aggregated (see chapter 4). This procedure was formerly called
Impact Analysis, later Impact Assessment.
<<Fig. 1.3>>
Fig. 1.3 Analysis of matter and energy of a product system
A valuation of the data procured in LCA was postulated in Smugglers
Notch. It was called Improvement Analysis, later renamed Improvement
Assessment. Introduction of this component was regarded as great progress,
because the interpretation of the data was conducted according to specific
rules. The Environmental Agency Berlin51 has included this task in its
recommendation to the conduct of LCAs in 1992 as an option. The rules
for interpretation were later modified during the standardization process of
ISO (see section 1.3.2). To date this component is known by valuation52
(see Fig. 1.4).
1.3.2
Structure of LCA according to ISO
Up to now the structure developed by SETAC has essentially been
maintained by ISO53 with the exception of Improvement Assessment which
was replaced by “interpretation” (valuation). An optimization of product
51
German: Umwelbundesamt (UBA)
ISO 1997
53
ISO 1997, 2006a
52
systems was not adapted as standard content by ISO, but was listed besides
other applications of the standard. The structure of the international
standard is depicted in Fig. 1.4.
<<Fig. 1.4>>
Fig. 1.4 LCA Phases according to ISO EN 14040:1997/2006
Tab. 1.1 Examples of LCA applications according to ISO 140.
Application
Query
environmental
packing regulation
law and - politics waste oil regulation
genetically modified
organisms (GMO)
agriculture
PVC
public procurement
integration of
product politics
comparison of
product
54
weed control in viticulture57
PVC in Sweden58
comparison of cost and benefit of
environmental procurement59
EuP guideline60
tenside
ECOSOL LCAs61
beverage packing
comparison of packings62
food packing
comparison of packings63
floor coverings
ERFMI survey64
isolation materials
insulation of buildings65
Schmitz et al. 1995; UBA 2000, 2002
UBA 2000a
56
Klöpffer et al. 1999
57
IFEU/SLFA 1998
58
Tukker et al. 1996
59
Rüdenauer et al. 2007
60
Kemma et al. 2005
61
Stalmans et al. 1995; Janzen 1995
62
IFEU 2002, 2004, 2006, 2007
63
IFEU 2006a; Humbert et al. 2008
64
Günther and Lambowski 1997, 1998
65
Schmidt et al. 2004
55
Project
beverage packing54
waste oil disposal55
GMO in agricultural LCA56
communication
consumer consultation ISO type III declaration66
chain management
PCR67: electricity, steam,
water68
ecological building
EPD69: building products70
carbon footprinting
PCR: climatic product
declaration71
carbon-neutral enterprise72
waste
management
enterprise
concepts of disposal
graphic papers73
recycling
plastics74
ecological valuation of environmental achievement of an
business lines
enterprise75
Components of LCA have been renamed and the following are now
mandatory in Germany:
- Definition of Goal and Scope
- Life Cycle Inventory
- Impact Assessment
- Valuation
The arrows in Fig 1.4 allow an iterative approach that is often necessary
(see Chapter 2). Direct applications of an LCA lie out of scope of
standardized components of an LCA.
This makes sense because besides foreseeable applications during the
standardization process, others exist in real life and have been summarized
as “miscellaneous applications”. Examples can be found in Table 1.1.
1.3.3
Valuation – A Separate Component?
66
Schmincke and Grahl 2006
Product Category Rules
68
Vattenfall et al. 2007
69
Environmental Product Declaration
70
Deutsches Institut für Bauen und Umwelt 2007
71
Svenska Miljösttyrningsrådet 2006; BSI 2008
72
Gensch 2008
73
Tiedemann 2000
74
Heye and Kremer 1999
75
Wright et al. 1997
67
Special fate is attached to the component valuation which has not been
assigned as standard. A valuation will always be necessary if the results of
a comparative LCA are not straightforward. A trade-off of system A
against system B needs to be made if the former has lower energy
consumption, but on the other hand has releases of substances leading to
water eutrophication and to the emergence of ozone near the surface: What
will be of greater importance? For these decisions, subjective or standard
notions of value are necessary, common in daily life e.g. during purchase
decisions76. For this reason a valuation based on exclusively scientific
methods cannot be made.
Because of this, it was proposed by SETAC Europe at Leiden 199177 to
introduce valuation as a component of its own. This proposition was
seized by UBA Berlin78 and by DIN NAGUS79 later on. But as subjective
notions of value cannot be standardized, a methodology was developed to
support the process of conclusion. In SETAC “Code of Practice”80 these
regulations were subordinated to the component impact assessment.
However, no changes were made by the standardization process of ISO:
regulations are integrated into the component impact assessment81 (see
section 4.3). The final survey of results which leads to a conclusion82 is
supposed to take place in the final component “valuation“83 of an LCA
(see Chapter 5).
The discussion on valuation has during the final years of the 1990s
increased to such an extent that former Minister of the Environment
Angela Merkel84 joined the discussion. As consequence, the association of
the German Industry (BDI) published a policy brief85 and the UBA Berlin
then elaborated an ISO-conformal valuation methodology86.
1.4
Standardization of LCA
76
DIN-NAGUS 1994; Giegrich et al. 1995; Klöpffer and Volkwein 1995; Neitzel 1996
SETAC Europe 1992
78
UBA 1994
79
DIN NAGUS 1994; Neitzel 1996
80
SETAC 1993
81
ISO 2000a
82
Grahl and Schmincke 1996
83
ISO 2000b
84
Merkel 1997
85
BDI 1999
86
SCHMITZ AND PAULINI 1999
77
1.4.1
Process of Formation
LCA standards ISO 14040 and 14044 belong to the ISO 14000 group
concerning environmental management (Fig. 1.5).
The committee responsible of DIN in Germany is the NAGUS87. National
propositions are brought together in the Technical Committee 207 (TC 207)
at the International Standards Organization ISO at international level, with
a participation of all nations which are members of the TC 207 by their
standardizations organizations, and international standards are developed.
Generally this process takes a couple of years.
