LCA Food 2012 in Saint Malo, France! - Manifestations et colloques ...

PARALLEL SESSION 1C: ECODESIGN AND ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 8 th Int. Conference on LCA in the
Agri-Food Sector, 1-4 Oct 2012
Subsequently, a literature review of simplified LCA approaches followed resulting in several papers focusing
on a variety of products/sectors (a few ones related directly or indirectly to the food sector). Most
papers highlighted that the need to simplify an LCA lies within the time and cost parameters (especially for
SMEs) of carrying out a full LCA. In addition, simplified methods were recognised to be useful in the early
product design phases, when limited information is available. Finally, these methods were recognised to be
helpful in green procurement, for example for identifying the minimum techical specifications based on environmental
characteristics. Based on the previous outcomes, a set of criteria were identified for the selection
of the most suitable simplified tool among those reviewed: a) ISO-compliance, b) broad focus (a number of
impact categories to be considered, not just one, like, e.g. in Carbon Footprint), c) user-friendly interface, d)
limited data requirement or adaptability to existing databases, e) relevance to life cycle steps identified in our
food LCA review, and f) ease of integration with EPD, POEMS and other communication tools.
Subsequently, a number of decision-making tools for assisting the selection were identified, namely: i)
Delphi Method, ii) Analytical Hierarchy Process, iii) Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) and iv)
Rough Sets Theory. It was finally decided to use the MCDM method, after having consulted a number of
experts in the domain, according to which a set of weights were assigned to the above criteria by a group of
experts. The tools found in the literature are being evaluated by some experts and tool developers themselves
through the application of three of the methodologies of the Multi-Attribute Utility Theory family, namely
SMART (Barron and Barrett, 1996), Mszros and Rapsk (Meszaros and Rapcsak, 1996) and Entropy Optimisation
(Lofti and Fallahnejad, 2010). The results of the simplified LCA will be compared to those of a full
LCA. In the meantime, the collection of data (necessary for both types of LCA) was performed at two small
winemaking firms in the region of Abruzzo, in Italy. The data collection and the early steps of the tool application
demonstrated that performing a simplified LCA may require limited time and resources. Furthermore,
simplified tools have clear and easy to understand calculation and visualisation methods and are considered
to be suitable for effective communication of the environmental performance of products and services. The
user friendliness along with the Life Cycle Thinking orientation are characteristics that simplified LCA tools
normally offer, as well. When it comes to opportunities that can make such tools more easily adopted, those
can include a proactive approach as regards the strategic management of the environmental variable, a sensitivity
of the management to environmental issues and an interest for eco-labelling initiatives on the side of
the market.
On the other hand, such tools are characterised by their difficulty in incorporating the methodological differences
across firms and sectors. Moreover, a reduced scope and an increased subjectivity are issues that
can be considered as weaknesses of simplified LCA tools. As far as external threats are concerned, they are
mostly connected to a general lack of environmental awareness by the firms combined with a central focus
on short-term problems, mainly due to the pressure by the market. In addition, the fact that a general rule for
Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs) being that environmental management tools are not perceived
as an opportunity has to be taken into consideration. In parallel, a tendency for lack of time and/or willingness
of the technical staff and the management for data collection was identified. Finally, the fact that environmental
issues are often perceived as constraints and source of additional and often unknown (or hidden)
costs has to be noted, as well (Masoni et al., 2004). The next steps of the research group include the finalisation
of both the full and the simplified LCA implementations for various types of wine in the two firms involved
and a comparison of their results in order to assess the robustness of the selected simplified tool.
3.3. Guidelines for product environmental communication: the market orientation
The agri-food production based on more sustainable processes enhances the importance of the relationship
of trust between producers and consumers and requires communication tools by which provides useful
information, related to the respect of the environmental resources, to consumers. Specific environmental
tools may respond to these needs, tools that can orient agri-food firms toward more sustainable production
processes and that can attribute to products an objective, recognizable and marketable environmental value
(Lo Giudice and Clasadonte, 2010).
Due to the great amount of different environmental communication and labelling systems, a framework of
guidelines has been proposed for supporting firms in the choice of the most appropriate environmental communication
system, with regards to their productive peculiarities, the environmental impacts, the territorial
characteristics and the type of the target market.
The main characteristics of the guidelines can be synthesized as follows: consistency with the provisions
of series ISO 14020 and ISO 14063 standards; general character, i.e. all organisations can apply them regardless
of size, sector, location; transparency and completeness, to be easily used as a tool for decision making.
94