LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT AND ECODESIGN:

INNOVATION TOOLS FOR A SUSTAINABLE

AND INDUSTRIAL CHEMISTRY

SYLVAIN CAILLOL

1. Context
1.1. The Chemical Industry Mobilized to Global Turmoil
Our society became recently aware-on the scale of humanity-that it
was mortgaging its collective future to meet its need for individual wealth.
As long as we were only a few hundred million people on Earth to share
the most of the wealth and generate, consequently, most of anthropogenic
pollution, the balance-questionable, certainly-was maintained. But with
the arrival in the last decades of nearly 3 billion people, Indians, Chinese,
who claim–rightfully so-a high level of consumption, and with the
prospective increase of the world's population in the forthcoming years,
the international community calls for sustainable development to establish
a new truly sustainable balance.
Thus, the 20th century has been marked by unprecedented population
growth, economic development and environmental changes. From 1900 to
2000, the world's population grew from 1.6 billion to 6.1 billion people.
However, as the world’s population quadrupled, the global real GDP
increased from 20 to 40 times, thereby allowing the world not only to
withstand a quadrupling of the population, but also to do so under
significantly higher conditions of life. Nevertheless, this population
increased and this rapid economic growth was uneven across all countries,
and all regions also did not equally benefit from the economic growth. In
addition, population growth and economic development, which occurred
simultaneously, led to increasing unsustainable use of the Earth’s physical
environment.
The analysis of interrelationships among the population, environment
and economic development is much older than that of Thomas Malthus
(late 18th century). Indeed, since ancient times, statesmen and philosophers
 Sylvain Caillol 35

have been giving their views on issues such as the optimal number of the
population and the disadvantages of excessive population growth. Thus
Plato and especially Aristotle fed many thoughts on the balance between
population and natural resources, defined as livelihoods and, more
specifically, food and water. These thoughts were also carried out by
Montesquieu in the 18th century. And the activity that the United Nations
devoted to population, environment and development is as old as the
Organization itself.
In the 1960s, we became more and more aware that the world
population growth had reached unprecedented levels; a situation
considered seriously worrying in many studies and debates. A report of the
Secretary-General entitled “Problems of the human environment”
mentioned “explosive growth of human populations” as one of the signs of
a global crisis concerning the relationships between man and his
environment. This report was an essential milestone of the process that led
the United Nations to convene the United Nations Conference on the
environment held in Stockholm in June 1972. This was the first global
Intergovernmental Conference devoted to environmental protection. The
20th century has been marked by an extraordinary increase in the world
population from 1.6 billion to 6.1 billion, 80% of which occurred after
1950. And the world's population should continue to grow. On the basis of
varying fertility average, the United Nations expects the global population
to reach 9 billion by 2043 and 9.3 billion by 2050. However, small but
steady deviations of fertility rates can influence the size of the population
over time. Thus, scenario of high fertility in which the fertility rate is
higher than half a child to the average fertility scenario, provides a size of
10.9 billion people by 2050.
Urbanization is another important trend. Indeed, although the world
population may double in the next 40 years, the urban population, now of
3 billion people, is expected to double with energy needs that will also
increase considerably. Among these “neo-urban”, by 2050, will be also
nearly 1 billion climate refugees, driven by large mining or dams projects,
and by the effects of global warming and conflicts inherent to the
generated changes.
This expected population growth in the forthcoming years will also be
accompanied by an increase in individual consumption. The first item of
consumption will be energy. International Energy Agency IEA estimates
lead us to imagine several worrying scenarios that might arise by 2030: a
doubling of energy demand compared to the 11Gtep (gigatons of energy of
oil equivalent, or 11 billion tons of oil-1 ton of oil corresponds to 41, 9GJ)
consumed in 2007! If this evolution occurred, it would result in a doubling
36 Life Cycle Assessment and Ecodesign

of the emissions of CO2, the main greenhouse gas! At the same time, the
growth of the population would require a doubling of agricultural
production to meet its food needs by 2050. But our Earth's resources are
limited and some begin to miss. Indeed, the last two reports of the “Joint
Operating Environment”-JOE-on “environment” of US Joint Forces
occupy an important place among recent analyses that recognize the
possibility of a fall in global oil extraction by the middle of this decade.
Indeed, these studies report in identical terms a diagnosis that figures
among the most pessimistic on the question of a possible structural oil
shock by 2015: ‘in 2012, surplus oil production capacity could entirely
disappear, and by 2015, the production deficit would be close to 10
million barrels per day’, equivalent to the daily extractions of Saudi
Arabia. The 2010 report of the IEA shows that almost 30% of the
production of active wells today will be extinct within 10 years,
decreasing from 68 to 48 million barrels per day (mb/d) by 2020. And
within a generation, by 2035, currently operated oil fields would provide
less than 17 mb/d, which corresponds to less than one-fifth of future
demand. Even if new resources are found (oil sands, shale gas, etc.), their
price will be a critical issue. Indeed, based on their price we can afford or
not energy production and consumer goods. Other non-carbon resources
are also in exhaustion, such as terbium, hafnium or silver deposits that
could be exhausted (for operations at a reasonable cost) respectively by
2012, 2018 and 2021-2037. Thus, we can update the famous sentence of
Paul Valéry (1945) “the time of a finite world begins”-we are testing it
every day.

1.2. The New Constraints on Industrial Chemistry

Our society is currently based on the almost exclusive use of fossil
resources, especially for energy supply and consumer goods. The question
is not whether or not there will be production peaks, but rather when these
peaks will occur. Indeed, almost all experts agree on the amount and
duration of our global reserves of oil, coal, gas, uranium… based on our
current consumption rate. Thus, at the end of this century, we will have
exhausted all the land reserves that nature has taken millions of years to
form. However this exploitation of fossil fuel resources-fossil carbon-is
accompanied by a transfer of carbon, which by combustion occurs as CO2
from fossil origin in our atmosphere, accumulates, and contributes to
increase the concentration of the famous “greenhouse gases”, responsible
for the rise in average global temperatures.
 Sylvain Caillol 37

These issues are the new constraints of industry and in particular of

chemical industry–the industry of industries–since more than two-thirds of
its products are intended for downstream industries. And because of these
constraints, chemical industry will undergo a revolution based on:
− The anticipation of exhaustion of raw material coming from fossil
resources with higher price volatility. And the unequal distribution
of these fossil resources, especially oil, gives rise to significant
speculations that jeopardize a stable supply.
− An obligation of drastic reduction in the emissions of chemical
processes and in particular the release of greenhouse gases (CO2,
NOx). The evolution and the level of supply of fossil fuels
increased considerably the quantities of fossil CO2 emitted each
year into the atmosphere. Chemistry is relatively low emitting CO2,
but it is very sought to identify new processes to reduce emissions
of CO2 of energetic origin, store CO2 or value it by remediation
(use as input1).
− A strong regulatory pressure on toxicology and ecotoxicology
related to the use of raw materials, of synthesis intermediates and
chemical industry products, including REACH regulation, the
framework directive on water FDW, but also to numerous
European directives about the end of life of the materials (end-of-
life vehicles EOLV, waste electrical and electronic equipment
WEEE, directive on volatile organic compounds VOC emitted by
varnishes, paint and refinishing of vehicles, etc.).
If the first regulations on industrial activities date back to 1810 with a
Napoleonic decree that was requiring compliance with a distance around
production sites, the first European directive controlling the toxicity of
chemical production was established in 1967 with the directive 67/548/EC
on the “classification, packaging, and labeling of dangerous substances”.
Since then, the number of European directives related to the environment
has increased dramatically, particularly since the late 1990s. All of these
regulations are severe constraints for the chemical industry but may turn
out to be stepping-stones for innovation.
Thus, covering the needs of humanity (food, energy, and health) while
respecting our environment is the challenge awaiting us, and which
chemistry will have to face in the forthcoming years. Chemistry has
already managed to win battles in the last century-fight against epidemics,
agricultural increase, agri-food and industrial productivity to meet the
growing demands for food and consumer goods, etc. Currently the