LCA standardization by national standardization organizations88 and
above all by ISO has been conducted since the beginning of the 1990s with
great effort89. This was difficult to achieve because individual components
of LCA were still under development. On a national level, only two
standardization organizations have developed their own LCA
standardization before ratification of ISO 14040: AFNOR (France) and
CSA (Canada). To date, a singular internationally acceptable
standardization is aimed at to promote international communication and
this is why France and Canada have stepped into the ISO process.
<<Fig. 1.5>>
Fig. 1.5 ISO 14000 Model90
The most important standardization activity for LCA is therefore
conducted by ISO. European Standardizations (CEN) and their subsequent
national organizations adapt ISO regulations into languages (CEN 14040
standards are available in three official languages, English, French and
German). DIN-NAGUS and similar national committees activity is
focused on legwork for the ISO council, the work-out and harmonization
of supplementary comments, a translation of ISO texts and on
supplementary standardization for specifically German or national issues.
The first series of the international LCA standards abutted on the structure
of Fig 1.4:
- ISO 14040 LCA – Principles and general demands; international standard
1997
87
Normenausschuss Grundlagen des Umweltschutzes i.e. Environmental Standardisation Organisation
e.g.: CSA 1992; DIN-NAGUS 1994; AFNOR 1994
89
ISO 1997, 1998, 2000A, 2000B; MARSMANN 1997; SAUR 1997; KLÜPPEL 1997, 2002
90
Normenausschuss Grundlagen des Umweltschutzes (NAGUS) in DIN Deutsches Institut für Normung e. V. 2008.
88
- ISO 14041: LCA – Definition of goal and scope as well as LCI;
international standard 1998
- ISO 14042: LCA – Impact assessment; international standard 2000;
- ISO 14043: LCA – Valuation; international standard 2000.
1.4.2
Status Quo
A review of International Standards in 2001-2006 led to restructuring
without any essential changes91. The standard continues to be called ISO
1404092 with no mandatory directives. Directives have been summarised
in a new standard ISO 1404493 comprising all LCA elements in Fig.1.4.
Two technical reports (TR) and one technical specification has been added,
which are only available in English:
- ISO/TR 14047 Illustrative example on how to apply ISO 140042
- ISO/TS 14048 Data documentation format
- ISO/TR 14049 Examples of the application of ISO 14041 to goal and
scope definition and inventory analysis
These are non-mandatory documents meant for help and support.
As many as 24 national standardization organizations participated in a first
round of ISO standardization talks. The final vote led to an overall
acceptance of 95%. LCA is therefore the only internationally accepted
standardized method for an analysis of environmental aspects and
potential impact of product systems. The standards are verified on a five
year basis. Revision of 2006 will therefore be valid until 2011.
Chapter 5 will focus on objective content of individual components of
LCA, their advantages and disadvantages.
1.5
Literature and Information on LCA
Until the mid of the 1990s only “gray” LCA literature was available.
Meanwhile, a couple of books mostly in English have been published94.
91
Finkbeiner et al. 2006
ISO 2006A
93
ISO 2006B
94
Schmidt and Schorb 1995; Curran 1996; Eyrer 1996; Fullana and Puig 1997; Wenzel et al. 1997; Hauschild and
92
Papers from national and international organizations provide essential
information to LCA, mostly SETAC and SETAC Europe95, The Nordic
Council96, US EPA97, UBA Berlin98, BUS/BUWAL Bern99 and the
European Environment Agency Copenhagen (EEA)100.
Since 1996 “The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment” (Int. J.
LCA) is published at ecomed publishing Landsberg/Lech and Heidelberg
(since 1.1.2008 at Springer, Heidelberg). Queries on current information
on this journal and similar publications can be made by the internet101. The
journal has recently developed into a leading publication organ of the
promotion of the LCA methodology, supplemented by the series “LCA
Documents” of Ecoinforma Press, (since 2008 part of Wiley-Blackwell),
Bayreuth, in cooperation with ecomed. The Int. J. LCA is also available
electronically and short cuts, editorials and similar publications can be
downloaded. Further journals with regular contributions to LCA are the
Journal of Industrial Ecology (MIT Press, part of Wiley-Blackwell since
2008), Cleaner Production (Elsevier) and Integrated Environmental
Assessment and Management, IEAM (SETAC Press).
Other specialized journals also publish LCA literature. In 1995 for
instance, an ECOSOL-Tenside-LCA of the European tenside producers
was conducted by Franklin Associates, comprising two booklets, titled
“Tenside, Surfactants, and Detergents”102.
The significance of publication for propagation and discussion of methods,
theories and results of research cannot be over-evaluated. Especially
within new branches of science, peer reviews judge on a day-to-day basis
upon scientific validity103. They serve as veneer for the big principles of
epistemology with special focus according to Popper on falsifiability 104
which for LCA cannot be examined unambiguously. Individual LCA
components will undergo a critical review.
Wenzel 1998; Badino and Baldo 1998; Guinée et al. 2002; Baumann and Tillman 2004
SETAC 1991, 1993; SETAC Europe 1992; Fava et al. 1993, 1994; Huppes and Schneider 1994;
UDO DE HAES 1996; UDO DE HAES ET AL. 2002
96
Lindfors et al. 1994,1994b, 1995
95
97
EPA 1993, 2006
98
UBA 1992, 1997; Klöpffer and Renner 1995; Schmitz and Paulini 1999
BUS 1984; BUWAL 1990, 1991, 1996, 1998
99
100
101
Jensen et al. 1997
http://www.scientificjournals.com/lca
Janzen 1995; Klöpffer et al. 1995; Berna et al. 1995; Stalmans et al. 1995; Hirsinger and Schlick
1995A, 1995B, 1995C, 1995D; THOMAS 1995; BERENBOLD AND KOSSWIG 1995; POSTLETHWAITE 1995A,
1995B; SCHUL ET AL. 1995; FRANKE ET AL. 1995
103
Klöpffer 2007
104
Popper 1934
102
1.6
References ((NICHT übersetzt))
AFNOR 1994: Association Française de Normalisation (AFNOR): Analyse de cycle de vie. Norme NF X
30–300. 3/1994.
