| Front page | | Contents | | Previous | | Next |

LCA and the Working Environment

1 Summary

1.1 Introduction

A review of six methods for life cycle assessment of the working environment (WE-LCA) has been carried out as a part of the Danish LCA-development project. The results of the review were presented at a workshop in June 1998 in Copenhagen together with experiences from Denmark and Sweden regarding the inclusion of working environment in LCA. The present Appendix A outlines the main conclusions from the review and the workshop, the focus being on the identification of the most important problems that must be solved in order to gain a more widespread acceptance of WE-LCA. The Appendix also contains the full reviews of the existing methods.

It should be noticed that the Appendix reflects the situation in the autumn of 1998. Changes following renewed discussions during the second half of the project are not mirrored in the Appendix, only in the technical report.

1.2 Methods for WE-LCA

The review of the available WE-LCA methods shows that three main types can be identified:

1.2.1 Chemical screening methods

Chemical screening methods have the main focus of identifying processes that may have a significant impact on the working environment. The screening methods are based on very few informations, e.g. a hazard assessment of the substances used in the process and an indication of the exposure potential of the process.

The screening methodologies can thus be used in a very early stage of a product development process to assess whether a change in processes may have an unwanted chemical impact on the working environment. The screening may also be used to pinpoint the processes that primarily should be included in an in-depth LCA of a product or a product system, but the proposed methods do not give the possibility of aggregating the impacts over the whole life cycle in a consistent manner.

1.2.2 Sector methods

Sector methods have the main objective of giving an assessment of products or services that are common to many product systems, e.g. electricity production and transportation. A common feature of the sector methods is that they by relatively simple means aggregate a large number of processes into one assessment (of a product unit).

The results from the use of a sector method can be used for a number of purposes, e.g.:

• to assess the relative importance of the working environmental impacts in different phases of the life cycle and thereby identify which activities that should be further examined in a detailed WE-LCA using more refined methods,
• to fill out data gaps in a detailed WE-LCA

The use of sector methods is restricted to an assessment of large and uniform productions and they cannot distinguish between different producers of the product or service system in question. Experience shows that this is a minor problem as the impact from e.g. raw material production is relatively small compared to the subsequent processes in the life cycle. For some products, however, the results from a sector assessment may play an important role, e.g. the use of electricity in household products.

The sector methods are in general associated with a relatively large uncertainty, primarily due to the fact that statistics on e.g. working conditions and work injuries in different countries are based on different traditions and are of varying quality. Furthermore, average data for the whole sector will often be used, which will give a considerable uncertainty if the sector is heterogenous with respect to its output. Aggregation is therefore associated with significant uncertainty but overall, use of sector assessments can be compared to the use of industrial averages when assessing impacts in the natural environment.

1.2.3 Process assessment methods

Process assessment methods have the main objective of giving detailed information on the working environmental impacts in specific processes. The methods allow an aggregation of several processes and are also suited for distinguishing between different producers (or production methods), although the two reviewed methods are significantly different in their level of detail.

The "ideal" WE-LCA should be based on a process assessment method that includes as many parameters as possible in order to give a broad overview of the potential impacts. There are however some constraints in applying a process method, e.g. that the method is resource demanding for products with many components and that some of the information requested for the assessment is considered to be confidential by many companies. It is therefore a prerequisite for the application of the method that all involved companies are willing to provide the necessary data, eventually after a confidentiality agreement has been signed.

In the longer term the constraints in using the process assessment methods will decrease, especially if development of LCA data can be co-ordinated with the "normal" efforts to improve the working environment in companies. A possible solution is to develop the concept of work place assessments (WPA, Danish: APV) so they can be used both for their primary purpose, i.e. improving the structure and results from internal work with the working environment, and in LCA's.

1.3 Possibilities in WE-LCA

The present state-of-art in WE-LCA is that methods are available for

• Identification of potential problem areas, especially in the chemical working environment. The two screening methods that have been examined are almost identical and will probably give the same results.
• Comparison of sectors with a large and uniform output, e.g. production of bulk raw material and electricity. The two examined methods are rather similar in their design and will probably give the same level of detail in the results, although different headings for the impact categories are used.
• Comparison of specific processes and their output. The two examined methods have a different level of sophistication with respect to both the number of impact cetagories (IVF includes e.g. psycho-social impacts) and the level of detail in the assessment. The two methods are also different with respect to normalisation and weighting, one (EDIP) relating all impacts to the average annual impact of a worker, the other using monetary considerations (annual expenditure on work related diseases, sick leave, compensations etc.).

1.4 Important issues in the development of WE-LCA

The primary goal for WE-LCA has been to secure that the working environment do not deteriorate when products with less environmental impacts are developed. The level of sophistication in WE-LCA is at the moment significantly lower than for the natural environment, mostly because neither inventory nor impact assessment and valuation data are present in amounts similar to those for the natural environment.