1 Input: Element that enters into a production process.

38 Life Cycle Assessment and Ecodesign

demand is different, but it is still chemistry that has the keys to

sustainable development. Indeed, chemistry, on a strict etymological
perspective, is the science, the art of the Earth. Therefore it is chemistry
that is sought to address these challenges as a science but also as an
industry since chemistry is at an upstream position with regards to all
other industries (60% of the production of chemical industry returns to
industry2). Chemistry is at the heart of the production process, but it can
take only the choices and decisions relating to arbitrations concerning
production processes and resources, in particular with a view to reduction
of environmental impacts. Life cycle assessment can be a tool to justify
these choices. But in all cases, we will see that the choice may be made
only after interpretation of the results of an LCA. Chemists, biologists, and
toxicologists are indeed asked for the interpretation of the results of
impacts. But on the basis of what criteria should we make these choices?
Prioritizing what expectations? It is perhaps in this interpretation that we
demand an inspired enlightenment from philosophers and historians.

2. Life Cycle Assessment, Tool of Ecodesign:

Definitions and Concepts
2.1. Ecodesign: Some Definitions
The productions of goods and service are now under stress. It will no
longer be sufficient to meet the specifications by technical means in
accordance with the cost limits; we will also have to integrate the respect
for the human and the environment, which means reducing the
consumption of fossil resources, limiting greenhouse gas emissions,
complying with the environmental constraints–this amounts to limiting
environmental impacts. But taking into account all environmental
impacts during the manufacturing process, and not only the measurement
of the carbon footprint or CO2 emissions, amounts to the integration of
ecodesign to the conventional design process, and also consequently to the
innovation processes. This innovation process undergoes significant
changes. We do not expect a quick response but a time for reflection is
allowed to provide a comprehensive answer on the environment, an
“ecodesigned” answer.
Moreover, ecodesign is part of the recommendations of the “Grenelle
Environment” forum held in 2007. Indeed, the commitment n° 217
encourages environmental analysis approaches of products and ecodesign:

2 Please refer to: “UIC, Bilan de l’industrie chimique en France, 2008.”

 Sylvain Caillol 39

Commitment n° 217: to generalize the environmental information on

products and services: label energy applied to the whole of products high
consumers of energy, with a single referential; development of eco-labels;
accompaniment of voluntary efforts on the implementation of information
on environmental impacts, with progressive obligation to provide this
information; review of the generalization of the ecological price (double
price to inform the consumer of the impact on the environment of property
purchase) from term to a collaborative eco-contribution.

Finally, the ecodesign is from now a regulatory obligation with the

framework directive for Ecodesign (Energy Using Product EuP) that
states, for energy consuming products, that: ‘the ecodesign of products is
an essential axis of the Community strategy on integrated product policy.
As a preventive approach, designed to optimize the environmental
performance of products while maintaining their quality of use, it presents
new and real opportunities for manufacturers, consumers and society as a
whole’. This directive has been reinforced by another directive laying
down ecodesign requirements for the following products: hot water boilers
with liquid or gaseous fuels, refrigerators, freezers and combined
appliances to household use and ballasts for fluorescent lighting.
Ecodesign therefore begins to become an obligation. It is also a response
to consumers’ expectations. In fact, end-users are now waiting for eco-
friendly products. Indeed, according to the IRSN3 barometer, since 2006,
the degradation of the environment is in the top 3 concerns of the French
people.
Ecodesign is a comprehensive approach, which is focused on the
product. It mainly takes into account human and environmental criteria
from the design phase of a product. These criteria generally relate to all the
steps followed by a product, production, distribution, use and end of life,
namely: the life cycle of a product (cf.—Figure 1). Ecodesign is a
multicriteria preventive process, which seeks to identify and reduce at the
source all impacts on the environment.
The concept of eco-design is based on a powerful tool to identify the
environmental impacts: the life cycle assessment LCA.

3
The IRSN is a public organization, expert in research and expertise on nuclear
and radiological risks.
40 Life Cycle Assessment and Ecodesign

Figure 1: Life cycle of a product

2.2. Life cycle Assessment: History

Life cycle assessment, as practiced, is actually an environmental life
cycle assessment as the evaluated impacts are mainly environmental
impacts.
The “life-cycle assessment” thinking is a holistic way of thinking,
which takes into account all impacts, environmental, social, and economic
on the whole life cycle of the product or service. This way of thinking
should help to prevent local improvements from resulting into a transfer of
problems (pollution, social conditions, etc.).
LCA dates back to the late 1960s and to the early environmental
assessments conducted in the USA on the REPA-Resource and Environment
Profile Analysis-model. These assessments aimed to compare materials for
packaging applications and focused on the energy consumption,
consumption of raw materials, natural resources, and waste production, in
relation to the discussions of the moment on growth and environment
(Club of Rome). In the early 1970s, following the first oil shock, industrial
companies were essentially doing the inventory of energy flows consumed
by their activities, under the form of analysis of environmental profiles,
and use of resources, at the expense of real environmental analyses. In the
late 1980s a renewed interest emerged for environmental analyses, in
relation to the problems of solid waste. Matter and energy inventories
were also used for marketing purposes. The initial methods led to results
that were difficult to use from one country to another, and from one
product to another, because of the heterogeneity of the data used and the
 Sylvain Caillol 41

various approaches. Industry and government had called for the

development of a systematic, repeatable and comparable methodology at
least on regional scales. The SETAC (Society of Environmental
Toxicology and Chemistry) and the BUWAL (Switzerland Department of
the Environment) had then responded to this call and the first Swiss
method of environmental analysis of BUWAL appeared in 1984.
The concept of life cycle assessment appeared truly for the first time
during a seminar in Vermont (USA) of SETAC in 1990, which focused on
the need to extend the environmental analysis based on material/energy
balance to a real life-cycle assessment-the concept of impact assessment
was established. The first life cycle assessment was therefore carried out in
France on the steel packaging products of SOLLAC Company. In 1993,
SETAC proposed a code of good practice, which constituted the reference
frame for future developments. In 1997, the ISO-International Standard
Organization-published the first international standard on life cycle
assessment-ISO 14040: Environmental Management-life cycle assessment-
principles and framework. In 1998, ISO published the international
standard ISO 14041: Environmental Management-life cycle assessment-
definition of the purpose and the field of study and analysis of the
inventory. In 2000, the ISO published the international standard ISO
14042: Environmental Management-life cycle assessment-life cycle
impact assessment, and the international standard ISO 14043: Environmental
Management-life cycle assessment-interpretation of the life cycle. LCAs
were developed in France in the 2000s with the handling of LCA by
specialized firms and in 2005 the organization of the first Symposium on
Ecodesign and Chemistry in France by the French Federation of chemistry
FFC and ChemSuD4. In 2006, the ISO published the standard 14044:
Environmental Management-life cycle assessment-requirements and
guidelines and established a new version of the 14040 standard. These two
new standards cancelled and replaced the previous standards ISO 14040
14041, 14042, 14043.

