Ecological Indicators 107 (2019) 105498

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ecological Indicators
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolind

Original Articles

Operational Life Cycle Impact Assessment weighting factors based on T

Planetary Boundaries: Applied to cosmetic products
Marcial Vargas-Gonzaleza, , François Wittea, Patricia Martzb, Laurent Gilbertb,
⁎

Sébastien Humberta, Olivier Jollietc, Rosalie van Zelmd, Jacques L'Haridonb

a
Quantis, Paris, France
b
L’Oréal Research & Innovation, Aulnay-sous-Bois, France
c
University of Michigan, MI, USA
d
Department of Environmental Sciences, Institute for Water and Wetland Research, Radboud University, P.O. Box 9010, 6500 GL Nijmegen, the Netherlands

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is frequently used by companies to assess the environmental performance of their
Planetary Boundaries products and services using a large set of environmental indicators. However, LCA practitioners and decision-
Weighting approach makers are often unable to prioritize environmental indicators evaluated in LCA and tend to focus on indicators
Life Cycle Assessment they consider material from a partially subjective standpoint. The current paper showcases how a set of
Cosmetics
Planetary Boundaries-based weighting factors for issues related to Environmental Quality, Human Health and
Resource Depletion, aligned with the European Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) suggested environmental
indicators, was developed based on previous work done by Bjørn et al. This new set of values was then tested on
several products from cosmetic company L’Oréal. Results show a clear dispersion, with several impact cate-
gories, such as Climate Change and Particulate Matter coming out as significantly more critical than other,
proving the usefulness of the suggested values. And while some current limitations and possible improvements
still need to be considered, the approach enriches the debate by defining thresholds for ecosystem or human
resilience, thereby enabling reflection on how these issues should be collectively addressed.

1. Introduction
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) has become the go-to methodology for
companies to track the environmental performance of their products
and services (Berry and Rondinelli, 1998; De Benedetto and Klemeš,
2009). The methodology assesses potential environmental impacts
along a product or company’s value chain, examining a number of
impact categories and providing quantified results. These results are
usually presented as a series of disaggregated impacts that can be dif-
ficult to interpret as a whole. Normalization and weighting methodol-
ogies were developed as an analysis mechanism that would help iden-
tify the major issues to address. Normalization allows the practitioner
to express results after the characterization step using a common re-
ference impact (such as a company or a region) (Pizzol et al., 2017).
This answers the question: What is the magnitude of my product’s im-
pacts compared to a selected reference? Weighting systems on the other
hand are used to prioritize among impact assessment indicators, as the
weights applied reflect, in theory, the relative importance of impacts
(Pizzol et al., 2017). It answers typically the question: Which impact
categories are the most relevant for the assessed company or product?
Weighting methodologies should therefore play an essential role in
simplifying LCA output, which ultimately would help identify priorities
and define environmental strategies. However, key decision-makers still
have trouble prioritizing environmental indicators evaluated in LCA
and focus on indicators they consider material from a partially sub-
jective standpoint (Pizzol et al., 2017; Schmidt and Sullivan, 2002).
This is mainly the result of lacking robustness in weighting approaches
in LCA, often seen as being too “value-based” (Pizzol et al., 2017;
Schmidt and Sullivan, 2002; Eldh and Johansson, 2006). According, to
Pizzol et al. (2017), the most commonly used approaches can be clas-
sified in 4 categories: “distance” to a defined target (e.g. regulatory),
their economic cost (e.g. monetization), panel weighting (e.g. expert
knowledge, stakeholder perception) or binary weighting (i.e. environ-
mental indicators are either included or excluded). These weighting
approaches do not necessarily reflect urgency, reversibility or criticality
and are therefore inadequate in terms of aptly differentiating environ-
mental issues. And even though these limitations are known, recent
developments still focus on traditional approaches such as the