Two methods, i.e. the EDIP and IVF methods, seek to fully integrate assessment of the working environment with assessment of the natural environment and it is therefore obvious to use these two methods as the basis for further development.

Future developments of WE-LCA methods will strongly depend on the intended applications. As the EDIP method is believed to be the main vehicle for future developments and use of LCA in Denmark, the efforts in improving the LCA method should be closely related to the intentions regarding the general EDIP methodology.

The following general issues are of special concern in the development of more suitable and precise WE-LCA methods:

1.4.1 System boundaries

The review of methods and case studies indicates that there may be a need for different system boundaries in a WE-LCA as compared to a LCA of the natural environment. A main difference is the relative importance of different phases of the life cycle. Production of components and final products seems to be the more important than production of raw materials with respect to the work environment - at least in terms of working time - whereas these process steps are of little significance in the overall assessment of the impacts on the natural environment. Exclusion criteria would therefore give different results when the working environment is included in the LCA. In practice this implies that a detailed data collection and assessment of the working environment will be necessary for some of the processes that would otherwise be excluded from the LCA or perhaps be treated on a relatively superficial level.

1.4.2 Functional unit

WE-LCA's uses a functional unit for comparison of different options in the same way as a normal LCA. When performing a LCA, it should always be kept in mind that there is a risk of suboptimization. An example is that a reduction in production time per product inter alia will result in a better working environmental profile per functional unit. However, if the reduced cycle time leads to more products being produced by the same person, this may cause a deterioration of the working conditions for this person, e.g. in the form of an increase in monotonous repetitive work, increased stress, or a decrease in the freedom to act.

1.4.3 Data availability

The general EDIP-methodology is used together with a PC-tool with an extensive database regarding impacts in the natural environment. In order to include the working environment in future assessments, this database should be supplemented with matching data for the working environment. The present database structure gives this possibility, but large efforts are necessary in order to achieve the desired functionality. Development of a new PC-tool that exclusively deals with WE-LCA should therefore also be considered.

1.4.4 Data quality

The quality of the data used in WE-LCA is uncertain, both for the process and the sector methods. With respect to the process methods, a certain degree of subjectivity is inevitable as a large part of the assessment in both the EDIP and the IVF methods is based on individual judgements. Ideally, measurements of exposure to chemicals and noise should be used in the assessment, but such measurements will often be replaced with more simple exposure criteria. Use of this procedure can give reproducible results, provided the person performing the assessment is experienced. It should be noted that measurements are preferred whenever they are available.

The sector methods are almost exclusively based on statistics from companies as well as national and international labour statistics. There are a number of inherent uncertainties in such statistics, e.g.

• The diseases reported in one year may be attributed to exposures that took place several years ago under very different working conditions. One example is exposure to carcinogenic substances, the effect of which will be observed perhaps 20 years later.
• Statistics on the national and international level may be considerably older than statistics on the company level and it may cause some uncertainty if a combination of statistics is used to assess a production chain.
• There may be large variations in statistics from different nations. These variations may reflect the actual differences in the working conditions but they can also reflect differences in national regulations or the propensity to report occupational injuries or accidents.
• Even in countries with detailed occupational statistics the number of reported injuries and accidents in a given sector may vary considerably from one year to another with no obvious explanation. It is therefore suggested that five-year averaged are used.

1.4.5 Choice of methods - sector or process assessment

The sector and process assessment supplements each other in the present EDIP WE-LCA methodology and will possibly do so for a long period. With the currently very limited data availability it is suggested that both sector and process specific information is entered in the database whenever possible and relevant. As the amount of data in the database increases, it may be possible to replace a general sector assessment with a more precise assessment of all the single processes.

1.4.6 Level of detail

The current level of detail in the EDIP method can mostly be used to assess the extent of selected impacts in sectors and processes but does not give a good possibility of distinguishing between the good and the bad working environment. The IVF method gives a more precise picture of both impacts (e.g. in the form of differentiated scoring systems) and working conditions (e.g. by including indicators for the psycho-social working environment) and must inter alia be preferred because of this. It should however be kept in mind that large parts of the assessment procedure is based on subjective assessments and do not meet the scientific requirements that are normally applied to other impact categories.

1.4.7 Valuation

The valuation (normalisation and weighting) step in the EDIP sector and process assessment methods is designed to match the assessment of the natural environment, i.e. all elements are related to the average impacts of an average citizen in a relevant geographical area. Likewise, the valuation step in IVF's method is designed to match the output from the EPS-method, i.e. a monetarisation of the impacts. With the very different procedures and outputs from the two methodologies it is difficult to assess the possibilities of directly reusing parts of the IVF method for future developments in the EDIP method.