2.3. Life Cycle Assessment: Definitions and Concept

Life cycle assessment is an analytical method, which consists to
quantitatively evaluate all of the potential environmental impacts of a
product or service by considering the entire life cycle.

4
ChemSuD Chemistry for Sustainable Development–European Chair based at
Montpellier Chemistry School.
42 Life Cycle Assessment and Ecodesign

This analysis can be applied to the entire life cycle, in a “from the
cradle to the grave” approach, to the extent that at each stage of the life
cycle there is consumption of energy and resources, and generation of
environmental, social, and economic impacts.

Figure 2: LCA principle5

Life cycle assessment therefore consists in evaluating, within a system

defined by some limits, the impacts due to inputs –consumption of natural
resources–and outputs–emissions into air, soil, water, and other nuisances
(cf. Figure 2).
This analysis is actually based on four well-defined phases: the
definition of objectives and the framework of the life cycle assessment;
life cycle inventory, the evaluation of the impacts of life cycle, and
finally the interpretation of the life cycle. The analysis is based on a
scientific methodology, which relies on computer software, supervised by
the ISO standards 14040 and 14044.

2.4. Definition of the Objectives and Framework

of Life Cycle Assessment
The definition of objectives and the scope of the life cycle assessment
is the subject of a reference document, which is updated at each stage of
the assessment. Generally, the life cycle assessment studies are conducted

5
Document originates from the author.
 Sylvain Caillol 43

in order to answer specific questions regarding environmental impacts by

comparing different products or services. In all cases, these are
comparative analyses that are attributional. They can be made to answer
issues related to the consequences of the massification of a process-for
example the consequences of the generalization of a limited or localized
behavior: in this case there are consequential life cycle analyses.
To define the objectives of the study, the intended application should
be specified, and the reasons leading to conduct this study and the public
concerned, namely those to whom it is intended to communicate the
results of the study, should be defined. Secondly, we should define the
scope of the study that enables us to restrict the study to the given limits
and to establish the limits of the system studied, to define the activities and
impacts that are included or excluded from the study. We define the
temporal cover (system lifespan), the geographical cover, the technology
cover, the cover of the processes (system boundaries), the cover of
environmental interventions (inputs and outputs), and the cover of the
potential impacts.
A list of environmental references may be used in order to determine
the impacts related to the ongoing project. The study of this list will help
us to eliminate unnecessary impacts categories, to arrange the categories
with insignificant impacts at a low level of analysis and thus to identify the
critical impacts. This amounts to setting an inclusion threshold for the
impacts on life cycle assessment.
Inclusion Threshold: it is generally impossible to take into account all
the compounds forming a complex product. The head of the LCA is
therefore required to establish an inclusion threshold, corresponding to
negligibility rules which principle is as follows: all components
representing less than X % of the total mass of the product are neglected.
Secondly, we verify that the sum of what is taken into account remains
above a fixed percentage, which is always close to 100% and,
qualitatively, that the neglected compounds are not characteristics of
particular danger (ex: toxic substances, radioactive waste) or other
established specific problems (ex: production process known as a
particularly polluting or consumer of energy). If not, these compounds will
be reintegrated into the analysis, whatever their quantity may be.
The definition of the system also includes the definition of the
functional unit and that of the reference flow.
The functional unit is a quantity, which allows one to quantify the
function of the studied system and to compare different systems performing
the same function.
44 Life Cycle Assessment and Ecodesign

Examples:
− In case of an LCA to evaluate different packaging, the function
studied is packaging. The functional unit to be defined is therefore
a packed volume V (in m3) and not a packed mass (kg) or a mass of
packaging materials.
− If the analysis focuses on the comparison of processes of waste
treatment (storage, incineration, recycling), the functional unit may
be for example, the treatment of one ton of wastes.
This definition phase is really crucial, as the results of LCA depend
greatly on the objectives and framework that have been previously set (but
normally neither the sponsor nor operator). Thus, the LCA of a plastic
yoghurt pot from a particular manufacturer, knowing accurately the
transport distances of their products as well as the composition and the
different modes of energy production that are used, will not give the same
results as the LCA of the European yoghurt pot, conducted on the basis of
average European production. Therefore, to avoid inaccurate interpretations
or generalizations in the use of results, the objective and scope of the study
should clearly explain the studied issue.

2.5. Life Cycle Inventory Analysis

This phase is the one that was the most developed at the
methodological level. It benefited from methods coming from raw
materials/energy balances of the 1970s. The definition of the life cycle
inventory analysis according to international standards is: "Phase of the
analysis of life cycle involving the compilation and quantification of the
inputs and outputs for a given system of products in its life cycle". The
inventory is the basic objective of the LCA, as it is constituted by the basic
processes that obey the physical laws of conservation of mass and energy.
However, this type of inventory is not absolute. Indeed, this approach
involves a phase of data collection related to the achievement of working
hypotheses. The data can be collected not only on production sites but also
with complete data from trade associations or organizations.
It consists here to collect data or gather existing data, and make the
calculations according to a specific workflow: the flow chart, description
of each basic process, and data validation. The quantitative input and
output data of each elementary process calculated with respect to the
reference flow are put in relation to the functional unit.
All environmental interventions (use of resources and emissions of
pollutants) for the system of products for each unitary process at each
stage of the life cycle are thus summed into an inventory table and
 Sylvain Caillol 45

expressed with respect to the system reference flow. At this point, during
this aggregation, the spatial characteristics (place of emission) and
temporal characteristics (time of emission) are generally lost. This may be
harmful to the actions to be taken after a life cycle assessment in so far as
the inventory is very spatialized in our global economy (example:
production of oil in the Middle East, refining in the United States,
production of intermediates for synthesis in Europe, production of ores in
Asia) and also registered in time as technologies change rapidly and as a
result their environmental impacts.
The inventory data are composed of material flows (minerals, iron,
water) and energy (oil, gas, coal), entering the system under study and of
the corresponding outflows (solid waste, emissions gaseous or liquid).
There are some life cycle inventory databases especially for common raw
materials, energy, and transport. These data are available at low cost in the
form of public or published databases (example: Ecoinvent database of
“Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories”).
Some groups or professional federations have also collected data on
the environmental impacts of their material throughout the life cycle or,
more frequently, on the upstream part of the cycle to make them available
to the users of such materials so that they incorporate them into their own
LCA. For specific data related to a given study, data collection has often to
be carried out on an individual basis, for a collection on industrial site
through bibliographic research, or through the perspective of previous
studies.
Case of plastics: the APME (Association of Plastic Manufacturers in
Europe) provides for free by mail and on its website the “ecoprofiles” of
major plastics, in the form of lists of averaged inventory results which are
easily usable in spreadsheet or calculation software.