Badino und Baldo 1998: Badino, V.; Baldo, G. L.: LCA – Istruzioni per l’uso. Progetto Leonardo,
Esculapio Editore, Bologna.
Baumann und Tillman 2004: Baumann, H.; Tillman, A.-M.: The Hitch Hiker’s Guide to LCA. An
Orientation in LCA Methodology and Application. Studentlitteratur, Lund. ISBN 91-44-02364-2.
BDI 1999: Bundesverband der Deutschen Industrie e. V. (BDI): Die Durchführung von Ökobilanzen zur
Information von Öffentlichkeit und Politik. BDI-Drucksache Nr. 313. Verlag Industrie-Förderung,
Köln, April 1999. ISSN 0407-8977.
Beck 1993: Beck, M. (Hrsg.): Ökobilanzierung im betrieblichen Management. Vogel Buchverlag,
Würzburg. ISBN 3-8023-1479-4.
Berenbold und Kosswig 1995: Berenbold, H.; Kosswig, K.: A life-cycle inventory for the production of
secondary alkane sulphonates (SAS) in Europe. Tenside Surf. Det. 32, 152–156.
Berna et al. 1995: Berna, J. L.; Cavalli, L.; Renta, C.: A lifecycle inventory for the production of linear
akylbenzene sulphonates in Europe. Tenside Surf. Det. 32, 122–127.
BIfA/IFEU/Flo-Pak 2002: Kunststoffe aus nachwachsenden Rohstoffen: Vergleichende Ökobilanz für
Loose-fill-Packmittel aus Stärke bzw. aus Polystyrol. Bayerisches Institut für angewandte
Umweltforschung und -technik, Augsburg.
Blouet und Rivoire 1995: Blouet, A.; Rivoire, E.: L’Écobilan. Les produits et leurs impacts sur
l’environnement. Dunod, Paris. ISBN 2-10-002126-5.
Boustead 1996: Boustead, I.: LCA – How it came about. The beginning in UK. Int. J. LCA 1 (3), 147–150.
Boustead und Hancock 1979: Boustead, I.; Hancock, G. F.: Handbook of Industrial Energy Analysis. Ellis
Horwood Ltd., Chichester.
Braunschweig und Müller-Wenk 1993: Braunschweig, A.; Müller-Wenk, R.: Ökobilanzen für
Unternehmungen. Eine Wegleitung für die Praxis. Verlag Haupt, Bern.
BSI 2008: British Standards Institution (Ed.): Publicly Available Specification (PAS) 2050:2008.
Specification for the assessment of the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of goods and services.
BUS 1984: Bundesamt für Umweltschutz (BUS), Bern (Hrsg.): Oekobilanzen von Packstoffen.
Schriftenreihe Umweltschutz, Nr. 24. Bern, April 1984.
BUWAL 1990: Ahbe, S.; Braunschweig, A.; Müller-Wenk, R.: Methodik für Oekobilanzen auf der Basis
ökologischer Optimierung. In: Bundesamt für Umwelt, Wald und Landschaft (BUWAL), Bern
(Hrsg.): Schriftenreihe Umwelt Nr. 133.
BUWAL 1991: Habersatter, K.; Widmer, F.: Oekobilanzen von Packstoffen. Stand 1990. In: Bundesamt
für Umwelt, Wald und Landschaft (BUWAL), Bern (Hrsg.): Schriftenreihe Umwelt Nr. 132,
Februar 1991.
BUWAL 1996,1998: Habersatter, K.; Fecker, I.; Dall’Aqua, S.; Fawer, M.; Fallscher, F.; Förster, R.;
Maillefer, C.; Ménard, M.; Reusser, L.; Som, C.; Stahel, U.; Zimmermann, P.: Ökoinventare für
Verpackungen. ETH Zürich und EMPA St. Gallen für BUWAL und SVI, Bern. In: Bundesamt für
Umwelt, Wald und Landschaft (Hrsg.): Schriftenreihe Umwelt Nr. 250/Bd. I und II. 2. erweiterte
und aktualisierte Auflage, Bern 1998 (1. Auflage 1996).
CSA 1992: Canadian Standards Association (CSA): Environmental Life Cycle Assessment.
CAN/CSA-Z760. 5th Draft Edition, May 1992.
Curran 1996: Curran, M. A. (ed.): Environmental Life- Cycle Assessment. McGraw-Hill, New York. ISBN
0-07-015063-X.
Deutsches Institut für Bauen und Umwelt 2007: TECU® – Kupferbänder und Kupferlegierungen. KME
Germany AG. Programmhalter: Deutsches Institut für Bauen und Umwelt. Registrierungsnummer
No: AUB-KME-30807-D. Ausstellungsdatum: 2007-11-01; verifiziert von: Dr. Eva Schmincke.
DIN-NAGUS 1994: DIN-NAGUS: Grundsätze produktbezogener Ökobilanzen (Stand Oktober 1993).
DIN-Mitteilungen 73 (3), 208–212.
EPA 1993: Vigon, B. W.; Tolle, D. A.; Cornaby, B. W.; Latham, H. C.; Harrison, C. L.; Boguski, T. L.;
Hunt, R. G.; Sellers, J. D.: Life Cycle Assessment: Inventory Guidelines and Principles.
EPA/600/R-92/245, Office of Research and Development. Cincinnati, Ohio.
EPA 2006: Scientific Applications International Corporation (SAIC): Life Cycle Assessment: Principles
and Practice. U.S. EPA, Systems Analysis Branch, National Risk Management Research
Laboratory. Cincinnati, Ohio.
Eyrer 1996: Eyrer, P. (Hrsg.): Ganzheitliche Bilanzierung. Werkzeug zum Planen und Wirtschaften in
Kreisläufen. Springer, Berlin 1996. ISBN 3-540-59356-X.