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: marcial.vargas-gonzalez@quantis-intl.com (M. Vargas-Gonzalez).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.105498
Received 19 April 2018; Received in revised form 28 April 2019; Accepted 19 June 2019
1470-160X/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M. Vargas-Gonzalez, et al.
willingness to pay (Itsubo et al., 2015; Murakami et al., 2017).
In 2009, Rockström et al. (2009) introduced a new concept of Pla-
netary Boundaries, which LCA experts now strive to integrate in their
daily practice (Tuomisto et al., 2012; Sandin et al., 2015; Ryberg et al.,
2016). Indeed, defining thresholds at the planetary level allows them to
prioritize the most pressing environmental issues. Further along the
line, Bjørn et al. (Bjørn et al., 2015; Bjørn and Hauschild, 2015; Bjørn
et al., 2016) improved available data for LCA practitioners, by defining
normalization and weighting factors for indicators at the midpoint level
based on the concept of Planetary Boundaries – and this for most en-
vironmental indicators recommended by the ILCD Handbook (European
Commission – Joint Research Centre – Institute for Environment and
Sustainability, 2010) and Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) in-
itiative (European Commission, 2012). It should be noted that the in-
dicators were not necessarily based on the values developed by
Rockström et al. (2009) but follow the same philosophy.
The concept of Planetary Boundaries is closely related to that of
“carrying capacity”. Bjørn et al. (Bjørn, 2015) define “carrying capa-
city” as “the maximum sustained environmental interference a natural
system can withstand without experiencing negative changes in structure or
functioning that are difficult or impossible to revert”. Depending on the
environmental indicator under study, this can either refer to maximum
concentration levels (e.g. Eutrophication) or the resources available for
extraction (e.g. Water depletion) that the environment can sustain.
Carrying capacity values calculated following current impact assess-
ment methodologies have been developed (Bjørn, 2015) in order to
streamline planetary boundary inclusion in LCA; allowing practitioners
to assess the extent to which a given product or service weights in on
the maximal interference an ecosystem can withstand. In this case,
Planetary Boundaries were used to develop normalization factors that
could be applied with specific impact assessment methodologies and
only for some impact categories.
This improvement, however, focused solely on impact categories in
the “Ecosystem Quality” area of protection (AoP), leaving major issues
uncovered, like resource depletion and particulate matter formation.
Moreover, the global coherence of the values thus defined has yet to be
measured against field observations, cross-scale aggregation being a
major challenge for this type of assessment.
Additionally, this value set could not be directly applied to LCA
regardless of impact category, as Bjørn et al.’s approach to quantify
carrying capacity does not necessarily match traditional impact as-
sessment indicators used in LCA nor the European Product
Environmental Footprint (PEF) suggested list of environmental in-
dicators. Made aware of such impediments, these scientists developed a
list of weighting factors based on a “distance-to-target” basis, by com-
paring carrying capacity and current emission or consumption levels.
These values could then be used as a weighting factor applicable to
traditional impact assessment methodologies, in turn pinpointing issues
where current emissions or consumptions were higher than the defined
carrying capacity. This ratio, which is used as a weighting factor, is
referred to as a “reduction factor” in the current paper and is defined for
each impact category by the following formula:
Current Global Impact
Reduction Factor =
Carrying Capacity
The current paper aims to provide a new list of weighting factors
covering all impact categories in the ILCD impact assessment metho-
dology and subsequently tested in a case study of typical cosmetic
products from cosmetic company L’Oréal. This lead to a global assess-
ment of their products’ influence on the environment across all impact
categories recommended by the European Commission for PEF projects.
As such, these factors could be a first step for companies to identify
which issues are environmentally significant at marketed product level.
2
Ecological Indicators 107 (2019) 105498
2. Materials and methods
The present paper focuses on leveraging publicly available data and
models, to create a weighting framework based on Planetary
Boundaries that completes and improves the previous work done by
Bjørn (2015). These changes include thresholds for Human Health and
Resource Scarcity indicators and which improves existing data on
Photochemical Ozone Creation Potential (POCP). For all other in-
dicators (Climate change, Ozone depletion, Acidification, Terrestrial
eutrophication, Freshwater eutrophication, Marine eutrophication,
Land use, Freshwater ecotoxicity and Water resource depletion), the
initial values developed by Bjørn (2015) and based on their contribu-
tion to the Ecosystem Quality AoP were considered.
The first step in identifying improvement actions focused on asses-
sing the overall coherence of values presented by Bjørn (2015). This
was accomplished by comparing the estimated value of average impacts
suggested by the authors to measurements done in Europe and other
regions across the year. Following this initial assessment, a deep eva-
luation of data and models used by Bjørn (2015) was done. This in-
cluded a review of each reference used and an assessment of the dif-