2.6. Evaluation of the Impact of Life Cycle

The impact assessment phase consists in explaining and interpreting
the results obtained during the inventory, in terms of impacts on the
environment, and in the form of an adequate summary that could be
understood by a non-specialist. This phase should help to prepare the
disclosure of elements related to the product environmental impact. It is
particularly sensitive.
The two previous phases-inventory and assessment-are those that are
more related to chemistry insofar as the entire process of manufacture is
decomposed into mass balance and energy balance and is divided into
primary inputs: oil, gas, etc. Each step of this process, by-products, and
46 Life Cycle Assessment and Ecodesign

effluents are identified and their fate is assessed in terms of possible direct
or indirect pollution. To conduct the impact assessment phase: (1) impacts
categories must be selected (cf.
Figure 3 below), (2) impacts indicators and characterization models
must be defined, (3) and the allocation of inventory results should be
achieved in the different impacts categories (classification). For each
indicator category, we must calculate the results (characterization), the
amplitude of the results in comparison to references values
(normalization), the grouping and ranking of indicators and the weighting
of indicators.

Complementary categories of
Basis categories of impacts
impacts
Depletion of abiotic resources Loss of biodiversity

Land occupation Ionizing irradiations

Climate change Odors

Destruction of stratospheric Ozone Noises

layer

Human toxicity Drying

Ecotoxicity

Photo-oxidative pollution

Acidification

Eutrophication

Figure 3: Impacts categories6

The impact indicators rely on various methods, which come from

various sources.
Example: For an inventory result that identifies the release of various
compounds such as cadmium, CO2, NOx, SO2, etc., acidification will be
defined as one of the impact categories. In this case, the inventory
outcome allocated to the selected impact category includes acidifying
emissions due to NOx and SO2. Modeling of the category indicator is the

6 This document originates from the author.

 Sylvain Caillol 47

release of proton H+. The chosen indicator is aggregated to an acidification

potential AP expressed with SO2 equivalent unit. For the aggregation,
weighting coefficients are the following: 1 for emissions of SO2 and 0.7
for emissions of NOx. On the point of application of category, it is
composed of ecosystems such as forests and vegetation
It is imperative that the chosen indicator provides an appropriate
representation, namely that the low indicator corresponds to a low impact
and that the indicator shows a relevant environmental phenomenon.
For this, the number of indicators must be limited, indicators should be
determined from the data and existing models, and the calculations should
be feasible in a limited time, at a reasonable cost.
Category indicators actually represent the amount of potential impact.
They are distinguished by two major types, depending on their position in
the causal chain between emissions and impacts: midpoint (intermediates)
and endpoint indicators (final).
Midpoint indicators correspond to the aggregation by type of impact
(acidification, destruction of the ozone layer). They are more easily
accessible, with a limited uncertainty, but have a low environmental
relevance. In fact, the consequences of a change in the pH of a lake or
presence of a hole in the ozone layer are not accurately known (impact
analysis or epidemiological study). Endpoint indicators correspond to the
effect on targets (human health, loss of biodiversity). But they are not
easily accessible, with a high uncertainty but are of great environmental
relevance. In all cases, these indicators reflect transdisciplinary impacts.
They must therefore be exploited by chemists, toxicologists, and
cooperatively, with biologists. But it may also be very relevant to link
philosophers, historians, and some epistemologists to these interpretations,
especially in a perspective of survival and sustainable development of
civilization. This question is all the more interesting since the choice is
often complex to assume between various indicators without prioritization.
Therefore, analysts tend to agglomerate indicators–in a non-factual way-to
artificially help decision-making but at the expense of information that had
been capitalized.
Another way of classification of impacts consists of separating them in
terms of direct and indirect impacts. Direct impacts correspond to actions
of sources on targets identified as the depletion of natural resources by the
extraction of raw materials. Indirect impacts correspond in fact to cascades
of effects: the emission and dispersion of SO2 causing acid rain, which
will in turn lead to the acidification of soils, lakes, and air. The
consequence of acidification will cause an alteration of the flora, the death
of fish, and human toxicity, with as the ultimate consequences a loss of
48 Life Cycle Assessment and Ecodesign

biodiversity, agricultural and human productivities. The general form of an

indicator is [1]:

Indicat = Coeffi cat × pondicat × mi [1]

With:

Indicat : Indicator of flow i for the impact category cat.

Coeffi cat : Weighing coefficient of flow i in impact category cat.
pondicat : Weighing of flow i in impact category cat.
mi : mass of flow i.

Example 1:

Impact category: Climate change.

Inventory result: 20 kg of CO2, 1 kg of CH4, 0.1 kg of N2O.
Characterization model: IPCC model defining the global warming
potential of greenhouse gases.
Factor of characterization: Warming potential WP.
WP CO2 = 1 kgeqCO2
WP CH4 = 21 kgeqCO2/kg CH4
WP N2O = 310 kgeqCO2/kg N2O
Indicator result:
Ind (WP) = (20 x 1) + (1 x 21) + (0.1 x 310) = 0.72 kgeqCO2

Example 2:

Impact category: Eutrophication.

Inventory result: 2 kg of NH3, 4 kg of NO3, 0.2 kg of PO4.
Model of characterization: Potential contribution to the formation of
aquatic biomass of average composition (16 moles of N, 1 mole of P).
Characterization factor: Potential for eutrophication PE.
PE NH3 = 0.35 kgeqPO4/kgeqNH3
PE NO3 = 0.1 kgeqPO4/kgeqNO3
PE PO4 = 1 kgeqPO4
Indicator result:
Ind (PE) = (2 x 0.35) + (4 x 0.1) + (0.2 x 1) = 1.3 kgeqPO4.
 Sylvain Caillol 49

These simple examples show the complexity of the calculations of the

real impacts, which depend on a significant number of inputs and outputs
on the cycle of life. This is why these calculations are automatically made
from databases. And from this point of view, data, reliability, update, and
the accuracy of the uncertainties are at the heart of the process of life cycle
assessment and of the relevance of the expected results. It can be noted
that the LCA, as a decision tool, may be relevant only if reliable and
accurate data are used. The confidence on some analyses must therefore
always be questioned in terms of data relevancy. But when data do not
exist, are not reliable and may not be retrieved, what should be decided?
Should we make an LCA? Philosophical and epistemological approach
could also seize this kind of thinking.

