Feature pubs.acs.org/est
Life Cycle Thinking, Measurement and Management for Food System Sustainability Nathan Pelletier* Global Ecologic Environmental Consulting and Management Services, Ltd., Coldstream, British Columbia V1B 1C9, Canada social license.4,5 The frameworks and tools applied toward developing the necessary information base for these applications must therefore enable differentiation of products, production systems and contexts, and both technology and management alternatives via robust quantification of their sustainability profiles. Life cycle thinking refers to a sustainability management approach predicated on considering all relevant supply chain interactions associated with a good, service, activity, or entity. According to Klöpffer6 “Life cycle thinking is the prerequisite of any sound sustainability assessment. It does not make any sense at all to improve (environmentally, economically, or socially) one part of the system in one country or in one step of the life Food systems critically contribute to our collective sustaincycle if this “improvement” has negative consequences for other ability outcomes. Improving food system sustainability requires parts of the system which may outweigh the advantages life cycle thinking, measurement and management strategies. achieved.” In other words, life cycle thinking is essential to This article reviews the status quo and future prospects for understanding and preventing unintentional burden shifting, bringing life cycle approaches to food system sustainability to whether between different kinds of impacts, different supply the fore. chain stages, or different stakeholders that may occur as a result of our management decisions. INTRODUCTION The use of life cycle thinking in food system sustainability Sustainability is the first principle of responsible management. management is an active area of research and application. This Understanding the environmental and socio-economic costs article explores the status quo and future prospects for bringing and benefits of our activities as a basis for improved life cycle-based food system sustainability measurement and management is therefore a defining challenge of the modern management to the fore. era. This challenge provides the nucleus for the rapidly evolving 1 field of sustainability measurement and management. DISCUSSION The food sector plays an important role in determining sustainability outcomes. This includes our collective resource Environmental Life Cycle Assessment. To date, the formalization of life cycle thinking has come the furthest in the demands, environmental pressures related to biodiversity; waste form of Environmental Life Cycle Assessment (e-LCA). e-LCA emissions to air, soil and, water; and both socio-economic is a methodology for1 inventorying the material and energy benefits and costs. For example, a 2010 report in the inputs and emissions associated with each stage of a product or Proceedings of the National Academy of Science found that, service life cycle and2 applying a suite of peer-reviewed impact by 2050, the livestock sector alone may appropriate or assessment methods in order to quantify the associated overshoot humanity’s “safe operating space” in terms of resource, human health and environmental pressures. The greenhouse gas emissions, biomass appropriation, and reactive methodology has been standardized in the ISO 14040−14044 nitrogen mobilization.2 Similarly, the European Commission series of standards,7 as well as in numerous private-body and (EC) is explicit in recognizing that while food systems make national standards.8−12 Environmental life cycle assessment central contributions to our culture, identity and economies, methods provide the basis for a plethora of food sector they also increasingly compromise Earth’s carrying capacity and applications, including certification and labeling schemes, the food security of future generations.3 online calculation tools (in particular, for GHG emissions Consequently, there is growing interest in metrics for related to food products) and corporate social responsibility measuring and comparing the sustainability performance reporting initiatives.13 profiles of food systems as a basis for improved management. With more widespread use of eLCA to evaluate and make Interested parties include consumers seeking to make environcomparisons between food products has come a variety of mentally and socially informed consumption choices, regulatory initiatives to further harmonize and standardize methodologies. bodies requiring science-based support for developing more For example, the European Food Sustainable Consumption and sustainable food policies, and industry stakeholders wishing to Production Round Table (FRT) aims to promote a scienceidentify effective strategies for improving, differentiating, and communicating their performance. The latter is fast becoming a priority industry concern both in terms of market access and
■
■
© XXXX American Chemical Society
A
DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.5b00441 Environ. Sci. Technol. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Feature