Fava et al. 1993: Fava, J.; Consoli, F. J.; Denison, R.; Dickson, K.; Mohin, T.; Vigon, B. (eds.): Conceptual
Framework for Life-Cycle Impact Analysis. Workshop Report. SETAC and SETAC Foundation for
Environ. Education. Sandestin, Florida, February 1–7, 1992. Published by SETAC.
Fava et al. 1994: Fava, J.; Jensen, A. A.; Lindfors, L.; Pomper, S.; De Smet, B.; Warren, J.; Vigon, B.
(eds.): Conceptual Framework for Life-Cycle Data Quality. Workshop Report. SETAC and SETAC
Foundation for Environ. Education. Wintergreen, Virginia, October 1992. Published by SETAC
June 1994.
Fink 1997: Fink, P.: LCA – How it came about. The roots of LCA in Switzerland: Continuous learning by
doing. Int. J. LCA 2 (3), 131–134.
Finkbeiner et al. 2006: Finkbeiner, M.; Inaba, A.; Tan, R. B. H.; Christiansen, K.; Klüppel, H.-J.: The new
international standards for life cycle assessment: ISO 14040 and ISO 14044. Int. J. LCA 11 (2),
80–85.
Fleischer und Schmidt 1995: Fleischer, G.; Schmidt, W.-P.: Life Cycle Assessment. Ullmanns
Encyclopaedia of Industrial Chemistry, Vol. B8, 585–600.
Fleischer und Schmidt 1996: Fleischer, G.; Schmidt, W.-P.: Functional unit for systems using natural raw
materials. Int. J. LCA 1 (1), 23–27.
Franke 1984: Franke, M.: Umweltauswirkungen durch Getränkeverpackungen. Systematik zur Ermittlung
der Umweltauswirkungen von komplexen Prozessen am Beispiel von Einweg- und
Mehrweg-Getränkebehältern. EF-Verlag für Energie- und Umwelttechnik, Berlin.
Franke et al. 1995: Franke, M.; Berna, J. L.; Cavalli, L.; Renta, C.; Stalmans, M.; Thomas, H.: A life-cycle
inventory for the production of petrochemical intermediates in Europe. Tenside Surf. Det. 32,
384–396.
Fullana und Puig 1997: Fullana, P.; Puig, R.: Análisis del ciclo de vida. Primera edición. Rubes Editorial,
S.L., Barcelona. ISBN 84-497-0070-1.
Gabathuler 1998: Gabathuler, H.: The CML story. How environmental sciences entered the debate
on LCA. Int. J. LCA 2 (4), 187–194.
Gensch 2008: Gensch, C.-O.; Klimaneutrale Weleda AG. Endbericht, Öko-Institut Freiburg.
Giegrich et al. 1995: Giegrich, J.; Mampel, U.; Duscha, M.; Zazcyk, R.; Osorio-Peters, S.; Schmidt, T.:
Bilanzbewertung in produktbezogenen Ökobilanzen. Evaluation von Bewertungsmethoden,
Perspektiven. Endbericht des Instituts für Energie- und Umweltforschung Heidelberg GmbH (IFEU)
an das Umweltbundesamt, Berlin. Heidelberg, März 1995. UBA Texte 23/95. Berlin. ISSN
0722-186X.
Grahl und Schmincke 1996: Grahl, B.; Schmincke, E.: Evaluation and decision-making processes in life
cycle assessment. Int. J. LCA 1 (1), 32–35.
Günther und Langowski 1997: Günther, A.; Langowski, H.-C.: Life cycle assessment study on resilient
floor coverings. Int. J. LCA 2(2), 73–80.
Günther und Langowski 1998: Günther, A.; Langowski, H.-C. (eds.): Life Cycle Assessment Study on
Resilient Floor Coverings. For ERFMI (European Resilient Flooring Manufacturers Institute).
Fraunhofer IRB Verlag 1998. ISBN 3-8167-5210-1.
Guinée et al. 2002: Guinée, J. B. (final editor); Gorée, M.; Heijungs, R.; Huppes, G.; Kleijn, R.; Koning, A.
de; Oers, L. van; Wegener Sleeswijk, A.; Suh, S.; Udo de Haes, H. A.; Bruijn, H. de; Duin, R. van;
Huijbregts, M. A. J.: Handbook on Life Cycle Assessment – Operational Guide to the ISO
Standards. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht. ISBN 1-4020-0228-9.
Hauschild und Wenzel 1998: Hauschild, M.; Wenzel, H.: Environmental Assessment of Products Vol. 2:
Scientific Background. Chapman & Hall, London. ISBN 0-412-80810-2.
Heijungs 1997: Heijungs, R.: Economic Drama and the Environmental Stage. Formal Derivation of
Algorithmic Tools for Environmental Analysis and Decision-Support from a Unified
Epistemological Principle. Proefschrift (Dissertation/PhD-Thesis). Leiden. ISBN 90-9010784-3.
Heijungs und Suh 2002: Heijungs, R.; Suh, S.: The Computational Structure of Life Cycle Assessment.
Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht 2002. ISBN 1-4020-0672-1.
Heyde und Kremer 1999: Heyde, M.; Kremer, M.: Recycling and Recovery of Plastics from Packaging in
Domestic Waste. LCA-type Analysis of Different Strategies. LCA Documents Vol. 5. Ecoinforma
Press, Bayreuth. ISBN 3-928379-57-7.
Hirsinger und Schlick 1995a: Hirsinger, F.; Schlick, K.-P.: A life-cycle inventory for the production of
alcohol sulphates in Europe. Tenside Surf. Det. 32, 128–139.
Hirsinger und Schlick 1995b: Hirsinger, F.; Schlick, K.-P.: A life-cycle inventory for the production of
alkyl polyglucosides in Europe. Tenside Surf. Det. 32, 193–200.
Hirsinger und Schlick 1995c: Hirsinger, F.; Schlick, K.-P.: A life-cycle inventory for the production of
detergentgrade alcohols. Tenside Surf. Det. 32, 398–410.
Hirsinger und Schlick 1995d: Hirsinger, F.; Schlick, K.-P.: A life-cycle inventory for the production of
oleochemical raw materials. Tenside Surf. Det. 32, 420–432.