2.7. Interpretation of the Life Cycle

The two previous phases, inventory and assessment of the impacts,
represent the area of expertise of life cycle assessment. Indeed, the
approach is technical and needs numerous data. In the interpretation of life
cycle assessment phase, the user, the manager, the decision maker will use
the results of the impact analysis to identify the key actions that will need
to be taken into account (research and development, marketing, production,
financial, etc.).
The LCA results are expressed as a series of data that has both
potential impacts (example: X kgeqCO2 for the greenhouse effect) and
physical flows (example: Y MJ of non-renewable energy). They are the
subject of a report and, in the case of communication, a public summary
document.
For an LCA comparing two products A and B, the results for each
impact may be expressed for each stage of the life cycle, to compare and
identify the stages presenting the greatest impacts. This can also help to
compare the contribution of each product at each stage of the lifecycle.
The following results (cf.
Figure 4) allow us to establish that product A presents a higher
contribution to the greenhouse effect than product B for the steps of raw
materials extraction and production stages, but its ability to recycle at the
end of life enables it to absorb CO2. This representation allows chemists
to identify the steps on which efforts have to be made in order to
reduce impacts.
50 Life Cycle Assessment and Ecodesign

Greenhouse
effect
contribution
65 100years
(kgeqCO2)

45
Product A
Product B
25

Raw materials Production Transportation Use End-of-life

extraction
-15

-35

Figure 4: Contribution to the greenhouse effect of life cycle of products A and B7

Aggregation of the results for the contribution to the greenhouse effect

per product allows us to identify macroscopic trends (cf.
Figure 5) but annihilates the differences in life cycle. This
representation allows us to make a global selection on the product with the
lowest impact.
The essential phase of interpretation is the report writing, which should
contain the main elements of life cycle assessment: a reminder of the
context and objectives of life cycle assessment, detailed definition of the
chosen functional unit, methodology of the life cycle assessment, basic
information and sources used and their limitations, encountered scientific,
methodological, and technical difficulties. This report must necessarily
include a critical review, i.e. the review of the study by an independent
expert. This expert may act alone or within a critical review committee
involving experts of the studied field and key stakeholders: the key is to
ensure the impartiality of the experts regarding the LCA in the
studied domain. Comments and responses to the recommendations
resulting from the critical review should be included in the summary
report.

7 Author’s document.
 Sylvain Caillol 51

Greenhouse effect (kgeqCO2)

180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Product A Product B

Figure 5: Aggregation of the greenhouse effect impact8

The results of an LCA can also be conveyed as an environmental

statement, and are then called “Type III environmental declaration”, or
“ecoprofile”, which can be printed on the product. It is the international
ISO standard 14025, published in 2006, which establishes the principles
and procedures for developing Type III environmental declarations and the
use of the ISO 14040 series of standards for the development of Type III
environmental declarations. The Type III environmental declarations
described by ISO 14025 are mainly intended for inter-company
communication. But their use for communication between a company and
private individuals under certain conditions is not excluded. The search for
improvements is the component of the life cycle assessment in which the
options to reduce the environmental impacts of the system are identified
and assessed. This stage includes the identification, assessment and
selection of options for the improvement of the environmental load of
products or processes.
Currently, life cycle assessments are most of the time used to meet
certain needs such as the environmental performance of an industrial
process, the environmental advertising, the comparison of environmental
impacts of two products (or more), and the calculation of environmental
balances.
Moreover, the initial characteristics of the product generally determine
the opportunities of valorization at the end of life. Finally, this approach

8 Author’s document.
52 Life Cycle Assessment and Ecodesign

presents a strategic interest in terms of communication. Indeed, the results

obtained in this type of approach may be shared with customers and
provide a competitive advantage that differentiates the product from its
competitors.

3. Innovation by Ecodesign and the Process of Integration

in the Company
The LCA does not provide solutions to design products or processes of
low environmental impact but is a guide to select which steps to improve.
The LCA is thus a tool that helps to make choices and to guide research to
promote innovation. Indeed, the results of the life cycle of a given initial
product (cf. Figure 6) allow chemists to identify that the highest impact X
is related to the production stage of raw materials. Therefore the research
should be conducted on this stage in order to determine better routes or
new raw materials of low impact to develop a new ecodesigned product. It
is in this research process that innovation is found, and it is in this sense
that eco-design is a real innovation tool.

Figure 6: Innovation process9

Many examples of products can highlight the achievements of design

and marketing of ecodesigned products (for example the office chair
“Think” of Steelcase company- Pollutec 2004 award or the laundry Ariel
cold active of P & G company). These products have been designed in the
innovation process based on life cycle assessment to identify the axis of
improvement related to the most important environmental impacts, the
most contributing strategic steps to the life cycle. We can thus, in the light

9 Author’s document.
 Sylvain Caillol 53

of these examples, try to describe the integration process of ecodesign in

the company in five steps and extract the appropriation process from it.
To start an ecodesign approach in a company, the first step is the
choice of the product on which the company wants to work. This choice is
made based on the product strategy studying the portfolio of available
technologies, the current product range, and by carrying out a relevant
benchmark. At this stage, the ecodesign approach can already point out the
product and company environmental problems and enables us to estimate
the environmental improvement potential of the product.
The second step defines design goals related to the chosen product, and
will therefore have to convey the need in terms of function based on
market researches and functional analysis. At this step, an initial life cycle
assessment should be performed on a reference model by selecting
ecodesign guidelines.
The third stage should enable one to bring out technical solutions,
namely principle diagrams accompanied with a cost estimate. The ecodesign
approach helps us to search for solutions of lower environmental impact and
to carry out an environmental report.
In the fourth phase, industrialization, the company must optimize the
production parameters, logistics, and supplies. This work is accompanied
with a collection on site of impacts such as energy consumption, real mass
flow, and amount of wastes, in order to conduct an environmental
assessment of the final product and to prepare an environmental report.
The fifth step concerns marketing and communication. Distribution
channels as well as possible maintenance contracts are selected.
Communication about the product is carried out internally and externally
based on the environmental report to establish a sales point, extract key
figures, and communication media.
Beyond these five steps, this approach must also take into account the
end of life of the product by providing recovery solutions for products,
management, reuse, and recycling. Finally, any further development of the
product (features, packaging, etc.) should be reflected on the impact
assessment and communication messages.
For a company, the appropriation of such an approach lasts and
involves three phases, several stakeholders and several deliverables. In a
prior decision-making phase, management must confirm its involvement
by the drafting of guidelines. In a first piloting phase, the integration
process must rely on an ecodesign “pilot” experiment, with the support of
management and with the help of an expert from outside the project team,
from a consultancy firm that acts as a provider. After this phase, the
following phase of framing aims at formalizing the approach in the
54 Life Cycle Assessment and Ecodesign

company, with an in-house person in charge of the coordination of

ecodesign projects, helped by the outside firm to conduct internal training.
In the last phase of extension, the approach becomes integrated to the
company and is widely applicable to all design projects, coordination is
carried out in-house and all members of the project are competent, in so
far as the company is able to generate self-training. Management can then
communicate on this approach externally.