ferent parameters’ coherence. This analysis allowed us to point out the
most likely sources of uncertainty and focus on improving these with
data considered more recent or robust. This lead to the use of tools such
as the TM5-FASST tool, developed at JRC Ispra, and which allows the
evaluation of emissions effect on large-scale pollutant concentrations
and their impact on human health and plants (OECD, 2016).
The second step, consisted on defining corresponding weighting
factors for every indicator in the ILCD methodology (as recommended
by PEF), eventually devising a Planetary Boundaries framework beyond
the ecosystem quality AoP. There was, however, no need to develop
“carrying capacities” as described by Bjørn (2015), the goal being to
define distance-to-target, rather than available working space. In these
cases, the weighting factors are based on the ratio between the current
level of emissions and the desired level of emissions (instead of the
current concentration).
Work on indicators in the Human Health (Ionizing radiation,
Human toxicity (Cancer effects) and Human toxicity (non-cancer ef-
fects)) and Resource Depletion AoP followed a different approach.
Firstly, existing literature was reviewed in order to identify relevant
information on thresholds and international recommendations on
concentrations or emissions (in the case of Human Health indicators)
and on resource use (for resource depletion). Secondly, publically
available data was assessed to identify information on current emissions
or concentrations of assessed substances at the global level, as well as
information on resource extraction and use in the world. Finally, spe-
cific models presented in the next section were developed in order to
compare both relevant data and assess the desired reduction factor in
order to develop a set of weighting factors.
Using inventory datasets co-developed by L’Oréal and Quantis, this
value set was then tested on the typical formula of 2 cosmetic products
(an anti-dandruff shampoo and a hairspray) and compared to the values
presented by Bjørn (2015), with a view to analyze how such changes
affected results and refine the assessment of their environmental pro-
file. The Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) results were obtained
through L’Oréal’s in-house environmental assessment tool using all PEF-
recommended indicators and follow recommendations from ISO 14040
(The International Standards Organisation, 2006) and ISO 14044
(International Organization for Standardisation, 2006) standards, in-
tegrating all life cycle stages from raw material production to formula
end-of-life.
These LCIA results were normalized using an updated version of the
normalization factors recommended by PEF (Benini et al., 2014). Both
the original set of weighting factors and the one developed in this work
were then used to test the consequences of the new values on the
overall analysis of the weighted LCA results. This allows identifying
how a given product contributes to attaining the carrying capacity for
M. Vargas-Gonzalez, et al.
each impact category according to both methodologies. Addressing
impact categories with overall higher results can therefore be con-
sidered more urgent or important for the assessed product.
3. Theory/calculation
3.1. Human health
3.1.1. Particulate matter
Among other Human Health indicators included in the Planetary
Boundaries framework, particulate matter (PM) garnered the most at-
tention (Doka, 2015; Kerkhof et al., 2015). This is likely a consequence
of current regulation and international recommendations moving to
define acceptable PM concentrations (and, most notably, PM2.5). Doka
(2015) and Ecofys (Kerkhof et al., 2015), for instance, compare World
Health Organization (WHO) recommendations for PM10 concentrations
to the average concentration in urban areas, with a view to determine
the reduction factor. The same approach guided the present article,
though PM10 was not included in our calculations, because the impact
assessment method recommended by PEF and based on the work of
Humbert et al. (2011) focuses on PM2.5 only.
According to WHO, PM concentrations should be kept under 10 μg
of PM2.5/m3 of air to ensure a healthy environment (World Health
Organization, 2006). This concentration level was therefore adopted as
the planetary boundary for Particulate Matter (CMax). This concentra-
tion is 3.15 times lower than observed average concentrations ac-
cording to The World Bank (2017), which mentions an average 31.5 μg
of PM2.5/m3 concentration at the global level (CAvg). It can be surmised
that this value is representative of concentrations in urban areas –
where measurements are routinely conducted. Population density being
higher in urban areas, this value can nonetheless be considered on par
with ongoing efforts to reduce the impact of PM on human health.
According to Karagulian et al. (2015) 18% of the global particulate
matter concentration stems from natural sources (sea salt, dust, etc.).
The corresponding emissions should therefore be excluded. We con-
cluded 5.67 μg (31.5 µg * 0.18) of PM2.5/m3 is the natural average
concentration for particulate matter (CNat) and can only be peripherally
reduced. Based on this, we can estimate the reduction factor for PM2.5
emissions based on the following formula:
CAvg CNat
PM 2.5 Reduction Factor = = 5.97
CMax CNat
As a result, the actual carrying capacity for anthropogenic emissions
of PM2.5 is 5.97 times lower than current emissions.
In theory, it would have been possible to use a similar approach to
the one used on POCP to define a carrying capacity for particulate
matter emissions. However, as the link between pollutant emissions and
overall concentrations was considered more direct for PM, a more