Huijbregts et al. 2006: Huijbregts, M. A. J.; Guinée, J. B.; Huppes, G.; Potting, J. (eds.): Special issue
honoring Helias A. Udo de Haes at the occasion of his retirement. Special Issue 1, Int. J. LCA 11,
1–132.
Humbert et al. 2008: Humbert, S.; Rossi, V.; Margni, M.; Jolliet, O.; Loerincik, Y: Life cycle assessment
of two baby food packaging alternatives: glass jars vs. plastic pots. Int. J. LCA (in press).
Hunt und Franklin 1996: Hunt, R.; Franklin, W. E.: LCA – How it came about. Personal reflections on the
origin and the development of LCA in the USA. Int. J. LCA 1 (1), 4–7.
Huppes und Schneider 1994: Huppes, G.; Schneider, F. (eds.): Proceedings of the European Workshop on
Allocation in LCA. Leiden, February 1994. SETAC Europe, Brussels.
IFEU/SLFA 1998: Ökobilanz Beikrautbekämpfung im Weinbau. Im Auftrag des Ministeriums für
Wirtschaft, Verkehr, Landwirtschaft und Weinbau Rheinland-Pfalz, Mainz. IFEU, Heidelberg,
SLFA, Neustadt an der Weinstraße, Dezember 1998.
IFEU 2002: Ostermayer, A.; Schorb, A.: Ökobilanz Fruchtsaftgetränke Verbund-Standbodenbeutel 0,2 l,
MW-Glasflasche, Karton Giebelpackung. Im Auftrag der Deutschen SISI-Werke, Eppelheim. IFEU
Heidelberg, Juli 2002.
IFEU 2004: Detzel, A.; Giegrich, J.; Krüger, M.; Möhler, S.; Ostermayer, A. (IFEU): Ökobilanz
PET-Einwegverpackungen und sekundäre Verwertungsprodukte. Im Auftrag von PETCORE,
Brüssel. IFEU Heidelberg, August 2004.
IFEU 2006: Detzel, A.; Böß, A.: Ökobilanzieller Vergleich von Getränkekartons und PETEinwegflaschen.
Endbericht, Institut für Energie- und Umweltforschung (IFEU) Heidelberg an den Fachverband
Kartonverpackungen (FKN) Wiesbaden, August 2006.
IFEU 2006a: Detzel, A.; Krüger, M. (IFEU): LCA for food contact packaging made from PLA and
traditional materials. On behalf of Natureworks LLC. IFEU Heidelberg, Juli 2006.
IFEU 2007: Krüger, M.; Detzel, A. (IFEU): Aktuelle Ökobilanz zur 1,5-L-PET-Einwegflasche in
Österreich unter Einbeziehung des Bottle-to- Bottle-Recycling. Im Auftrag des Verbands der
Getränkehersteller Österreichs. IFEU Heidelberg, Oktober 2007.
ISO 1997: International Standard (ISO); Norme Européenne (CEN): Environmental management – Life
cycle assessment – Principles and framework. Prinzipien und allgemeine Anforderungen. EN ISO
14040 Juni 1997.
ISO 1998: International Standard (ISO); Norme Euro péenne (CEN): Environmental management – Life
cycle assessment: Goal and scope definition and inventory analysis (Festlegung des Ziels und des
Untersuchungsrahmens sowie Sachbilanz) ISO EN 14041 (1998).
ISO 2000a: International Standard (ISO); Norme Euro péenne (CEN): Environmental management – Life
cycle assessment: Life cycle impact assessment (Wirkungsabschätzung). International Standard ISO
EN 14042.
ISO 2000b: International Standard (ISO); Norme Européenne (CEN): Environmental manage ment – Life
cycle assessment: Inter pretation (Auswertung). International Standard ISO EN 14043.
ISO 2006a: ISO TC 207/SC 5: Environmental management – Life cycle assessment – Principles and
framework. ISO EN 14040 2006-10.
ISO 2006b: ISO TC 207/SC 5: Environmental manage ment – Life cycle assessment – Requirements and
guidelines. ISO EN 14044 2006-10.
Janzen 1995: Janzen, D. C.: Methodology of the European surfactant life-cycle inventory for detergent
surfactants production. Tenside Surf. Det. 32, 110–121.
Jensen et al. 1997: Jensen, A. A.; Hoffman, L.; Møller, B. T.; Schmidt, A.; Christiansen, K.; Elkington, J.;
van Dijk, F.: Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). A guide to approaches, experiences and information
sources. European Environmental Agency. Environmental Issues Series No. 6, August 1997.
Kemna et al. 2005: Kemna, R.; van Elburg, M.; Li, W.; van Holsteijn, R.: Methodology Study Eco-design
of Energy-using Products – MEEUP Methodology Report for DG ENETR, Unit ENTR/G/3 in
collaboration with DG TREN, Unit D1. Delft, 2005.
Kindler und Nikles 1979: Kindler, H.; Nikles, A.: Energieaufwand zur Herstellung von Werkstoffen –
Berechnungsgrundsätze und Energieäquivalenzwerte von Kunststoffen. Kunststoffe 70, 802–807.
Kindler und Nikles 1980: Kindler, H.; Nikles, A.: Energiebedarf bei der Herstellung und Verarbeitung von
Kunststoffen. Chem.-Ing.-Tech. 51, 1–3.
Klöpffer 1994: Klöpffer, W.: Environmental hazard assess ment of chemicals and products. Part IV. Life
cycle assessment. ESPR – Environ. Sci. & Pollut. Res. 1 (5), 272–279.
Klöpffer 1997: Klöpffer, W.: Life cycle assessment – From the beginning to the current state.
ESPREnviron. Sci. & Pollut. Res. 4 (4), 223–228.
Klöpffer 2003: Klöpffer, W.: Life-cycle based methods for sustainable product development. Editorial for
the LCM Section in Int. J. LCA 8 (3), 157–159.
Klöpffer 2006: Klöpffer, W.: The Role of SETAC in the development of LCA. Int. J. LCA Special Issue 1,
Vol. 11, 116–122.