4. The Limits of the Tool

The Life Cycle Assessment is thus a particularly interesting tool
because it enables a multi-criteria analysis, on the entire life cycle, without
limiting itself to a single step (end of life) or a single impact (carbon
footprint). In addition, this tool is standardized by the ISO standards
describing it. Moreover, a same impact estimated at each stage, can be
“added” to give a clear vision and helps decision-making. And finally,
nothing is published without having been previously submitted to a group
of experts. Thus, this tool acts as a guide to design and can be an excellent
tool for ecodesign. However, if LCA can be a very powerful tool in the
hands of experts, it has limitations, especially due to the complexity of its
implementation. Indeed, the use of the software designed for experts and
expensive databases reduces its use to a few companies and circumscribes
its contribution to the analysis of products and existing methods. Its use is
therefore limited to LCA experts; designers or creators are often excluded,
which introduces limitations to innovation. Moreover, generally SMEs
cannot afford the software, the experts, or an access to expertise level
required to manage a life cycle assessment. Thus a large part of the
production sector is excluded. In addition, LCA is based on the use of
existing data. It is thus very risky to work on non-industrial processes with
new data, which introduces limitations again.
If LCA enables the identification during a given process of the steps
generating the highest environmental impacts-for example the extraction
of raw materials-LCA gives a vision a posteriori but does not direct the
course of the innovation process. In fact LCA is a study performed on an
already developed or commercialized product and helps to identify the
steps that have the greatest impact on the environment during the
manufacture of this product. The objective of an ecodesigned process is to
bring out, in a second phase, some solutions to reduce the most significant
impacts during the previously identified steps. Innovation is thus born
from the search for solutions during the second generation, or from the
improvement of the product manufacture process. Therefore the primary
 Sylvain Caillol 55

objective of these life cycle assessments is rather data compilation, the

achievement of an environmental assessment, and the production of results
for the communication on the manufacture of a product. The support for
ecodesign is carried out a second time, because LCA is best suited to
evaluate the final impact of a product rather than to guide its design.
Furthermore, other limitations of this tool lie in the defining stages of
hypotheses, in the allocation rules followed or the considered end of life.
We will try to illustrate this through the following examples.

4.1. The Importance of Hypotheses

The example of the life cycle assessment of shopping bags is very
informative. This study was conducted in 2004 in France, by an expert
office in LCA, for a distribution company. It was completed with a critical
review organized by ADEME10. This study aimed at quantifying and
comparing the environmental impacts of four types of bags available to
customers in supermarkets: a single-use polyethylene (PE) bag, a reusable
bag made of soft polyethylene, a single-use paper bag and a biodegradable
single-use bag. The inventory was conducted using data collected by the
bag suppliers of the distribution company and completed by the Ecobilan
database.
The functional unit defined for this study corresponds to the service
rendered by the bags: packing the purchases made by customers in stores.
The hypotheses defined in the study report 45 visits per year per customer
on average in the stores, with 200 L of purchase by visit (a cart filled to
80%), which corresponds to 9,000 L of goods per year. The functional unit
was packing 9,000 L of goods in the stores of the Group.
The boundaries of the system take into account the production and
transportation of materials for bags, the manufacturing and printing of
bags, transport of bags, the phase of usage and the various end-of-life
possibilities. The defined inclusion threshold is 5%. Inclusion thresholds
are set at similar rates, according to usual and pragmatic practices but they
can also introduce biases in the analyses: a very important toxicological
impact due to an unknown impurity could alter the results.
The LCA has focused on the life cycles of the four types of bags
considered. For example, the life cycle of the single-use HDPE
(polyethylene high density) bag first takes into account the use and
refining of oil for the synthesis of ethylene, the Ziegler-Natta catalyzed
polymerization of ethylene, the production of HDPE pellets and their

10 French Environment and Energy Management Agency.

56 Life Cycle Assessment and Ecodesign

transport. These data are resulting from the inventories databases of 1999
of APME (average on 24 European sites that produce 3.87 Mt HDPE/year
or 89.7% of the production of Western Europe). The life cycle also takes
into account the production of titanium dioxide (data from a production
site-1992), calcium carbonate (data from the Swiss Department of the
Environment) and linear low density PE (average of the APME), which
are the loads in the polymer. The production of glue and ink is also taken
into account. In these life cycles, energy modeling is based on the energy
ratios of power production of countries producing bags, namely France,
Italy, Spain, and Malaysia. The differences are particularly significant for
the impacts concerning the consumption of natural resources and the
emission of greenhouse gases. Thus, the electricity in France is 75% of
nuclear origin, whereas the electricity in Malaysia is 75% produced by the
combustion of hydrocarbons. Furthermore, the calculations made to assess
the impacts related to transport stages are based on the fuel consumption
by trucks. The model takes into account the average consumption of a
truck with full load (38 L / 100 km) weighted by one-third the mass of the
load, including the influence of empty return. Finally, end-of-life stage
was modeled using data from ADEME for household wastes. Thus 51% of
the wastes are brought to landfills, and 49% are incinerated. And 88% of
incinerated wastes are recycled to produce energy, 5% is exhausted as
vapor and 22% is generated as electricity
The broad guidelines of the findings are also that the reduction of the
mass of the bag and reuse of the bag are two major factors that reduce the
impacts on the environment. The conclusions of this study are therefore
very favorable to the use of soft LDPE bags–with the assumption of reuse
of these bags for at least three times. But at no time is considered the
possible reuse of other considered bags (including HDPE and
biodegradable bags, which could be reused a second time, or at least as
garbage bags). In addition, the study compares bags with very different
volumes, which involves quite variable amounts of material depending on
the bags. And yet knowing that the mass of the bag is an important
parameter, it would have been appropriate to consider the solutions
showing larger volumes for the same bag. Thus, we can clearly identify
that the LCA evaluates selected products and helps in choosing the best
product within this selection. However experience shows that solutions to
a problem can often be located outside a pre-selection. ‘The relevance of a
problem sometimes resides outside the data used as input. We must
imagine the reality outside the available data to apprehend it. In this
respect, we must imagine what is not known. Pose or model a problem, it
 Sylvain Caillol 57

is often to distort it and open towards false solutions’. We must be

innovative to really find ecodesigned solutions.
The example from the study of Kim and al is also very illustrative of
the importance of choosing the hypotheses of the LCA. Indeed, in their
study, this team compares the environmental impacts of two types of
polymers, polystyrene PS–obtained from polymerization of styrene, a
monomer coming from oil, and a polyhydoxyalkanoate PHA-polyester
derived from the fermentation of sugars extracted from corn kernels, from
agricultural origin. The comparison is carried out at identical mass, despite
any possible differences in properties. The results presented in this study
show firstly that the impact on the greenhouse effect is lower in the case of
the manufacture of polystyrene (2.9 kgeqCO2 for the PS and from 3.5 to 4.4
kgeqCO2 for PHA). However, secondly, the production of sugar from by-
produced straw and also the recovery of energy derived from the
valorization of straw are added in life cycle. And in this second case, the
production of PHA becomes a CO2 well, to the extent that the indicator is -
1.2 to -1.9 kgeqCO2. This example perfectly illustrates the importance of
choosing the right hypotheses and limits on the final result.