pragmatic approach was favored.
3.1.2. Ionizing radiation & human toxicity
Unlike the situation for PM, international bodies have not defined
acceptable burdens or average concentration levels for other indicators
in the Human Health AoP, and there is no directly applicable data. In
order to determine reduction factors for Ionizing Radiation and Human
Toxicity, an acceptable burden has been defined applying both nor-
malization and weighting using the approach described below.
Several studies (Anderson et al., 2012; Kim et al., 2015) show PM2.5
emissions affect human health, even below the 10 μg/m3 limit set by
WHO. Considering an average breathing rate (τinh) of 13 m3/person/
day (Lee et al., 2002), a normal person may inhale up to 1.23 × 10−4
kg of PM per year if PM concentration is at the recommended level.
Bearing in mind the corresponding burden (BPM2.5) of 78 DALY1/kg
1
Disability Adjusted Life Years.
3
Ecological Indicators 107 (2019) 105498
PM2.5, inh (Gronlund et al., 2015), a burden of 0.0016 DALY/person/
year is to be imputed to a 10 μg/m3 concentration of PM2.5 in the at-
mosphere, as presented below. We can therefore surmise that an en-
vironmental burden of 0.0016 DALY/person/year can be considered
acceptable.
Environmental Burden = inh CMax BPM2.5
In order to have a coherent approach, the same burden (hereby
called “acceptable burden”) was used as a threshold across all impact
categories in the Human Health AoP. PEF recommendations also pro-
vide data on current emission levels (used as normalization factors) and
speak to the link between Midpoint and Endpoint indicators (Benini
et al., 2014), providing values for the damage per impact unit for each
indicator. This made it possible to convert this threshold (defined as
0.0016 DALY/person/year) into a “reduction factor” for anthropogenic
Ionizing Radiations and Toxic Emissions (see Table 1) using the fol-
lowing formula:
PEF Normalization factor Damage per impact unit
Reduction Factor =
Acceptable burden
3.2. Resource depletion
While physical thresholds may be defined in relation to indicators in
the Ecosystem Quality and Human Health AoP, it seems impossible to
achieve the same for resource scarcity. These indicators typically de-
monstrate how mineral and fossil resources valuable to the human
economy are being depleted, which becomes a societal issue rather than
a strictly environmental consideration. It could then be argued the
available stocks in any given material define the corresponding
thresholds – but this proves contrary to sustainability principles, as it
could inflict unequal growth opportunities for future generations.
As a result, a timeframe determined by user adaptability could be
used to determine boundaries for each type of resources. For example,
should X number of years be necessary for all users to adapt to the lack
of a given resource, then available stocks should not be depleted before
X years. Optimal extraction rates ( opt) can be determined as follows:
Available stock
opt =
Years needed for used adaptation
Current extraction rates ( cur) can then be assessed to what is con-
sidered optimal, as a means to allocate the relevant reduction factor.
The reduction factor is therefore calculated using the following for-
mula:
cur
Reduction factor =
opt
This approach owes much to the work of Bruille (2014), in that the
present paper directly references their proposed resource stocks, ex-
traction rates, recycling rates and adaptation periods. Using this
methodology, reduction factors were evaluated in relation to 25 key
resources for which all necessary data was available. While not ex-
tensive, the list of substances was hypothesized to be representative of
overall resource use.
Current extraction rates were for instance found to be up to 30 times
faster than the ideal extraction rate for key resources like Indium and
Antimony, in the absence of material substitutes engineered through
current technology. At the other end of the spectrum, common re-
sources like perlite are depleted at a “sustainable” rate with reduction
factors below 0.5.
Using current Centre for Environmental Studies (CML) 2001 char-
acterization factors (CF) as recommended by the European Commission
(2012), an average reduction factor was calculated using the formula
below, converging on a single weighting factor aligned with the re-
levant impact assessment methodology. This approach was used in
order to consolidate a single value, current CFs being used to create
M. Vargas-Gonzalez, et al.
Table 1
Data and reduction factors used to determine weighting factors for indicators in the Human Health AoP.
Impact Assessment Indicator PEF Normalization factor (unit/person/year)
Ionizing Radiation 1,13E + 03
(kBq U235 eq)
Human Toxicity, cancer effects 3,69E-05
(CTUh)
Human Toxicity, non-cancer effects 5,33E-04
(CTUh)
extraction rates that could be added together.
(CFi cur , i )
Average reduction factor =
(CFi opt , i )
As such, the resource depletion reduction factor should be 4.08.
3.3. Ecosystem quality
For ecosystem quality, factors were directly taken from Bjørn (2015)
and tested on several LCIA results of L’Oréal products. Using this initial
list of weighting factors provided in the framework of the PEF pilot
projects (European Commission, 2012) allowed L’Oréal to identify
photochemical ozone creation as one of the most urgent issues for the
cosmetic industry. This result was a direct consequence of the initial
reduction factor suggested for this environmental indicator, i.e. 12.9,
meaning that current emissions are 12.9 times higher than they ought
to be in order to maintain ozone levels at an acceptable level.
This initial reduction factor was calculated considering the