1.4.8 Allocation

At this point of the project allocation procedures in WE-LCA seems to be a minor problem. The primary reason for this is that the uncertainty in other parts of the assessment is much larger. Another reason is that the present allocation procedures in WE-LCA, primarily using working time, will take care of the most imminent problems and it is anticipated that the general allocation procedure in LCA will be able to handle other questions.

1.5 Workshop remarks and conclusions

About 60 persons, primarily from Scandinavia, attended a workshop where the WE-LCA methods and their future use was the main discussion topic.

The workshop showed that there is a great interest in integrating the working environment in general LCA. The workshop, however, also showed that working environment professional are somewhat sceptic about the available methods. Their main concerns were:

• The methods are not precise
• The methods include a limited number of working environmental parameters
• The methods are rather demanding in terms of time and resources
• Other tools are better suited for improvements in the working environment

This scepticism has previously been voiced with respect to the general concept of LCA, but the criticism has decreased significantly as a result of the development of a standardised framework. Only a fraction of the resources used in development of LCA has been devoted to the working environment, and a Scandinavian/European co-ordination (through a SETAC working group) of the future developments is expected to increase the usefulness and the credibility of the methods.

The workshop also indicated that the chance for success for WE-LCA is connected to the way the work for improving the environmental and working environmental conditions of the company and its products is organised. LCA is often used by product developers and environmental managers (or other responsible persons), but it is difficult to integrate WE-LCA in general LCA as it will often be other parts of the organisation that handles working environmental issues, e.g. the production planner, the safety organisation and the occupational health service centres (BST).

The use of WE-LCA by the Danish Labour Inspectorate is not judged to be realistic at present. The objective for the Labour Inspectorate is to improve the working conditions for individuals and the focus for the work is therefore on processes rather than products. However, the life cycle perspective in assessment of the working environment should be included in official purchasing policy and perhaps in some form of declaration of the working environmental impacts of products. The number of parameters however, has to be broader than currently available in the EDIP WE-LCA methodology.

1.6 Overall conclusions from Phase 1

The following crude conclusions were drawn following the first phase of the project.

The EDIP method can handle simple and yet relevant questions in the product development process and eventually end up with an overview of relatively a few selected impact categories to be integrated in the overall assessment.

The EDIP database is at present very limited in the content of WE data, and this is prohibitive for a widespread use of WE-LCA. The database can be improved if working environmental data are collected at companies, entered in the database and made public to all users of the PC-tool. If this is not done, it will be very difficult to integrate the working environment in LCA due to resource constraints. Publicly financed studies may provide sector assessments that can be used until more specific process assessments become available.

Further developments in the methodology will probably be associated with an increased degree of subjectivity in the assessment, but will also increase the usability of WE-LCA significantly. Interesting application areas are choice of suppliers/chain management and development of criteria for work environmentally friendly products.

There is a need for co-ordination of the future developments in WE-LCA. This task will be handled by a new working group within SETAC that was established in May 1998. The working group includes members from Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Germany and Holland.

1.7 Important questions

The main questions to be answered in the second phase of the project were identified to be:

What shall WE-LCA be used for in the future? The main purpose of developing WE-LCA methods have been to secure that the working conditions do not deteriorate on the expense of improvements in the natural environment. The currently available methods in EDIP are able to elucidate differences between products on a sector level, e.g. in comparisons between paper and plastic bags, and to some extent also between products and components that can be produced by different processes. The possibilities for discrimination between more complicated products is probably more limited, but must necessarily be possible if WE-LCA is to become a part of the general LCA work.

How large a degree of subjectivity is acceptable? Measurements are very difficult to carry out for the "soft" WE-parameters, and therefore more or less subjective judgements must be applied. Seen from a scientific point of view this should be avoided, but in order to have a more modern approach to the working environment, inclusion of psycho social as well as ergonomic aspects is necessary.

How can the database be extended and improved? The next phases in the project includes an assessment of one or more cases which still are to be determined. Some WE-information will be collected, but it will under all circumstances be far from sufficient to cover WE-LCA in general. To ensure an integration of working environment in LCA a prioritised list of requested data must be established along with an indication of possible data sources. Also, a strategy for dissemination of LCA inventory data is necessary.

1.8 Future developments in WE-LCA

The following actions were identified as relevant in order to facilitate the integration of the working environment in LCA:

Identification of the main future application areas. Input from industry, the Labour Inspectorate and LCA-practitioners is requested at a level of detail that is sufficient for specifications of the requirements for the method to be applied.