Environmental Science & Technology based, coherent approach to sustainable consumption and production in the food sector.14 Toward this end, the FRT has developed the ENVI-Food Protocol, which is a harmonized, life cycle-based methodology for the environmental assessment of food and drink products that represents an intermediate step between ISO standards and the European Commission’s Product Environmental Footprint methods. The FRT is cochaired by the European Commission and 17 member organizations representing the European food supply chain, and is also supported by the UN Environment Programme and the European Environment Agency. Similarly, the Sustainability Consortium15 brings together a global cast of stakeholders to develop life cycle-based methods and information in support of improving consumer product sustainability. Their efforts include tools and information specific to food, beverages and agriculture. The Food and Agriculture Organization is also actively engaged in developing LCA standards for assessment of livestock and other food products, as are numerous industry associations and other stakeholder bodies.16 The intention of all such initiatives is to ensure that the methods for and information produced by environmental life cycle assessment studies of food products can actually support elucidating their comparative environmental performance in a consistent, reproducible and comparable manner. e-LCA for Food SystemsLessons Learned. A broad variety of published LCA studies of food products has emerged in recent years, with an emphasis on GHG emissions measurement.17 Taken together, these studies have provided a wealth of insights as to the distribution of resource demands and environmental pressures along food product supply chains, as well as key mitigation levers. In general, the majority of life cycle impacts for food products tend to be concentrated at the production stage. For example, impacts associated with field crop products are typically largely attributable to variables such as the resource requirements and emissions associated with the production and use of fertilizers, pesticides, and fuels for farm machinery. Distribution and processing tend to be of minor importance. However, variables further along the food product life cycle such as transportation of food from the point of retail sale to home, food preparation, and food waste can also be important.18 Comparing between food product categories, animal products tend to be much more resource and emissionsintensive to produce compared to plant-based food products.18 Of course, there is a considerable range in the impacts characteristic of food products, both within and between food product categories. There also numerous exceptions and caveats, hence rules of thumb must always be taken with the proverbial grain of salt. For example, rice produced in flooded paddies will have significant life cycle greenhouse gas emissions−higher even than many animal products.37 Similarly, despite that the production of soybeans may not be resource and emissions intensive compared to many other food products,2 tofu that is produced from soybeans using greenhouse gas intensive energy sources during the processing stage may actually have quite high life cycle GHG emissions.38 The importance of food distribution to life cycle impacts will also depend on the transport mode employed. While the majority of food commodities are transported by containerized ocean, rail or truck freight modes, which typically make negligible contributions to life cycle impacts for food products, life cycle impacts for air-freighted food products will likely be dominated by the distribution stage.18
The insights that have emerged from LCA research of food systems point toward the potential efficacy of food policies focused on dietary patterns in contributing significantly to improved environmental outcomes.38,39 Indeed, the heated ongoing discussion regarding signals from the United States Department of Agriculture40 with respect to its intentions to include sustainability criteria in revisions to its nutrition guidelines are testament to the success of such research in bringing attention to the extent to which aggregate consumption patterns influence both individual and planetary health. Some Strengths and Limitations of eLCA. One of the greatest advantages of environmental life cycle assessment is its capacity to make transparent the complexities of food commodity supply chains. In a world of internationally traded commodities, the stories of the food products that we consume are, more often than not, opaque. A supply chain manager or a consumer in the supermarket may see an indication of countryof-origin for a food product, but will be otherwise oblivious as to how and by whom the product was produced, under what conditions, and with what consequences. In this sense, environmental life cycle assessment can be a profoundly empowering tool. Life cycle assessment also allows us to assess and consider a spectrum of relevant environmental issues associated with food products on a comparable basis. Whereas single issue management will perennially be plagued by the possibility of problem-shifting, the international reference norm for LCA7 requires that all relevant environmental issues be considered. Also advantageous is that life cycle assessment studies often produce counterintuitive results, forcing us to re-examine some of our basic assumptions. For example, a 2008 study by Weber and Mathews of the distribution of GHG emissions in the US food system found that “food miles” are not really that important for the U.S. food system as a whole.19 This finding contradicted one important aspect of a widespread assumption that foods produced far away and transported long distances are less sustainable than those produced and consumed locally. Along similar lines were the results of an investigation of the GHG implications of outsourcing scampi processing from the UK to Thailand.20 Here, instead of local machine processing, UK-caught scampi were frozen, shipped by