threshold applied by WHO guidelines of 3 ppm*hour AOT40 for day-
light hours during May-July (International Organization for
Standardisation, 2006). AOT40 is an effect measure calculated as the
accumulated ozone exposure during daylight hours above a con-
centration of 40 ppb (Ortiz, 2015), which is measured during the period
from May to July in European Regulation (Ortiz, 2015) and WHO
guidelines (International Organization for Standardisation, 2006) and
averaged for a 5-year period. However, different time frames can be
used depending on the growth season and rate of plants (van Goethem
et al., 2013a, 2013b).
Since ozone concentrations depend on multiple variables and are
not directly linked to the atmospheric emissions measured, Bjørn et al.
applied a “fate factor” of 5.8E-14 kg O3/m3/kg NMVOC/day based on
data from van Zelm et al. (2008), in order to calculate a “carrying ca-
pacity expressed at the pressure point of the impact pathway as kg
NMVOC-eq/year”, corresponding to the acceptable average level of
emissions at the planetary scale. According to their calculations, the
carrying capacity in this context would be 2.5 kg NMVOC-eq/pers/year
in Europe, well below the estimated current level of emissions of
31.7 kg NMVOC-eq/pers/year.
However, further analysis has proven that the average calculated
ozone concentrations suggested by Bjørn et al. were not representative
of the concentrations observed in field measurements. Research has
shown that ozone levels can reach up to 5 ppm*h AOT40 during May-
July in certain areas of Europe (Ortiz, 2015), while the global value put
forward by Bjørn et al. was more than 6 times larger. This error origi-
nated from an outdated “fate factor”, used to calculate ozone con-
centrations based on Non-methane volatile organic compounds
(NMVOC) emissions. Referencing initial work by Van Zelm et al. (van
Zelm et al., 2008), this factor had indeed been used to develop the
models underpinning the ReCiPe2008 impact assessment method
(Goedkoop et al., 2009). These fate factors have since been considered
outdated and replaced in ReCiPe 2016 (Huijbregts et al., 2017).
The new methodology developed for ReCiPe 2016 differentiates
these “fate factors” by sub-region at the European level and by sub-
stance; the new fate factors encapsulating either a 20% variation of
either nitrogen oxides (NOx) or NMVOC emissions. Based on this
4
Ecological Indicators 107 (2019) 105498
Amount of DALY per unit Reduction factor
2,10E-08 1,48E-02
1,15E + 01 2,65E-01
2,70E + 00 8,98E-01
approach, the European average fate factor (measured in ozone con-
centrations per unit of emission) was derived for each type of substance
(NOx and NMVOCs) with the TM5‐FASST model. This was done on a
1 × 1° resolution from hourly ozone concentrations resulting from the
year 2000 reference run with TM5 chemical transport model at the
European level.
Maintaining a purposefully conservative outlook, the highest of
both calculated average fate factors (the one for NOx) was selected. By
replacing the previous fate factor by the new value of 2.4E-15 kg O3/m3/
kg NOx/day European emission-weighted average, a carrying capacity
of 58.8 kg NMVOC-eq/pers/year was calculated. A reduction factor of
0.54 was thus allotted to photochemical ozone creation instead of 12.9,
using the following formula:
Current Global Impact 31.7
Reduction Factor = = = 0.54
Carrying Capacity 58.8
4. Results & discussion
4.1. Results
Table 2 shows the complete list of weighting factors developed by
Bjørn (2015) alongside the values that have been updated or developed
in this work (the latter values are presented in bold in the table).
Fig. 1 presents the LCA results for an anti-dandruff shampoo for-
mula integrating the entire life cycle and weighted using both set of
values presented in Table 2.
These results show that in the case of the anti-dandruff shampoo,
the impact categories considered a priority vary depending on the set of
weighting factors applied. The values presented in the current paper
consider six impact assessment categories as primary, with impacts
circa one order of magnitude higher than any other impact assessment
category. The six major environmental indicators are ecotoxicity, cli-
mate change, freshwater eutrophication, particulate matter formation,
resource depletion and human toxicity. The first two issues have long
been considered priorities by the cosmetics industry with significant
efforts being made on reducing the impact cosmetics might have on
those categories. For example, several cosmetic companies have de-
veloped products that minimize their potential toxic effects upon
aquatic species (L’Haridon et al., 2018) or need less water to be rinsed,
reducing the carbon footprint of the use phase (Henkel AG & CO. KGAA,
2008). On the other hand, Freshwater Eutrophication, Particulate
Matter, Resource Depletion and Human Toxicity come up as being on
par with climate change in terms of overall importance; their presumed
relevance for the sector had however not been identified before.
The original values presented by Bjørn (2015) put photochemical
ozone creation as a major source of concern for the industry, with a
relative importance similar to that of ecotoxicity, climate change and
freshwater eutrophication. The place of photochemical ozone creation
as a primary environmental issue for shampoo production is never-
theless questioned by the new set of weighting factors. The corrected
weighting factor leads to a significantly smaller importance of this in-
dicator.
These observations are further corroborated by the analyses done on
other products. The results for the assessment of a hairspray product,
M. Vargas-Gonzalez, et al. Ecological Indicators 107 (2019) 105498