4.2. The Relevance of Inventory Data

Concerning the life cycle assessment of bags described in part 4.1, the
LCA has studied the life cycles of four types of bags. For example, the life
cycle of the single-use HDPE bag first takes into account the exploitation
and refining of oil for synthesis of ethylene, the Ziegler-Natta catalyzed
polymerization of ethylene, the production of HDPE pellets, and transport.
However, these data come from the inventory databases of 1999 APME
(average on 24 European sites that produce 3.87 Mt LDPE/year or 89.7%
of the production of Western Europe). And yet in the study we learn that
the HDPE is manufactured not only in France, but also in Asia and Brazil.
Not only do the inventory data from APME related to the manufacture of
HDPE date back to 5 years, but also they are not representative of
manufacturing in Brazil or Asia-they cannot be used to assess the
environmental impacts. Similarly, the life cycle of the HDPE bag also
takes into account the production of HDPE bags. In this case, the data
come from inventory databases of APME (average on 8 sites for the
production of the United Kingdom 1993). And yet these HDPE bags are
manufactured in France. Thus not only are these data old (more than 10
years) but they also represent only part of the British situation and can
never be representative of the French situation–in terms of energy
consumption only. Indeed, if the electricity production in France is mainly
58 Life Cycle Assessment and Ecodesign

nuclear (78%), then thermal (11%) and renewable (11%), this ratio is
completely different in the United Kingdom where electricity is mainly of
thermal origin (75%), then nuclear (20%) and renewable (5%). Thus,
environmental impacts are completely different (contribution to global
warming) and cannot be used from one country to another.

4.3. The Influence of the Allocation Rules

The rules for allocating wastes can also play a crucial role in the results
a life cycle assessment. Thus, if we compare two LCA on bioethanol as
biofuel (an LCA conducted by ADEME in 2002 and another one
conducted by EDEN in 2006), the results are very different. Indeed, the
energy performance of bioethanol of wheat (returned energy / mobilized
renewable energy) varies from single to double for both studies: 1.10 for
EDEN; 2.05 for ADEME. These differences may be explained by the
differences in the choices made for the allocations of waste from
bioethanol. Thus, EDEN has chosen to include in its LCA all of the
impacts generated by the wastes from the bioethanol sector, thereby
promoting a systemic approach, while ADEME allocates only 43% of the
impacts of waste to bioethanol. ADEME has made the choice of mass
allocation for its LCA –bioethanol, product targeted by the sector,
representing only 43% of the mobilized dry matter. These two options can
be selected but it is important to understand that the results can be
radically changed.

4.4. The Choice of Recycling

Concerning the end-of-life, the comparison of different paths of
valorization is crucial. Indeed, it is usually impossible to directly compare
the environmental impacts generated by two ways of valorization of a
product. If we wish to process 1 ton of waste paper, we cannot directly
compare recycling-that will produce Y kg (Y < 1000) of recycled paper-
and thermal valorization-that will produce a quantity X MJ of electricity.
Indeed, in the first case, we will always need a power production and in
the second case, we will still need paper-these two systems do not render
the same service. It is therefore necessary to complete this comparison by
adding to each system the process avoided depending on the chosen option
(cf. Figure 7).
 Sylvain Caillol 59

System 1 : valorization of paper by recycling and energy production

1 ton old
paper to treat Material recycling Y kg
paper
Raw
materials Conventional energy production X MJ energy

System 2 : valorization of paper by energetic valorization and paper production

1 ton old X MJ energy

Energetic valorization
paper to treat

Raw Y kg paper
Conventional paper production
materials

The comparison becomes possible

Figure 7: Comparison of both completed systems11

Thus, in the first case (paper recycling), we must also take into account
in the impact assessment the production of X MJ of electricity depending
on local conditions of conventional electricity. And in the second case (the
thermal valorization), we must also consider the conventional production
of Y kg of paper from wood in the impact assessment. We can now
compare strictly two systems that have the same products: Y kg of paper
and X MJ of electricity.
The LCA is therefore an interesting tool because it enables a multi-
criteria analysis, on the entire life cycle, without limitations to a single
step (end of life) or a single impact (carbon footprint). This tool is
standardized through the ISO standards that describe it and guarantee an
expert review before publication. And a same impact estimated at each
stage can be “added” to give a clear vision and help decision-making.
However, this tool has some limitations that particularly lie in the rigorous
selection of the hypotheses definition, limits, and functional unit.
Similarly, the followed allocations rules or the considered end of life may
significantly change the results. But the more restrictive limitations of this
tool are methodological and qualitative. Indeed, the calculated impacts are
potential impacts and do not reflect the local reality. In addition, this tool
is not dynamic. Thus, data inventories, even when they come from

11 Author’s document.
60 Life Cycle Assessment and Ecodesign

measurements on site, are valid for a limited time and are scarcely
updated. And the quality of the data may be questionable. When the data
are derived from databases (European average or other), they are not
necessarily representative of local realities and are also limited by a low
frequency of updating. In all cases, the results are only rarely updated.
More importantly, LCA does not take into account the margin of
technological progress that it compares. In fact if we compare a very well
established and highly optimized technology with a new technology, it
may be necessary to conclude that the first older technology causes less
environmental impacts without realizing that the new technology has more
room for progress. And we can thus decide not to develop this new
technology even though it would cause less impact after a few
optimizations. LCA eases everything and does not include time as
dimensional variable.

Conclusion: The Future of Ecodesign

Design processes in industry and in particular in chemical industries
are now changing. They must respond to a holistic challenge of reduction
of environmental impacts at each stage of the manufacturing process. They
must integrate ecodesign of the product or process. In this approach, life
cycle assessment LCA is a crucial tool for environmental assessment. And,
in doing so, life cycle assessment, by identifying the progress margins in
terms of environmental impacts, energy and resources consumption,
becomes a strategic tool for innovation. This tool enables us to guide
Research efforts and development, thereby leading to the identification of
innovative solutions to reduce environmental impacts, to lead to new
products, which are “greener”, ecodesigned, and responding to the more
and more pressing demands of the market and regulation. However, the
process of life cycle assessment is carried out a posteriori on an existing
product or process and helps us to analyze the environmental impacts of
this product or process. The results of this LCA thus highlight the steps
that have the greatest impact on the environment. We will have to work on
these steps to reduce the environmental impact, but only during a phase of
product improvement or during the design phase of the “second
generation” of this product. In the first approach, life cycle assessment
enables us to compare the environmental impact of two products to find
the best compromise. However, we have seen previously that the solution
of a problem may lie outside the selected elements, as the ecodesigned
solution. Therefore, this LCA tool has to evolve to make it more usable in
an innovation process. But the more restrictive limitations of this tool are
 Sylvain Caillol 61