containerized ocean freight to Thailand, thawed, hand-processed, refrozen, and shipped back to the UK. Due to the very high energy intensity of the scampi fishery and the higher processing yields obtained by hand processing in Thailand, this much longer supply chain did not result in a more GHG-intensive product. Another example of LCA research that shone new light on old arguments is a study of the GHG emissions associated with feedlot versus grass-finished beef production in the U.S. Midwest.21 This study attracted considerable attention due to the counterintuitive result that U.S. feedlot beef may actually be less GHG intensive than pastured beef. However, such counterintuitive results also underscore a current weakness of food system environmental LCA research, which is that it focuses on a small subset of environmentally relevant issues, but by no means accommodates all environmental issues. More importantly, social and economic issues are typically not addressed at all. So, while counterintuitive insights are certainly valuable, we must not forget that they are probably, at least in part, counterintuitive for a reason. Single or even several indicator results are a poor proxy for sustainability, and not all of what we value may be objectively measurable. B
DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.5b00441 Environ. Sci. Technol. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Feature
Environmental Science & Technology
the extraction and processing of common raw materials like metals, energy carriers, concrete or wood products. One of the key challenges to carrying out s-LCA studies to date has been the lack of comparable social life cycle inventory data. The recently developed Social Hotspots Database27 has therefore filled a critical gap for social LCA practitioners. This database is a repository of country and sector-specific social indicator data. The data in the Social Hotspots Database are organized in terms of five overarching thematic areas: Labour Rights and Decent Work; Health and Safety; Human Rights; Governance; and Community Infrastructure. Each of these five areas is further subdivided into 17 social themes which are, in turn, calculated based on 137 unique indicators of social risk. The SHDB uses a Worker Hours Model that is derived by dividing total wages paid out by country and sector per dollar of output based on the Global Trade Analysis Project’s Economic General Equilibrium Input-Output model, and country/sectorspecific wage estimates to characterize worker hours per country, sector, and dollar of output. By multiplying the level of social risk in country-specific sectors by the worker hours per dollar of output in each sector, the SHDB allows for quantifying and assessing the distribution of potential social risks along product supply chains. For example, for a social life cycle assessment of a processed food product, a result of 5 medium risk hour equivalents for the Forced Labour social theme would mean that, along the supply chain that supports production of a specified amount (measured in monetary value) of the food product, there were 5 risk level-weighted worker hours where the risk of forced labor existed. Pelletier and colleagues28 recently used the SHDB in combination with European trade statistics to evaluate the social sustainability profile of trade-based consumption of both intra- and extra-territorially sourced products in the EU-27 by sector. They found that extra-territorial imports of food sector products to the EU-27 presented the most acute social risks per euro spent across sectors for the majority of social risk indicators considered. This high-level study underscores the importance of considering the social benefits and costs of food products in food system sustainability management. However, broadly accepted methods and standards for integrated sustainability assessment are not yet available. Pelletier et al.29 offered a conceptual basis for integrated sustainability assessment in the form of the “European Sustainability Footprint” (ESF). The ESF is a life cycle-based framework that combines social, economic and environmental indicators, which can be assessed against defined sustainability targets or thresholds in each domain. The framework is intended to provide for monitoring the relationship between the twin European Commission policy objectives of (1) green growth and (2) ensuring that the EU economy develops so as to respect planetary boundaries and resource constraints.29 The challenge now is to fully flesh out this complement of indicators, thresholds and targets in order to provide for integrated food system sustainability assessment at multiple scales. One can envision combining such a framework with economic computable generable equilibrium models (i.e., models that employ economic data to evaluate how economic systems may respond to technological changes, policy changes, or other variables) in order to understand how management decisions in one food system jurisdiction or sector may influence changes in environmental, social and economic spheres in other countries and sectors.29 While such models will always need to be taken with a grain of salt due to high