Klöpffer 2007: Klöpffer, W.: Publishing scientific articles with special reference to LCA and related topics.
Int. J. LCA 12 (2), 71–76.
Klöpffer 2008: Klöpffer, W.: Life-cycle based sustainability assessment of products. Int. J. LCA 13 (2),
89–94.
Klöpffer et al. 1995: Klöpffer, W.; Grießhammer, R.; Sundström, G.: Overview of the scientific peer
review of the European life cycle inventory for surfactant production. Tenside Surf. Det. 32,
378–383.
Klöpffer und Renner 1995: Klöpffer, W.; Renner, I.: Methodik der Wirkungsbilanz im Rahmen von
Produkt-Ökobilanzen unter Berücksichtigung nicht oder nur schwer quantifizierbarer
Umwelt-Kategorien. Bericht der C.A.U. GmbH, Dreieich, an das Umweltbundesamt (UBA), Berlin.
UBA-Texte 23/95, Berlin. ISSN 0722-186X.
Klöpffer und Volkwein 1995: Klöpffer, W.; Volkwein, S.: Bilanzbewertung im Rahmen der Ökobilanz.
Kapitel 6.4 in Thomé-Kozmiensky, K. J. (Hrsg.): Enzyklopädie der Kreislaufwirtschaft,
Management der Kreislaufwirtschaft. EF-Verlag für Energie- und Umwelttechnik, Berlin, S.
336–340.
Klöpffer et al. 1999: Klöpffer, W.; Renner, I.; Tappeser, B.; Eckelkamp, C.; Dietrich, R.: Life Cycle
Assessment gentechnisch veränderter Produkte als Basis für eine umfassende Beurteilung
möglicher Umweltauswirkungen. Federal Environment Agency Ltd. Monographien Bd. 111, Wien.
ISBN 3-85457-475-4.
Klüppel 1997: Klüppel, H.-J.: Goal and scope definition and life cycle inventory analysis. Int. J. LCA 2 (1),
5–8. Leuven 1990: Life Cycle Analysis for Packaging Environmental Assessment. Proceedings of
the Specialised Workshop organized by Procter & Gamble, Leuven, Belgium, September 24/25.
Lindfors et al. 1994a: Lindfors, L.-G.; Christiansen, K.; Hoffmann, L.; Virtanen, Y.; Juntilla, V.; Leskinen,
A.; Hansen, O.-J.; Rønning, A.; Ekvall,T.; Finnveden, G.; Weidema, Bo P.; Ersbøll, A. K.; Bomann,
B.; Ek, M.: LCA-NORDIC Technical Reports No. 10 and Special Reports No. 1–2. Tema Nord
1995:503. Nordic Council of Ministers. Copenhagen 1994. ISBN 92-9120-609-1.
Lindfors et al. 1994b: Lindfors, L.-G.; Christiansen, K.; Hoffmann, L.; Virtanen, Y.; Juntilla, V.; Leskinen,
A.; Hansen, O.-J.; Rønning, A.; Ekvall,T.; Finnveden, G.: LCA-NORDIC Technical Reports No.
1–9. Tema Nord 1995:502. Nordic Council of Ministers. Copenhagen 1994.
Lindfors et al. 1995: Lindfors, L.-G.; Christiansen, K.; Hoffmann, L.; Virtanen, Y.; Juntilla, V.; Hanssen,
O.-J.; Rønning, A.; Ekvall, T.; Finnveden, G.: Nordic Guidelines on Life-Cycle Assessment. Nordic
Council of Ministers. Nord 1995:20. Copenhagen 1995.
Lundholm und Sundström 1985: Lundholm, M. P.; Sundström, G.: Ressourcen und Umweltbeeinflussung.
Tetrabrik Aseptic Kartonpackungen sowie Pfandflaschen und Einwegflaschen aus Glas. Malmö
1985.
Lundholm und Sundström 1986: Lundholm, M. P.; Sundström, G.: Ressourcen- und Umweltbeeinflussung
durch 1414vch01.indd 23 03.02.2009 16:04:17 24 1 Einleitung zwei Verpackungssysteme für
Milch, Tetra Brik und Pfandflasche. Malmö 1986.
Marsmann 1997: Marsmann, M.: ISO 14040 – The first project. Int. J. LCA 2 (3), 122–123.
Mauch und Schäfer 1996: Mauch, W.; Schaefer, H.: Methodik zur Ermittlung des kumulierten
Energieaufwands. In Eyrer, P. (Hrsg.): Ganzheitliche Bilanzierung. Werkzeug zum Planen und
Wirtschaften in Kreisläufen. Springer, Berlin, S. 152–180. ISBN 3-540-59356-X.
Meadows et al. 1972: Meadows, D. H.; Meadows, D. L.; Randers, J.; Behrens III, W. W.: The Limits to
Growth. A Report for the Club of Rome’s Project on the Predicament of Mankind. Universe Books,
New York 1972. ISBN 0-87663-165-0.
Meadows et al. 1973: Meadows, D. L.; Meadows, D. H.; Zahn, E.; Milling, P.: Die Grenzen des
Wachstums. Bericht des Club of Rome zur Lage der Menschheit. 101.–200. Ts. rororo Taschenbuch,
Hamburg 1973; neue Auflage im dtv Taschenbuchverlag. ISBN 3-499-16825-1.
Merkel 1997: Merkel, A.: Foreword: ISO 14040. Int. J. LCA 2 (3), 121.
Neitzel 1996: Neitzel, H. (ed.): Principles of product-related life cycle assessment. Int. J. LCA 1 (1),
49–54.
O’Brien et al. 1996: O’Brien, M.; Doig, A.; Clift, R.: Social and environmental life cycle assessment
(SELCA) approach and methodological development. Int. J. LCA 1 (4), 231–237.
Oberbacher et al. 1996: Oberbacher, B.; Nikodem, H.; Klöpffer, W.: LCA – How it came about. An early
systems analysis of packaging for liquids which would be called an LCA today. Int. J. LCA 1 (2),
62–65.
