Alignment of the life cycle initiative’s “principles for the application of life cycle sustainability assessment” with the LCSA practice: A case study review

Leroy-Parmentier, Noemie; Valdivia, Sonia; Loubet, Philippe; Sonnemann, Guido

doi:10.1007/s11367-023-02162-0

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 200 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The repartition between full alignment and medium to no alignment among the principles follows the trends shown in the case study review and provides new insight on the potential of implementation in practice. P1, P4, P5, and P10 media to no alignment is mainly due to database-based modeling and the built-in impact assessment method of the social pillar thanks to the LCA and LCC data.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 60%

“…This prevents a clear-cut interpretation of the solvent comparison for the tramadol production. One approach to conclude the best option from a sustainability perspective is to aggregate the results for each dimension 54 (Figure 5). Social risks and costs are summed into two single scores, each expressed in the same unit (medium-risk hours for social impacts and USD for costs).…”

Section: Social Impacts Description and Interpretationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The interdependence of economic, social, and environmental dimensions makes the performance of the bioeconomy uncertain, requiring a comprehensive assessment through a life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) as proposed by Solarte-Toro et al This method jointly evaluates the different dimensions of sustainability from a life cycle perspective through life cycle assessment (LCA) for the environmental pillar, life cycle costing (LCC) for the economic pillar, and social life cycle assessment (SLCA) for the social pillar. − Integrating the three assessment methodologies presents significant challenges due to a lack of guidance, particularly in interpreting and communicating the results. − Recognizing this, the Life Cycle Initiative published 10 principles for applying LCSA, whose degree of alignment with practice was reviewed by Leroy-Parmentier et al, showing a gap between these principles and the existing practice.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment for the Bioeconomy: The Case of the Production of Tramadol from 2-Methyltetrahydrofuran

Leroy-Parmentier,

Loubet,

Saint-Jean

et al. 2024

ACS Sustainable Resour. Manage.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the context of the bioeconomy, the transition from fossil-based to bio-based chemicals holds promise in reducing dependence on non-renewable resources and mitigating the impacts of climate change. However, the sustainability performance, encompassing environmental, social, and economic aspects, still needs to be demonstrated for emerging bio-based chemicals.Here, we undertake an integrated life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) to evaluate and compare a bio-based solvent with its fossil-based counterpart. Our methodological approach integrates the assessment of all three dimensions of sustainability at the inventory level within the LCSA framework to enhance its operationality. Therefore, this publication compares the environmental and social impacts as well as the costs related to the use of 2-methyltetrahydrofuran from bagasse (2-MeTHF B) and from corncobs (2-MeTHF C) and tetrahydrofuran to solvate the reaction media for producing 1 kg of tramadol, an opioid analgesic medication. The results reveal a complex trade-off. 2-MeTHF demonstrates lower environmental impacts (∼7574 μPts for 2-MeTHF B, ∼8961 μPts for 2-MeTHF C, and ∼21490 μPts for THF) and more particularly less climate change impacts (3.24 kg of CO 2 equiv for 2-MeTHF B, 4.4 kg of CO 2 equiv for 2-MeTHF C, and 14.9 kg of CO 2 equiv for THF). However, it has worse social aspects (∼558 medium-risk hours for 2-MeTHF B, ∼840 medium-risk hours for 2-MeTHF C, and ∼173 medium-risk hours for THF) and costs (10.44 USD for 2-MeTHF B and C and 5.4 USD for THF). Geographical aspects of the value chain drive most of the impacts and risks showcased in this study. Optimizing the value chain would help to mitigate life cycle environmental impacts and socio-economic risks associated with 2-MeTHF. Energy optimization in synthesis processes is identified as a key strategy to reduce potential environmental impacts. The level of implementation of the 10 principles of the Life Cycle Initiative is discussed, revealing complete alignment with 5 of the 10 principles. In contrast, four principles exhibit medium alignment, and one is not implemented. Data availability and confidentiality challenges are recognized as hindrances to transparency and replicability. In conclusion, the study emphasizes the necessity of involving diverse stakeholders in enhancing the relevancy of sustainability assessments. Companies in the bioeconomy are encouraged to implement Environmental Management Systems and Corporate Social Responsibility approaches to infuse sustainability practices within their value chains.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 60%

Section: Social Impacts Description and Interpretationmentioning

confidence: 99%