methodological and qualitative. Qualitative because the relevance of the

data is essential when assessing impacts and because these data are not
always relevant or updated in the databases, they are not always
representative of local reality. Methodological as this tool enables a
comparison in time, an assessment of the relative impacts and does not
take into account the margin of technological progress that it compares.
Moreover, the definition of the hypotheses, limits, the functional unit, and
the followed allocations rules or the proposed end of life, can significantly
alter the results. Thus, it is highly desirable that this life cycle assessment
tool evolves, remedies these limitations, and better assesses impacts
related with toxicity and nuisances.
In addition, to meet the new constraints in the innovation process, to be
upstream of the project phases, to support the design of the products and
processes in the chemical industry, and to take into account the new
regulatory aspects, new tools are needed, which will provide guidelines to
be followed to guide the choices of researchers and chemists. It becomes
more and more important to assist the innovation process with a tool that
helps piloting, “gate to gate”, instead of concluding it from a
comprehensive analysis a posteriori. And it is important to extend this
environmental design to all projects in the chemical industry to make
ecodesign emerge in this industry. To do this, designers of products and
processes in the chemical industry need a suitable tool, easy to use and not
just made for environmental assessments experts, a tool that can guide
them from the choice of access route on final environmental impact.
Industry must also extend the collection of inventory data and share these
inventory data to contribute to update the inventory databases, which is a
real “Achilles heel” of LCA. Moreover, it is crucial to link inventory
databases to those classifying dangerous substances. How can we imagine
nowadays the identification of a chemical access route without
anticipating the constraints imposed by the regulation and in particular the
REACH regulation? It is also crucial to be able to generalize the use of
such a tool to smaller companies to increase their competitiveness. It is
thus necessary to provide them with a tool usable at all stages of the
project, early in the phases of innovation, including guiding the choice of
R & D. Existing tools do not necessarily respond to this objective,
particularly for SMEs in the chemical industry, which are looking for a
simplified reference frame to enable them to integrate the concept of
sustainable development in the design of their products. Thus, if quality
management started in 1992 for major groups, these actions have only
started around 2004-2006 for smaller structures. Nowadays, in the
industrial sector, only a quarter of companies provided for the end of life
62 Life Cycle Assessment and Ecodesign

of their product, and there are ecodesign practices among 40% of them.
Finally, it is essential for companies to take over the involvement in
Research and Education and to help to mobilize the Academic Research
teams in this area.
In all cases, the eco-design is a crucial concept, generating changes in
chemistry. Indeed, it requires adopting a holistic analysis of the processes
and holistic approach. It enables us also to justify the choice of low
environmental impact pathway or to avoid a path that only seemed better a
priori: it is a decision-making tool that helps to reduce environmental
impacts. Therefore, if chemists, engineers, biologists, toxicologists, and
ecotoxicologists are involved, it seems very important to involve
historians, philosophers, and epistemologists in the interpretation of the
results of LCA in a dynamic of sustainable development of civilization.
Indeed, the notions of negative externalities-environmental impacts-must
be considered in the light of the progress made in a historical and
philosophical perspective. As life-cycle assessment is only an
environmental analysis and since a societal analysis should be added-
through societal life cycle assessment-the place of historians, economists,
and philosophers may be further increased. Finally, ecodesign induces an
evolution of all processes proving the interest of reuse, recycling, and
circular economy. Indeed, the increase of life duration, the extra life
cycles, is the preferred axis of reduction of impacts. As the maxim of
Antoine de Lavoisier, stating in substance the first principle of
thermodynamics ‘nothing is lost, nothing is created, everything is
transformed’, ecodesign aims to reduce losses and new creations and
promotes the (re)transformations. And this circular evolution of the
economy and chemistry resources (initially renewable resources, and then
coal and oil, and from now more and more renewable) must also be
supported by the thinking of historians and philosophers.

References
Académie des Technologies. (2005). “Les Analyses de Cycle de Vie,
Ouvrage Collectif.” Article 8 du décret du 15 octobre 1810 relatif aux
manufactures.
Azémar M. (2007). Communication “Les Sciences chimiques au service
de l’environnement.” Pollutec Paris.
Boeglin N. and Veuillet D. (2005). Introduction à l’Analyse de Cycle de
Vie (LCA). ADEME.
Bot L. (2008). “A quoi la philosophie peut-elle servir dans une formation
professionnalisante?” Actes du colloque Questions de pédagogies dans
 Sylvain Caillol 63

l’enseignement supérieur, Enseigner, Etudier dans le supérieur :

pratiques pédagogiques et finalités éducatives. Brest, Telecom Bretagne,
ENSIETA, Ecole navale, Université de Bretagne occidentale, Juin 2008.
Caillol S. (2008). Analyse de cycle de vie et écoconception : les clés d’une
chimie nouvelle. Les Annales des Mines Réalités Industrielles.
Christian Aid. (2007). Human Tide: the real migration crisis. Christian
Aid Report.
CSTB. (2005). Référentiel technique de certification “Bâtiments tertiaires–
démarche HQE.”.
DeLong, J. Bradford (1998) “Estimating world GDP, one million B.C.-
present.”
Direction Générale de l’Énergie et des Matières Premières, Observatoire
de l’Énergie 2005.
Directive 2000/53/CE Journal Officiel de l’Union Européenne L269,
21/10/2000: 34-43.
Directive 2000/60/CE Journal Officiel de l’Union Européenne L 327,
22/12/2000.
Directive 2002/96/CE (modifiée 2003/108/CE) Journal Officiel de l’Union
Européenne L345, 31/12/2003: 106-7.
Directive 2004/42/CE Journal Officiel de l’Union Européenne L143,
30/04/2004: 87-96.
Directive 2005/32/CE-Journal Officiel de l'Union européenne L 191/29,
6/07/2005.
Directive 2008/28/CE Journal Officiel de l’Union Européenne L81/48,
11/03/2008.
Ecobilan PwC, Evaluation des impacts environnementaux des sacs de
caisse Carrefour, 300940BE8, 2004.
Etude ADEME/DIREM, 2002.
Grenelle Environnement, 2007, Ministère de l’Ecologie, de l’Energie, du
Développement Durable et de la Mer.
IEA, World Energy Outlook 2009 and 2010.
Joint Operating Environment JOE 2008 and 2010.
Kim S., Dale B., Int. J. LCA, 2005, 10 (3): 200-10.
Malthus TR. (1798). Essai sur le principe de population. Paris: PUF,
1980.
Minois G. (2011). Le Poids du Nombre. L’obsession du surpeuplement
dans l’Histoire. Paris: Perrin Editions.
Moreau J. (1949). “Les théories démographiques dans l'Antiquité grecque,
in Population.” 4e année, n°4 : 597-614.
Puyou JB. (1999). Démarches d’écoconception en entreprise. Techniques
de l’Ingénieur, Réf. G6050.
64 Life Cycle Assessment and Ecodesign

REACH, Règlement (CE) n° 1907/2006 du Parlement Européen et du

Conseil du 18 décembre 2006.
Reyes T. (2008). “Intégration de l’environnement dans la conception des
produits.” UTT.
Sadones P. “Les Agrocarburants.” Rapport EDEN 2006.
Saouter E. and Van Hoof G. (2001). “A Database for the Life-Cycle
Assessment of Procter & Gamble Laundry Detergents.” Int J LCA 6: 1-
12.
Sources IRSN-Baromètre de perception des risques et de la sécurité 2006,
2007, 2008 et 2009.
UIC, Bilan de l’industrie chimique en France, 2008.
United Nations. (1969). Problems of the human environment: Report of
the Secretary-General-Forty-seventh Session of the Economic and
Social Council.
—. (2000). Long-Range World Population Projections: Based on the 1998
Revision.
US Geological Survey. (2011).
Valéry P. (1945). Regards sur le monde actuel. Paris: Editions Gallimard:
43.