Improvement and refinement of methodologies. Development of methods that fulfil the requirements from industry and government. Four main options were seen as available:

• Keeping the EDIP-methodology as it is and focus the efforts on building a database which can be used by LCA-practitioners.
• Refining the screening methodology by including more parameters/effect categories. This option would be helpful for e.g. product developers wanting an indication of potential problems regarding for example accidents, noise and ergonomy, but not having the time and resources necessary to conduct a full WE-LCA.
• Refining the existing EDIP-methodology by increasing the number of impact categories and/or increasing the level of detail in the assessment methods used. This option primarily aims at bringing WE-LCA to a level that is comparable to LCA of the natural environment. The drawback of this option is that it will increase the need for data - a need that most probably cannot be fulfilled by the common LCA-practitioner but will require collaboration with work environment professionals.
• Creating new tools that can handle specific application areas, e.g. guidelines for purchasing products with a minimal impact in the working environment.

Demands to the development and maintenance of a WE-LCA database. Input from industry on confidentiality issues, discussion with health service centres (BST) on the possible use of Work Place Assessments (WPA), discussions with the Danish EPA regarding database maintenance procedures and updates.

1.9 Phase 2 of the project

Based on the finding in the first phase of the project, the discussions at the workshop and the current initiatives from the Danish Labour Inspectorate the following goals for the work in the second phase of the project were set:

• Establish a broader database. This will be done by making a WE-LCA on a case that is common to all activities in the methodology project. Working with a case will demand that both the sector and the process method will be used. At present, the case is an office chair for which good inventory data for LCA of the external environment already are available. The case thus gives the possibility of examining many sectors (textile, steel, aluminium, plastics) and processes (metal shaping, blow moulding, textile processing, etc.) and will in the end give a good indication of the possibilities and difficulties in including the working environment in general LCA.
• Compare different methods. Swedish and Norwegian WE-LCA practitioners have expressed an interest in collaboration with the Danish methodology project. If possible, parallel testing of both EDIP and other methods will be conducted in the second phase of the project.
• Examine other application areas. A number of projects with a life cycle perspective have been initiated by the Danish Labour Inspectorate. The project group will as far as possible use the results from the relevant projects when establishing the guidelines for WE-LCA, one of the expected outcomes of the projects.

1.10 The reviews

The reviews were made by different persons using the same template for all methods. Due to the inherent differences not all aspects could be addressed for all methods. All methods are however summarised using the same evaluation table with a subjective evaluation of diferent parameters. The key to the evaluation table is given in the next paragraphs.

1.10.1 The evaluation table

The following table is used to sum up the evaluation of each method.

Table 1.1. Our evaluation of the methods.

= missing, = poor, = acceptable, = good, = excellent

The following text explains the considerations in the project group and indicates the basis for the scoring.

1.10.1.1 Integration with LCA for external environment

The impacts for both the working environment and the external environment should be based on the same functional unit, and it should be possible to normalize and weight the impacts by the same method. The WE-LCA should therefore be quantitative.

1.10.1.2 Applicability in LC-phases

The method must be applicable in all life cycle phases, and not just the production phase.

1.10.1.3 Aggregation possible

It is necessary that the working environmental impacts can be aggregated over the entire life cylce.

1.10.1.4 Coverage of WE'al issues

The WE-LCA method is more complete the more issues (working environmental) the method covers.

1.10.1.5 Graduation of exposures and effect

In order to get the most correct evaluation of the working environment, it is necessary to grade both the exposures and the effects.

1.10.1.6 Practical in use

In order to become widespread the method need to be practical in use. Both with regard to time consumption and user-friendliness of the method.

1.10.1.7 Software tool

The practicability of the method also depends on a good and user-friendly software tool being available. Another requirement is the existence of an extensive database, which makes it possible to perform comprehenive WE-LCA's within a reasonable time.

1.10.1.8 Transparency

Both the method and the outputs of the method should be clear and understandable. Furthermore the data's origin should be transparent, which makes the LCA report easier to read and understand.

1.10.1.9 Can be used by non-experts

If non-experts can carry out the WE-LCA, the method may probably end up being more widespread. Experts are in this case defined as persons with both LCA knowledge and working environmental knowledge.

1.10.1.10 Data reliability

It is important that the data used are reliable. The data should be reliable with respect to both uncertainty and objectivity. It can be difficult to obtain objectivity when collecting data because some working environmental parameters are more "soft" than others. The answers depends on the person to collect them, because some working environmental issues can not be measured in absolute numbers.

1.10.1.11 Amount of data in existing database

If a large database exist over working environmental impacts, the WE-LCA will be much easier to perform.

1.10.1.12 Data accessibility

It is a requirement that the necessary data, for carrying out the method, are accessible. Also if a software tool does not exist or if the necessary data are not available in the database.

1.10.1.13 Data can be obtained by WPA

It is an advantage if the data can be obtained form WPA (Work Place Assessment), because that will make the data collection easier in the future.

| Front page | | Contents | | Previous | | Next | | Top |

Version 1.0 April 2004, © Danish Environmental Protection Agency