Sustainability was adopted by United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) in Rio de Janiero as the main political goal for the future development of humankind. It should also be the ultimate aim of product development. According to the well-known interpretation of the original definition given in the Brundtland Report, sustainability comprises three components: environment, economy, and social aspects. These components or 'pillars' of sustainability have to be properly assessed and balanced if a new product is to be designed or an existing one be improved.Depending on the systems to be improved, in the sense of better sustainability, and to the audience(s), i.e. actors or stakeholders, different scientific and practical approaches are being developed. There are notably two directions which can be distinguished: one based on accounting (Environmental Accounting and Environmental Management Accounting-EMA) and another one based on the Life-Cycle Assessment (LCA) of products. In this article, the latter approach is described in the hope of improving the mutual understanding of the two communities and their assessment/accounting tools. The responsibility of the researchers involved in the assessment of sustainability is to provide appropriate, reliable, and up-to-date instruments. For the environmental part, there is already an internationally standardised tool: Life-Cycle Assessment (LCA). Life-Cycle Costing (LCC) is the logical counterpart of LCA for the economic assessment. LCC surpasses the purely economic accounting and cost calculation by taking into account the use-and end-of-life phases and hidden costs. For this component, a guideline is being developed by The Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC). It is a very important point that different life-cycle based methods (including Social Life-Cycle Assessment 'SLCA') for sustainability assessment use consistent system boundaries.SLCA has been neglected in the past, mainly due to great methodological difficulties, but is now beginning to be developed.

Data availability and data quality are still critical factors for successful LCA work. The SETAC-Europe LCA Working Group 'Data Availability and Data Quality' has therefore focused on ongoing developments toward a common data exchange format, public databases and accepted quality measures to find science-based solutions than can be widely accepted. A necessary prerequisite for the free flow and exchange of life cycle inventory (LCI) data and the comparability of LCIs is the consistent definition, nomenclature, and use of inventory parameters. This is the main subject of the subgroup 'Recommended List of Exchanges' that presents its results and findings here: 9 Rigid parameter lists for LCIs are not practical; especially, compulsory lists of measurements for all inventories are counterproductive. Instead, practitioners should be obliged to give the rationale for their scientific choice of selected and omitted parameters. The standardized (not: mandatory!) parameter list established by the subgroup can help to facilitate this. 9 The standardized nomenclature of LCI parameters and the standardized list of measurement bases (units) for these parameters need not be applied internally (e.g. in LCA software), but should be adhered to in external communications (data for publication and exchange). Deviations need to be clearly stated. 9 Sum parameters may or may not overlap-misinterpretations in either direction introduce a bias of unknown significance in the subsequent life cycle impact assessments (LCIA). The only person who can discriminate unambiguously is the practitioner who measures or calculates such values. Therefore, a clear statement of independence or overlap is necessary for every sum parameter reported. 9 Sum parameters should be only used when the group of emissions as such is measured. Individually measured emission parameters should not be hidden in group or sum parameters.

No abstract

No abstract