Table 2
List of suggested weighting factors to comply with the PEF impact assessment method.
Impact Assessment Indicator Weighting Factor as presented Improved Weighting Factor, including values
by Bjørn (2015) (Reduction from Bjørn (2015) as well as revised or
Factor) developed values (Reduction Factor)

Climate change 9.36 9.36

Ozone depletion 0.28 0.28
Human toxicity (cancer effects) N/A 0.26
Human toxicity (non-cancer effects) N/A 0.90
Particulate matter N/A 5.97
Ionizing radiation N/A 0.01
Photochemical ozone formation 12.91 0.54
Acidification 0.53 0.53
Terrestrial eutrophication 0.30 0.30
Freshwater eutrophication 3.22 3.22
Marine eutrophication 0.55 0.55
Land use 9.33 9.33
Freshwater ecotoxicity 0.85 0.85
Water resource depletion 0.51 0.51
Mineral & fossil resource depletion N/A 4.08

for example, show the relative importance the six aforementioned in-
dicators (ecotoxicity, climate change, freshwater eutrophication, par-
ticulate matter formation, resource depletion and human toxicity)
might have for cosmetics (Fig. 2). More interestingly, it should be noted
that while the relevant importance of photochemical ozone creation in
the assessment of hairspray is significantly reduced when using the new
set of weighting factors, this impact assessment category remains a
major contributor to the product environmental footprint; this is most
likely a consequence of the emission of propelling gas (NMVOC) that
takes place during the use phase, showcasing that the presented set of
weighting factors displays different results for different cosmetic pro-
duct families.
4.2. General discussion
Decision-makers expect weighting factors to reflect current views on
the most urgent issues. Something that the set of factors presented in
this paper seems to satisfy, pointing out that some carrying capacities
have clearly been exceeded beyond earth’s regenerative capacity.
Particulate matter emissions are considered one of the leading en-
vironmental causes of human disease, as the reduction factor calculated
is one of the highest of all human health-related reduction factors. This
is confirmed by WHO data, particulate matter being considered re-
sponsible for 10% of fatalities at the global level (Prüss-Ustün et al.,
2016). Similarly, climate change is considered the most urgent en-
vironmental challenge of the 21st century, which was indeed confirmed
by the results obtained (World Economic Forum, 2017). Additionally,
resources overuse has become a political priority with international
governing bodies, with the European Union notably encouraging a
circular economy (European Commission, 2017), while land use, land
use change and land productivity are key issues in SDG (Sustainable
Development Goals) 15 according to the United Nations (United
Nations General Assembly., 2015; United Nations Economic and Social
Council., 2017). The resulting reduction factors likewise appear to
emphasize the importance of these issues at the global scale.
Reduction factors values also point to significant dispersion and
therefore clearly identify priority indicators (with values ranging from
0.01 to almost 10). Moreover, weighting factors do not necessarily open

Fig. 1. Impact assessment results for 1 dose of anti-dandruff shampoo formula (incl. use phase and end-of-life) weighted using different sets of weighting factors
(Human toxicity indicators have been added together).