Whereas traditional environmental life cycle assessment research will, more often than not, signal that the most highly industrialized food production systems are the most “efficient” and have the lowest impacts, there may be a host of other reasons to prefer, for example, locally sourced food, which must ultimately figure into our sustainability calculus. This includes how local food contributes to our individual and collective identities as well as the resilience of the communities in which we live. Similarly, there may be animal welfare or other ecological considerations that are not included in a traditional e-LCA that need be weighed in our decision-making. Hence, while e-LCA certainly is essential to decision support for food system sustainability management, our decisions must also take into account a much broader suite of factors and it is challenging to determine in an objective manner which among these are most important. In addition, seeking to improve on the status quo through marginal efficiency gains is a zero-sum game so long as aggregate impacts continue to increase due to higher consumption levels of resource and emissions-intensive food products. Ultimately, sustainable scale need also be considered,2 and traditional LCA research has largely turned a blind eye to this issue. LCA research of food systems is also challenged by the context-specificity of actual resource requirements and environmental outcomes associated with producing, processing and distributing food products. Food systems represent unique intersections between ecological and technological processes. Numerous variables, including local climatic and soil conditions, producer skill and knowledge, and available technologies mean that every configuration will have a unique resource and environmental profile. Regional and national-level analyses meant to provide representative results, while useful for answering “high-level” questions, also mask considerable heterogeneity. Toward Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment for Food Systems. Beyond environmental life cycle assessment, researchers have long recognized the importance of similarly incorporating life cycle based measures of socio-economic performance in food product assessments in order to move toward a true life cycle sustainability assessment. However, commensurate tools and methodological standards for social and economic LCA are considerably less developed. Life cycle costing methods provide one basis for considering a subset of economic considerations along product supply chains by facilitating understanding of the distribution of costs born by actors in the supply chain. This may include private costs, public costs, and also externalities.22−25 In parallel to eLCA, social cycle assessment is intended to facilitate understanding of the social benefits and burdens that may accrue to stakeholders along product supply chains. The UNEP/SETAC publication “Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products”26 represented an important step in terms of methods development, but the research needed in support of social life cycle assessment methods, data and tools remain substantial. Because LCA requires considering activities and interactions that occur along the entire supply chain of interest, LCA studies are very data-intensive by nature. Environmental LCA research is facilitated by the availability of third-party life cycle inventory databases, which provide process-level data for the material and energy inputs and outputs that are characteristic of what we call “back ground” supply chain activities. These are activities that tend to be common across many supply chains, for example, C
DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.5b00441 Environ. Sci. Technol. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Feature
Environmental Science & Technology
interpretable. At the same time, if weighting schemes result in nontrivial information loss, then the metric loses utility. Moreover, sustainability indicator weighting schemes must often be context-specific rather than universal in order to reflect the goals and values of the groups that use them. Weighting is therefore a controversial subject in LCA − largely because weights are subjective in nature (i.e., there is no single, irrefutable empirical basis for weighting one dimension or indicator of sustainability over another). Rather, the development of context-specific weighting schemes will require multistakeholder deliberative democratic processes for their articulation. Frontiers for Food System LCA Research. Both the scale and configuration of food systems strongly influence sustainability outcomes. At the same time, what foods we produce, how we produce them, and how much of different food products we consume is culturally defined and is highly malleable over time. Consider, for example, the radical differences in the diets of contemporary North Americans compared to that of our grandparents’ generation. This means that life cycle-based food system sustainability management may provide us with powerful levers for identifying and implementing changes with lasting impact on our collective sustainability outcomes. Whereas LCA has traditionally been used as an engineering tool−in effect, to identify opportunities to “tweak the machine” in the interest of improved efficiency, we also have at our disposal the opportunity to consider and to scenario model the mitigation potential of more radical policy and management changes. For example, what might be the promise of tomorrow’s GM technologies, of vertical farming, cultured meat and algal biofuels? How might these compare with historical food production practices and consumption patterns? Are there hybrids of the old and new that might better satisfy our food system sustainability aspirations? An important avenue for future food system LCA research is to explore these questions in order to better articulate the varied possible futures that food systems might embody.
