Catálogo de publicaciones - libros

Life cycle management has gained traction in the last decades. However, even today it is not yet implemented in all companies due to lack of the connection between sustainability and value creation. In fact, managers are pressed to deliver value, and their performance is measured on how well they deliver the value. In this chapter the authors contribute to bridging the gap between sustainability science and business management by application of life cycle assessment (LCA) in corporate sustainability and aligning it with business activities/functions and value creation. They illustrate the context of corporations, sustainable value creation opportunities and the role of different business functions in integrating sustainability in the core business. Two cases demonstrate how business functions can use LCA-based insights for business decisions and how they are directly connected with value creation opportunities.

The technique ‘hotspots analysis’ belongs to the toolbox life cycle management. ‘Hotspotting’ or ‘hotspots analysis’ is an emergent technique being used in a growing number of different analytical disciplines, so research disciplines and functions within organizations (e.g., R&D, new product development, procurement), and in diverse geographies, in support of the green economy and the United Nations post-2015 Sustainable Development Goals. It can be used to inform government policy priorities, drive growth and innovation in business and empower citizens.

Due to the growing interest of various stakeholders in applying hotspot analysis methodologies, the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative initiated the project “Global Principles and Practices for Hotspot Analysis”. During the first phase of the project, a study was conducted to map existing hotspots analysis methodologies and studies world-wide, which culminated in the report: . This chapter draws on knowledge derived from this report and presents a number of relevant findings.

The objective of this chapter is to explain which secondary environmental consequences (often called rebound effects) life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle management (LCM) of products need to consider in addition to the conventional product LCA, and which roles different actors in society have in the context of environmentally sustainable consumption. The key issue is that any consumption decision affects the consumer’s household resources of available income, time, and space (volume, area), what leads to additional or reduced overall consumption, within the limits of further consumption constraints and cross-category effects. Exactly how any additional resources are used by the consumer strongly affects the overall consumption. Moreover, this chapter considers the consumption on person, on national and global level, with some focus on sustainable lifestyles, and concludes with recommendations on next steps towards better measurement and management of the environmental secondary consequences of consumption.

Product life cycles and companies’ value chain dynamics now extend to far-away countries, linking a multitude of end-users with numerous upstream suppliers and manufacturers. The breadth of the sustainability issues of popular concern, together with the complex nature of supply chains from which they arise, leads to serious management challenges. These challenges have been met in different ways depending on the interests and the institutional context of the actors. Corporations are strongly focused on optimizing product performance through a reliance on life cycle assessment based procedures. Commodity sectors are often seeking harmonized sustainability performance across a broad geographical range. Management institutions and business associations are providing life cycle management frameworks for corporations, followed up with training, and further research into improved metrics. At regional level some efforts have been made to introduce life cycle approaches, e.g. sustainable procurement, but the formal application of structured life cycle management is not yet widespread. The different approaches taken by the above actors reflects not only their different situations, but also the lack of a clear universal framework for life cycle management and a more generalized toolbox that will support their sustainability ambitions throughout the value chain. Limitations of current life cycle assessment methodologies imply that not all sustainability challenges are addressed in a consistent manner.

Life cycle thinking is on the political agenda and widely used in practice. Moreover, numerous industries have actively been developing life cycle assessment (LCA) approaches for many years. As the authors think that it is in substance “right” to base environmental legislation on LCA, they started to explore and to develop policy options for integrating LCA into legislation. Commissioned by WorldAutoSteel, the authors focused on CO legislation in the automotive industry, but the options developed based on this example can be used for other industries and other environmental impacts as well. It was found that theoretically a broad range of policy options exists, and that practically some of them are already implemented in real world legislation and that there is no clear scientific overall preference for one single option. It was also shown that solutions for most technical requirements are already available, but that a consensus on proper setting of these requirements is missing.

What does it take for life cycle management (LCM) to capture the attention of the financial community? LCM experts face a window of opportunity as technological progress and economic developments lead to greater interest in mainstreaming the sustainability agenda and integrating it in business decision-making. This includes new approaches to the assessment of impacts on Natural Capital, environmental management as well as annual corporate reporting. Having highlighted these, this chapter employs a Green Business Case Model to define ways in which life cycle applications can be employed to link with core financial indicators of special interest to investors. It describes three hypotheses to illustrate where LCM tools can best make a difference, positively affecting core financial value drivers. The author suggests three hypothetical pathways to capture the attention of investors, linking environmental life cycle costing (LCC) and financial, activity-based costing. These are complemented with company case examples. It draws lessons from past work on the business case as well research on environmental versus financial life cycle costing (LCC).

Corporations are being pressured to integrate life cycle thinking and practices across global supply chains. The UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative has been developing a life cycle management capability maturity model (LCM CMM) to help mainstream life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle management (LCM). Pilot projects in small-to-medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) to apply the model showed the companies were able to identify and implement projects that delivered both near-term business value and developed the organizational capability for LCM. A key benefit of the life cycle approach was enhanced cross-functional integration and collaboration with suppliers and customers. The projects did identify a need for more guidance on how to interpret the business impact of environmental concerns and to align LCM efforts with company business strategy. Collaborative networks where more advanced companies can share their knowledge are a key enabler, particularly in developing economies.

The development of life cycle assessment in Brazil began in 1994. Business companies were involved in this process by the government, and in this way life cycle management developed. To support and disseminate LCA and LCM, a group of nine companies created the Brazilian Business Network for LCA in 2013. In 2014, the Brazilian Business Council for Sustainable Development became the coordinator of the Network. Despite the many challenges in promoting the theme in Brazil, the Network is advancing and benefits from the representativeness of large companies and their power to push governments, peers and their value chains.

. This chapter highlights the work of the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative which has worked toward strengthening LCSM/LCA capacities worldwide since its creation in 2002; presents the current conditions for mainstreaming LCSM following an analysis of available knowledge and infrastructure in 18 rapidly growing economies (including least developed countries, rapidly growing and emerging economies) based on four criteria; and discusses the results and proposes a framework to develop LCSM capacities and provides conclusions and an outlook with recommendations. As some capacities in a number of emerging economies are beginning to consolidate, the implementation and changes of current practices toward improved performance by implementing remain insufficient.

This chapter addresses two major challenges for mainstreaming life cycle management that are intrinsically linked: collaboration and communication. To this end it is argued that in order to radically increase the take up of life cycle based approaches in business and government, life cycle professionals need to enhance global collaboration among themselves, as well as with others and communicate to a wider set of stakeholders. The chapter makes the case that the life cycle community does not have a home, and thus currently does not exist as one coherent and clearly identifiable stakeholder. It concludes that successful communication on behalf of and with the community can only be achieved when the community is formally organized. To this end the newly established Forum for Sustainability through Life Cycle Innovation is presented as a possible way to overcome the outlined gaps and challenges.