5
M. Vargas-Gonzalez, et al.
Fig. 2. Impact assessment results for 1 dose of hairspray formula (incl. use phase and end-of-life) weighted using different sets of weighting factors (Human toxicity
indicators have been added together).
onto similar results or indicator hierarchy when applied to LCA results
of different products. This proves relevant to decision-makers, as they
are thus enabled to differentiate between environmental issues and
products (as made apparent by the results of different cosmetic pro-
ducts). For the products assessed in this study this translates notably
through the Photochemical Ozone Creation impact category. While this
environmental disturbance appears as a non-issue for products like
shampoo, it comes out as a priority for the evaluated hairspray. This is a
direct consequence of the use of propelling gases (NMVOCs) in the
latter. Proving that the suggested list of weighting factors is capable to
help differentiate among products in the same industrial sector (in this
case the cosmetics industry), but also to pinpoint which environmental
indicators might be more important for a given industrial sector. For
instance, in the present case, ecotoxicity shows up as a relevant issue for
the cosmetics sector even though the weighting factor used is inferior to
1 (circa one order of magnitude lower to that of global warming), al-
though other modeling and methodological choices might also be at
play.
These characteristics of the developed weighting factor prove that
the suggested weighting factors provide solutions to some of the fre-
quent criticisms traditional weighting systems face. According to Pizzol
et al. (2017) the panel-based, the monetary and the binary weighting
approaches face similar issues as they are often considered biased and
need to be adapted depending on the sector being assessed as en-
vironmental concerns may differ. And while recent developments have
suggested large-scale sampling as a solution to bias, public perception
remains a key factor in these approaches (Itsubo et al., 2015; Murakami
et al., 2017). This is not a problem with the current approach, since it is
not based on expert opinions, perceptions or willingness to pay. Fur-
thermore, as seen in the results, the environmental indicators con-
sidered as priorities will vary depending on the product under study. It
is likely, that results will also change depending on the sector assessed,
pointing out issues that need to be considered as relevant for the sector.
A sectorial adaptation of the approach is thus unnecessary. The analyses
of further sectors should however be carried in order to anchor this
claim.
On “distance-to-target” weighting approaches, Pizzol et al. (2017)
mention the fact that targets do not measure damage as the main lim-
itation of the approach. Once again, this is partly solved by the use of
values based on Planetary Boundaries; if emissions are below the
6
Ecological Indicators 107 (2019) 105498
defined carrying capacity then damages to the different AoP should be
low enough that environmental resilience is ensured. Nevertheless, the
issues of reversibility and criticality, often seen as limitations of the
traditional weighting approaches, are still not entirely covered by the
current approach. This is true since “distance-to-target” weighting ap-
proaches approaches make the assumption that the impact is linear and
that reduction efforts follow this same path, this could lead to the de-
velopment of mitigation measures that do not secure the return to
balance.
Additionally, the weighting values presented in this paper are not
fully representative of current issues, as most should be evaluated on a
regional basis and not globally as suggested by some authors (Itsubo
et al., 2015; Murakami et al., 2017). For example, results show marine
eutrophication as a secondary issue at the global level, with a weighting
factor below 1; in fact marine eutrophication is considered critical in
some areas of the world (Mekonnen and Hoekstra, 2015). The same
could be said of most assessed environmental indicators, as key issues
are only relevant at the local or regional level. Only climate change and
ozone depletion – resource depletion, to some extent – can be con-
sidered as possessing global boundaries. And while it would be possible
to have regional weighting for specific environmental issues (e.g. for
concentration based categories like PM and ozone data is already
available), the relevance of this granularity for policy makers and
companies needs to be determined.
It should also be noted that in the current document, for each in-
dicator, only its effect on one AoP in considered, nevertheless, several
indicators could have effects on several AoP. For example, Climate
Change impacts both Ecosystem Quality and Human Health. For each
indicator, thresholds for each AoP should therefore be determined and
the most conservative value should be selected to determine the
weighting factor to be used. Current work mostly focused on the most
well-known affected AoP, however the assessment of other impact
pathways would be a reasonable next step in order to confirm the ob-
tained values.
Furthermore, the current approach focuses on environmental issues
previously addressed by existing impact assessment methods, while
uncovered environmental issues such as invasive species, noise, re-
sidual heat, light pollution and others are excluded. They could how-
ever be included in the current approach once the corresponding LCIA
methods have been developed.
M. Vargas-Gonzalez, et al.
The obtained weighting factors are nevertheless representative of
current LCA practices. Most environmental issues (aside from water
scarcity) have only recently been regionalized in classic LCA studies. As
mentioned previously, these developments could eventually be in-
cluded in the methodology, but strategic choices were made to conduct
the present study, which will be discussed in the following section.
4.3. Human health
The methodology presented in the current paper follows the as-
sumption all indicators in the human health AoP have the same car-
rying capacity in terms of DALY, surmising that all human health issues
should be allocated a similar burden. This is however a somewhat ar-
bitrary decision and other approaches could be used for greater gran-
