What else makes an effective LCA for reuse?
Part two in our series looking at Life Cycle Analyses
Recently, we’ve been taking a closer look at Life Cycle Analyses/Assessments, or LCAs, in an attempt to “cut through the noise” and understand how LCAs can help advance reuse. Part I looked at how we need to be sure to consider reuse as a system and not just packaging.
But what does that look like, and how can a scientifically rigorous model take into account the multiple variables inherent to a circular system? Spoiler alert: it can’t. And that’s okay. A well designed LCA can still serve as a launching pad for the reuse future we want to see—and need to create if we are to achieve a sustainable way of life.
What follows is insights and advice from three experts on this topic who earlier this year spoke on a panel as part of a Reuse Refill Action Forum plenary session: Madhavi Trikha, Independent Sustainability Advisor; Simon Hann, Policy Advisor at Eunomia; and Tim Debus, President & CEO of the Reusable Packaging Association. The full recording of their conversation may be found here.
Look for transparency and reasonable assumptions
LCAs often draw on a set of static assumptions which can bias determinations on reuse and refill, misleadingly casting these systems in either an overly positive or negative light. For instance, studies could assume either very low or very high return rates for reusables—rather than looking at a range of rates—and the results will lead to quite different conclusions that could compromise the trust in reuse systems as a whole (for more on reuse rates in LCAs, see part one of this series).
Studies should transparently and honestly communicate their assumptions and should be easily understandable to non-scientific audiences. And remember—while studies with rigorous and transparent methodology can be valuable no matter their source, it is important to take note of the company or organization sponsoring an LCA and consider any potential biases or marketing objectives underlying the results.
Furthermore, if the results of a particular study are negative, it’s important to look at the reasons for these results before jumping to the conclusion that the reuse system itself is a poor one— or worse, that reuse can’t work at all. Simon Hann calls these indications of negative performance at any stage of the reuse life cycle “hotspots” and recommends honing in on whether poor assumptions (like overly optimistic or pessimistic reuse rates, or unrealistic shipment mileage) are driving those performance lapses.
The question is not “if” but “how”
As we touched on in Part I, LCAs are most powerful when they focus on how to optimize reuse. When LCAs ask simply reuse: good or bad?, they miss their highest and best use, which is setting up KPIs for measuring success. Establishing necessary reuse and return rates, break-even points, or transportation distance can provide baseline metrics and indicate best practices for implementing more efficient reuse systems. This approach to using LCAs as a design tool that helps you understand, and improve upon, a system rather than as a static set of results that draws a line in the sand between reuse being “good” or “bad” is far more productive.
The next frontier for effective LCAs and therefore effective reuse systems is—rather than studying scattered individual tests and pilots—to model and examine standardized, scalable, interoperable systems. This is a visionary approach, quite different from studying a basic replacement of one single-use item with its reusable equivalent. Practitioners are starting to see the need to ask bigger questions about things like critical mass and cross-sector partnerships and to square these hypotheticals with a scientific approach. We are not there yet, but it is where we need to go in order to leverage LCAs for systems change.
LCAs are many things—but not the only thing
Thinking of an LCA as a tool means remembering that a tool is just one part of a larger toolbox. It serves as a snapshot of the environmental impact of a dynamic reuse system, which could also be impacted by variables like material effects on human health and social justice concerns. It’s important not to rely solely on LCAs for all the answers, and also to consider both current realities and future improvements which could drive down costs and improve the success and efficiency of reuse models. That said—given that basic logic dictates that the more times something is reused, the less demand there is for resource extraction and manufacturing that harms frontline communities—we hope that we can push the current LCA science further to demonstrate the benefits of reuse in light of environmental justice.
With so many variables to consider, it’s also important to do field work and have on-the-ground conversations with stakeholders so that they do not simply look at the isolated results of an LCA to make a decision about whether to adopt reuse. Context is important, and understanding pain points and potential obstacles helps reveal what further education or resources a stakeholder or community may need in order to know that reuse will work for them. Also, misinterpretations of LCA data can engender doubt in the merit of LCAs as a science and deprive practitioners of valuable insight to scale circular systems. Pairing data with conversation helps curb such misunderstandings.
Finally, LCAs alone do not acknowledge all opportunities available in creating reuse systems, such as:
Optimizing space in trucks and warehouses: reusable containers are highly stackable and can bear more weight than single-use cardboard
Product integrity: products transported in reusable containers are better protected, and less product loss means better environmental outcomes
Smart inventory technologies: innovations in reusable systems, including RFID technologies, allow companies to streamline inventory tracking and replace assumptions with real-world data in reuse models (which will lead to more accurate LCAs in the future)
Why do LCAs matter anyway?
According to the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, renewable energy will only help us achieve 55% of UN climate goals; the other 45% will need to come from how we produce, consume and dispose of consumable goods. Rethinking the supply chain for packaging must be a climate goal, and reuse is a critical part of the systems transformation necessary to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees celsius. Transparent, well-designed, visionary LCAs that implement systems-wide thinking inform interoperable reuse systems and new partnerships to streamline and scale reuse.