Popper 1934: Popper, K. R.: Logik der Forschung. J. Springer, Wien 1934. 7. Auflage: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul
Siebeck), Tübingen 1982. 1st English edition: The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Hutchison,
London 1959.
Postlethwaite 1995a: Postlethwaite, D.: A life-cycle inventory for the production of sulphur and caustic
soda in Europe. Tenside Surf. Det. 32, 412–418.
Postlethwaite 1995b: Postlethwaite, D.: A life-cycle inventory for the production of soap in Europe.
Tenside Surf. Det. 32, 157–170.
Projektgruppe ökologische Wirtschaft 1987: Produktlinienanalyse: Bedürfnisse, Produkte und ihre Folgen.
Kölner Volksblattverlag, Köln.
Rüdenauer et al. 2007: Rüdenauer, I.; Dross, M.; Eberle, U.; Gensch, C.; Graulich, K.; Hünecke, K.; Koch,
Y.; Möller, M.; Quack, D.; Seebach, D.; Zimmer, W.; et al.: Costs and Benefits of Green Public
Procurement in Europe. Part 1: Comparison of the Life Cycle Costs of Green and Non Green
Products. Service contract number: DG ENV.G.2/SER/2006/0097r. Öko-Institut Freiburg 2007.
Saur 1997: Saur, K.: Life cycle impact assessment (LCA-ISO activities). Int. J. LCA 2 (2), 66–70.
Schaltegger 1996: Schaltegger, S. (Ed.): Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) – Quo vadis? Birkhäuser Verlag,
Basel und Boston. ISBN 3-7643-5341-4 (Basel), ISBN 0-8176-5341-4 (Boston).
Schmidt und Schorb 1995: Schmidt, M.; Schorb, A.: Stoffstromanalysen in Ökobilanzen und Öko- Audits.
Springer Verlag, Berlin. ISBN 3-540-59336-5.
Schmidt et al. 2004: Schmidt, A.; Jensen, A. A.; Clausen, A.; Kamstrup, O.; Postlethwaite, D.: A
comparative life cycle assessment of building insulation products made of stone wool, paper wool
and flax. Part 1: Background, goal and scope, life cycle inventory, impact assessment and
interpretation. Int. J. LCA 9 (1), 53–66.
Schmincke und Grahl 2006: Schmincke, E.; Grahl, B.: Umwelteigenschaften von Produkten. Die Rolle der
Ökobilanz in ISO Typ III Umweltdeklarationen. UWSF – Z Umweltchem Ökotox 18(2).
Schmitz et al. 1995: Schmitz, S.; Oels, H.-J.; Tiedemann, A.: Ökobilanz für Getränkeverpackungen. Teil A:
Methode zur Berechnung und Bewertung von Ökobilanzen für Verpackungen. Teil B:
Vergleichende Untersuchung der durch Verpackungssysteme für Frischmilch und Bier
hervorgerufenen Umweltbeeinflussungen. UBA Texte 52/95. Berlin.
Schmitz und Paulini 1999: Schmitz, S.; Paulini, I.: Bewertung in Ökobilanzen. Methode des
Umweltbundesamtes zur Normierung von Wirkungsindikatoren, Ordnung (Rangbildung) von
Wirkungskategorien und zur Auswertung nach ISO 14042 und 14043. Version ’99. UBA Texte
92/99, Berlin.
Schul et al. 1995: Schul, W.; Hirsinger, F.; Schick, K.-P.: A life-cycle inventory for the production of
detergent range alcohol ethoxylates in Europe. Tenside Surf. Det. 32, 171–192.
SETAC 1991: Fava, J. A.; Denison, R.; Jones, B.; Curran, M. A.; Vigon, B.; Selke, S.; Barnum, J. (eds.):
SETAC Workshop Report: A Technical Framework for Life Cycle Assessments. August 18–23
1990, Smugglers Notch, Vermont. SETAC, Washington, DC, January 1991.
SETAC 1993: Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC): Guidelines for Life- Cycle
Assessment: A „Code of Practice“. From the SETAC Workshop held at Sesimbra, Portugal, 31
March – 3 April 1993. Edition 1, Brussels and Pensacola (Florida), August 1993.
SETAC Europe 1992: Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry – Europe (Ed.): Life-Cycle
Assessment. Workshop Report, 2–3 December 1991, Leiden. SETAC Europe, Brussels.
Stalmans et al. 1995: Stalmans, M.; Berenbold, H.; Berna, J. L.; Cavalli, L.; Dillarstone, A.; Franke, M.;
Hirsinger, F.; Janzen, D.; Kosswig, K.; Postlethwaite, D.; Rappert, Th.; Renta, C.; Scharer, D.;
Schick, K.-P.; Schul, W.; Thomas, H.; Van Sloten, R.: European lifecycle inventory for detergent
surfactants production. Tenside Surf. Det. 32, 84–109.
Suter et al. 1995: Suter, P.; Walder, E. (Projektleitung). Frischknecht, R.; Hofstetter, P.; Knoepfel, I.;
Dones, R.; Zollinger, E. (Ausarbeitung). Attinger, N.; Baumann, Th.; Doka, G.; Dones, R.;
Frischknecht, R.; Gränicher, H.-P.; Grasser, Ch.; Hofstetter, P.; Knoepfel, I.; Ménard, M.; Müller,
H.; Vollmer, M. Walder, E.; Zollinger, E. (AutorInnen): Ökoinventare für Energiesysteme. ETH
Zürich und Paul Scherrer Institut, Villingen im Auftrag des Bundesamtes für Ener gie wirtschaft
(BEW) und des Nationalen Energie-Forschungs-Fonds NEFF. 2. Auflage.
Suter et al. 1996: Suter, P.; Frischknecht, R. (Projektleitung); Frischknecht, R. (Schlussredaktion): Bollens,
U.; Bosshart, S.; Ciot, M.; Ciseri, L.; Doka, G.; Frischknecht, R.; Hirschier, R.; Martin, A.; Dones,
R.; Gantner, U. (AutorInnen der Überarbeitung): Ökoinventare von Energiesystemen. ETH Zürich
und Paul Scherrer Institut, Villingen im Auftrag des Bundesamtes für Energiewirtschaft (BEW) und
des Projekt- und Studienfonds der Elektrizitätswirtschaft (PSEL). 3. Auflage. Zürich.