uncertainty levels, they will in the least allow us to begin to define probability spaces for the repercussions of specific food system policy and management interventions for our sustainability objectives. Research Needs and Future Prospects. It is difficult to dispute the logic of life cycle thinking. Moreover, continued evolution in methods and standards bring us ever closer to the elusive goal of robust comparability and consistency between studies. However, the tantalizing prospect of life cycle-based food system sustainability management remains confounded on several fronts. A first, pervasive weakness is the lack of sufficient quality-controlled, life cycle inventory data for characterizing supply chain activities across industries, technologies, and geographies. A sterling LCA method without the necessary supporting data is about as good as a car without fuel−a nice starting point perhaps, but you will not get anywhere fast! Fortunately, there are several initiatives already underway to help resolve this data challenge. These include, for example, the International Reference Life Cycle Data System, the World Food LCA Database, the LCA Digital Commons Project at the U.S. National Agricultural Library, as well as a variety of national life cycle inventory database projects.30−32 Also important to more robust food system life cycle modeling will be continued development of life cycle impact assessment methods. In particular, better methods for accounting for potential biodiversity impacts and appropriation of biological resources are needed. Bringing improved spatial and temporal resolution to impact assessment modeling is also desirable−in particular for impacts such as eutrophication, toxicity, or air quality, whose magnitude are dependent on context-specific factors such as the nutrient load status and assimilatory capacity of receiving ecosystems, or human population densities in affected locales. Another critical area for methods development is improved uncertainty analysis. Considerable ongoing research is helping to bring data uncertainty assessment in LCA studies to the fore.33,34 However, simultaneous efforts to account for model and impact assessment method (i.e., characterization factor) uncertainty are also needed. For example, field-level nitrous oxide emissions associated with nitrogen fertilizer management in field crop production typically contribute a large share of product GHG emissions. However, emission levels are highly variable and are influenced by numerous context-specific factors including soil, tillage regime, fertilizer type and incorporation strategy, precipitation and temperature. As a result, even the generic IPCC protocols for national inventories specify an uncertainty range for the nitrous oxide emission factor that spans an order of magnitude. Finally, the emergence of life cycle-based food system integrated sustainability assessment methods will represent a mixed-blessing for the task of managing food systems. On the one hand, managing complex systems necessarily requires equally nuanced information−the kind that life cycle based sustainability assessment methods may ultimately provide. On the other hand, there is a nontrivial risk of information overload for food system managers and policy makers. The usefulness of a plethora of environmental, social and economic indicator results will be constrained by the recipient’s capacity to make sense of them in support of improved decision making. Weighting schemes that allow reducing information complexity have been explored and debated in the LCA literature since its inception.35,36 Such schemes are undeniably useful in terms of providing decision makers with signals that are more easily
■
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Author
*E-mail:
[email protected]. Notes
The authors declare no competing financial interest. Biography Nathan Pelletier, principal of Global Ecologic, balances food system sustainability research, education and outreach, and consulting services. Contributing to the field of ecological economics, an emergent research area focused on understanding and managing the environmental dimensions of economic activity, his vision is motivated by the recognition that promoting human well-being and social justice requires first that we maintain the integrity of the natural communities in which we have our identities and upon which we depend for our basic needs. He works closely with government, industry and civil society actors to provide the methods, data and analyses necessary to understand supply chain sustainability performance and mitigation opportunities.
■
REFERENCES
(1) Global Ecologic. www.globalecologic.com. (2) Pelletier, N.; Tyedmers, P. Forecasting potential global environmental costs of livestock production 2000−2050. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2010, 107 (43), 18371−18374. D
DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.5b00441 Environ. Sci. Technol. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Feature
Environmental Science & Technology
(28) Pelletier, N.; Ostaglu, E.; Benoit, C.; Norris, G. Social Sustainability in Trade and Development Policy: A Life Cycle Approach to Understanding and Managing Social Risk Attributable to Production and Consumption in the EU-27; European Commission Joint Research Centre: Brussels, 2014. (29) Pelletier, N.; Maas, R.; Goralcyk, M.; Wolf, M. Conceptual basis for the European Sustainability Footprint: Towards a new policy assessment framework. Environ. Dev. 2014, 9, 12−23. (30) International reference life cycle data system; European Commission, 2015. http://eplca.jrc.ec.europa.eu/?page_id=134. (31) World food LCA database; http://www.quantis-intl.com/ microsites/wfldb/. (32) LCA Digital Commons Project. National Agricultural Library, United States Department of Agriculture. http://www.lcacommons. gov/. (33) Geisler, G.; Hellweg, S.; Hungerbuhler, K. Uncertainty analysis in life cycle assessment (lca): case study on plant-protection products and implications for decision making. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2005, 10 (3), 184−192. (34) Guo, M.; Murphy, R. LCA data quality: sensitivity and uncertainty analysis. Sci. Total Environ. 2012, 435−436, 230−43. (35) Bengtsson, M.; Steen, B. Weighting in LCA − approaches and applications. Environ. Prog. 2000, 19 (2), 101−109. (36) Johnsen, F.; Lokke, S. Review of criteria for evaluating LCA weighting methods. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess 2013, 18 (4), 840−849. (37) Thanawong, K.; Perret, S.; Basset-Mens, C. Eco-efficiency of paddy rice production in Northeastern Thailand: a comparison of rainfed and irrigated cropping systems. J. Clean.Prod. 2014, 73, 204−217. (38) Blonk, H.; Kool, A.; Luske, B.; de Waart, S. Environmental Effects of Protein-Rich Food Products in the Netherlands: Consequences of Animal Protein Substitutes; Blonk Milieu Advies, Netherlands. (39) Carlssson-Kanyama, J. Diet, energy and greenhouse gsa emissions. In Encyclopedia of Energy; Elsevier, Inc.; Vol. 1. (40) United States Department of Agriculture. Scientific Report of the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, Advistory Report to the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Secretary of Agriculture.