Svenska Miljöstyrningsrådet 2006: Climate Declaration, Carbon Footprint for Natural Mineral Water.
Registration number: S-P-00123. Program: The EPD®system. Program operator: AB Svenska
Miljöstyrningsrådet (MSR), Product Category Rules (PCR): Natural mineral water (PCR 2006:7),
PCR review conducted by: MSR Technical Committee chaired by Sven-Olof Ryding
(info@environdec.com), Third party verified: Extern Verifier: Certiquality. Download from
www.environdec.com.
Thomas 1995: Thomas, H.: A life-cycle inventory for the production of alcohol ethoxy sulphates in Europe.
Tenside Surf. Det. 32, 140–151.
Tiedemann 2000: Tiedemann, A. (Hrsg.): Ökobilanzen für graphische Papiere. UBA Texte 22/2000,
Berlin.
Tukker et al. 1996: Tukker, A.; Kleijn, R.; van Oers, L.: A PVC substance flow analysis for Sweden.
Report by TNO Centre for Technology and Policy Studies and Centre of Environmental Science
(CML) Leiden to Norsk Hydro, TNO-Report STB/96/48-III. Apeldoorn, November 1996.
UBA 1992: Arbeitsgruppe Ökobilanzen des Umweltbundesamts Berlin: Ökobilanzen für Produkte.
Bedeutung – Sachstand – Perspektiven. UBA Texte 38/92. Berlin.
UBA 1995: Umweltbundesamt (Hrsg.): Schmitz, S.; Oels, H.-J.; Tiedemann, A.: Ökobilanz für
Getränkeverpackungen. UBA Texte 52/95, Berlin.
UBA 1997: Umweltbundesamt Berlin: Materialien zu Ökobilanzen und Lebensweganalysen. Aktivitäten
und Initiativen des Umweltbundesamtes. Bestandsaufnahme Stand März 1997. UBA Texte 26/97.
Berlin. ISSN 0722-186X.
UBA 2000: Plinke, E.; Schonert, M.; Meckel, H.; Detzel, A.; Giegrich, J.; Fehrenbach, H.; Ostermayer, A.;
Schorb, A.; Heinisch, J.; Luxenhofer, K.; Schmitz, S.: Ökobilanz für Getränkeverpackungen II,
Zwischenbericht (Phase 1) zum Forschungsvorhaben FKZ 296 92 504 des Umweltbundesamtes
Berlin – Hauptteil: UBA Texte 37/00, Berlin September 2000. ISSN 0722-186X.
UBA 2000a: Kolshorn, K.-U., Fehrenbach, H.: Ökologische Bilanzierung von Altöl- Verwertungswegen.
Abschlussbericht zum Forschungsvorhaben Nr. 297 92 382/01 des Umweltbundesamtes Berlin.
UBA Texte 20/00, Berlin Januar 2000. ISSN 0722-186X.
UBA 2002: Schonert, M.; Metz, G.; Detzel, A.; Giegrich, J.; Ostermayer, A.; Schorb, A.; Schmitz, S.:
Ökobilanz für Getränkeverpackungen II, Phase 2. Forschungsbericht 103 50 504 UBA-FB 000363
des Umweltbundesamtes Berlin: UBA Texte 51/02, Berlin Oktober 2002. ISSN 0722-186X.
Udo de Haes 1996: Udo de Haes, H. A. (ed.): Towards a Methodology for Life Cycle Impact Assessment.
SETAC Europe, Brussels, September. ISBN 90-5607-005-3.
Udo de Haes und De Snoo 1996: Udo de Haes, H. A.; de Snoo, G. R.: Environmental certification.
Companies and products: Two vehicles for a life cycle approach? Int. J. LCA 1 (3), 168–170.
Udo de Haes und De Snoo 1997: Udo de Haes, H. A.; De Snoo, G. R.: The agro-production chain.
Environmental management in the agricultural production- consumption chain. Int. J. LCA 2 (1),
33–38.
UNO 1992: Agenda 21 in deutscher Übersetzung. Konferenz der Vereinten Nationen für Umwelt und
Entwicklung im Juni 1992 in Rio de Janeiro – Dokumente – http://
www.agrar.de/agenda/agd21k00.htm.
Vattenfall et al. 2007: Product category rules: PCR for Electricity, Steam, and Hot and Cold Water
Generation and Distribution. Registration no: 2007:08; Publication date: 2007-11-21; PCR
documents: pdf-file; download from www.environdec.com. Prepared by: Vattenfall AB, British
Energy, EdF – Electricite de France, Five Winds International, Swedpower and Rolf Frischknecht –
esu-services Switzerland, Enel Italy. PCR moderator: Caroline Setterwall, Vattenfall AB, Sweden.
VDI 1997: VDI-Richtlinie VDI 4600: Kumulierter Energieaufwand (Cumulative Energy Demand).
Begriffe, Definitionen, Berechnungsmethoden. deutsch und englisch. Verein Deutscher Ingenieure,
VDI-Gesellschaft Energietechnik Richtlinienausschuss Kumulierter Energieaufwand, Düsseldorf.
Wenzel et al. 1997: Wenzel, H.; Hauschild, M.; Alting, L.: Environmental Assessment of Products Vol. 1:
Methodology, Tools and Case Studies in Product Development. Chapman & Hall, London. ISBN
0-412-80800-5.
World Commission on Environment and Development 1987: Our Common Future (The Brundtland
Report), Oxford. Deutsche Übersetzung: Der Brundtland-Bericht der Weltkommission für Umwelt
und Entwicklung. Eggenkamp, Greven 1987.
Wright et al. 1997: Wright, M.; Allen, D.; Clift, R.; Sas, H.: Measuring corporate environmental
performance. The ICI environmental burden system. J. Indust. Ecology 1, 117–127.