(3) Sustainable food. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/food. htm. (4) Arnot, C. Why science isn’t enoughWhat consumers need to trust dairy today. WCDS Adv. in Dairy Technol. 2013, 25, 35−40. (5) Black, L. The social license to operate. Do Sustainability, 2013. (6) Klöpffer, W. Life-cycle based methods for sustainable product development. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2003, 8 (3), 157−159. (7) ISO 14044. Environmental ManagementLife Cycle Assessment Requirements and Guidelines; International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, 2006. (8) Bilan Carbone Companies and Local Authorities Version. Methodological Guide Version 5.0: Objectives and Principles for the Counting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions; French Agency for the Environment and Energy Management, ADEME, Paris, 2007. (9) Repository of Good Practices. General Principles for an Environmental Communication on Mass Market Products. Part 0: General Principles and Methodological Framework; AFNOR: Paris, 2011. (10) Specifications for the Assessment of the Life Cycle GHG Emissions of Goods and Services; BSI: London, 2013; http://www.bsigroup.com/ en/Standards-and-Publications/How-we-can-help-you/ProfessionalStandards-Service/PAS-2050/. (11) Annex IIProduct Environmental Footprint (PEF) Guide to the COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION on the Use of Common Methods to Measure and Communicate the Life Cycle Environmental Performance of Products and Organisations; European Commission: Brussels, 2013; http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/smgp/pdf/annex2_ recommendation.pdf. (12) Annex IIIOrganisational Environmental Footprint (OEF) Guide to the COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION on the Use of Common Methods to Measure and Communicate the Life Cycle Environmental Performance of Products and Organisations; European Commission, Brussels, 2013; http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/smgp/pdf/ annex3_recommendation.pdf (accessed April 2013). (13) Environmental Footprinting: Sustainability in the Food and Retail Sector; Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development: Edmonton, 2012. (14) European Food Sustainable Production and Consumption Round Table. http://www.food-scp.eu/. (15) Sustainability Consortium Food, Beverage, and Agriculture Sector Working Group. http://www.sustainabilityconsortium.org/fba/ . (16) Livestock environmental assessment and performance partnership. http://www.fao.org/partnerships/leap/public-review/en/. (17) Research library, Food Climate Research Network. http://www. fcrn.org.uk/research-library. (18) Pelletier, N.; Audsley, E.; Brodt, S.; Garnett, T.; Henrikkson, P.; Kendall, A.; Kramer, K.; Murphy, D.; Nemecek, T.; Troell, M. Energy intensity of agriculture and food systems. Annu. Rev. Env. Resour. 2011, 36, 233−246. (19) Weber, C.; Mathews, S. Food-miles and relative climate impacts of food choices in the United States. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2008, 42, 3508−3513. (20) Green light for long haul scampi? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/ uk_news/7150834.stm. (21) Pelletier, N.; Rasmussen, R.; Pirog, R. Comparative life cycle impacts of three beef production strategies in the Upper Midwestern United States. Agric. Sys. 2010, 103 (6), 380−389. (22) Shapiro, K. Incorporating costs in LCA. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2001, 6 (2), 121−123. (23) Norris, G. Integrating economic analysis into LCA. Environ. Qual. Manage. 2001, 10 (3), 59−64. (24) Norris, G. Integrating life cycle cost analysis and LCA. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2001, 6 (2), 118−120. (25) Hunkeler, D.; Rebitzer, G. Life cycle costingPaving the road to sustainable development? Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2001, 8 (2), 109− 110. (26) Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products. UNEP/ SETAC. 2009 www.unep.fr/scp/publications/details.asp?id=DTI/ 1164/PA. (27) Social Hotspots Database. http://socialhotspot.org/. E
DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.5b00441 Environ. Sci. Technol. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