ularity. As Particulate Matter is the most common environmental
burden of disease, it could for instance be argued the threshold set by
WHO is only representative of society’s capacity to reduce this burden
rather than the actual acceptability of its consequences.
Planetary Boundaries thresholds for human health issues could in-
stead be developed according to a harmless concentration level to be
defined for humans (i.e. a burden of zero DALY). In the specific case of
ionizing radiation, current recommendations by the International
Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) limit the recommended
yearly dose for Humans to 50 mSv per year (although a lower value is
recommended for the general public), a maximum level under which
radiations are considered inoffensive (ICRP, 2007). Using fate models,
further analyses may specify what this actually means in terms of
emissions. The necessary data was however not available at the time of
the present study.
This type of approach could be applied to all indicators in the
Human Health AoP. Their development may however be impeded by
the current knowledge on toxicity, as data is lacking on the impact of
new substances.
4.4. Resource depletion
Most indicators used in LCA to assess resource depletion omit re-
source functionality when comparing different materials, as they are
only compared based on their availability at the planetary level. Rare
resources are then thus considered more valuable and will weigh more
on the overall results. This approach seems coherent in relation to
product assessment footprints, as evolutions are considered marginal
and without effect on available stocks. Yet, defining a single value for
the carrying capacity of resources is inherently incompatible with the
planetary boundary concept: if a resource is functionally unique, its
complete depletion cannot possibly be sustainable.
To overcome this issue, one possibility would be to evaluate each
resource individually, to determine which one contributes the most to a
given product’s resource depletion impact –in terms of functionality
and substitutability. The result would then determine the applicable
reduction factor for that specific product. As it calls for case-by-case
weighting factors, this approach contrasts with current LCA practice
and was therefore excluded from the current paper.
Similarly, it could be argued that material dispersion should also be
taken into account, bearing in mind most materials may be recycled but
not all practices induce the same final material loss. Depending on
when a given resource is resorted to, its use could be judged dispersive
or not, which should also be taken into account when evaluating
whether or not a product or service complies with Planetary
Boundaries.
As with indicators in the Human Health AoP, the improvement of
the weighting factors as per the planetary boundary framework is
heavily indebted to ongoing research by LCA experts. To a certain de-
gree, current practices and knowledge could be considered limiting
factors in assessing the importance of given environmental issues as
they lead to the exclusion of issues like resource functionality,
7
Ecological Indicators 107 (2019) 105498
dispersion and even the integration of renewable resources (plants, fish,
game) which are often excluded in LCA.
4.5. Photochemical ozone creation
In the current paper, the threshold used to define the weighting
factor for POCP is based on the effect ozone concentration can have on
plant growth. This ignores entirely the impacts this pollutant can have
on Human Health. This origin of this inconsistency is the desire to
improve the value presented by Bjørn (2015). However, using both
approaches presented in the current document (i.e. the one used to
calculate the value for POCP as well as the one used for determining the
reduction factor for human health indicators), it would have been
possible to assess what the reduction factor would be following the
human health impact pathway.
This raises a broader issue that should be addressed in future de-
velopments: when defining weighting or normalization factors based on
Planetary Boundaries, it seems necessary to identify the corresponding
threshold for each impact pathway in every affected AoP and the as-
sociated safe operating space. The lowest threshold would then re-
present the data to use to determine the corresponding weighting
factor, as it would ensure that Planetary Boundaries for both Ecosystem
Quality and Human Health are not trespassed.
5. Conclusion
By improving existing data and broadening the Planetary
Boundaries framework beyond its initial design in order to integrate
Resource Depletion and Human Health aspects, the work presented
herewith has opened onto a list of weighting factors seemingly aligned
with current environmental concerns. And while it is clear that the
methodology used could be enriched by integrating new concepts dis-
cussed in this paper (like gravity and reversibility of impacts) to the
framework, the proposed list should be seen as a first operational step
for LCA practitioners to integrate Planetary Boundaries in their LCA
studies and guide decision-makers towards prioritization and environ-
mental strategies. An aspect that has been proven through the assess-
ment of two cosmetics products and the identification of environmental
priorities in this sector of activity.
Acknowledgement
The company L’Oréal has funded this research study under the
Master Agreement C170663 dated 19 July 2017.
References
Anderson, J.O., Thundiyil, J.G., Stolbach, A., 2012. Clearing the air: a review of the ef-
fects of particulate matter air pollution on human health. J. Med. Toxicol. 8 (2),
166–175. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13181-011-0203-1.
Benini, L., Mancini, L., Sala, S., Schau, E., Manfredi, S., Pant, R., 2014. Normalisation
method and data for environmental footprints. Luxembourg. https://doi.org/10.
2788/16415.
Berry, M.A., Rondinelli, D.A., 1998. Proactive corporate environmental management: a
new industrial revolution. Acad. Manage. Perspect. 12 (2), 38–50. https://doi.org/
10.5465/AME.1998.650515.
Bjørn, A., Hauschild, M.Z., 2015. Introducing carrying capacity-based normalisation in
LCA: framework and development of references at midpoint level. Int. J. Life Cycle
Assess. 20 (7), 1005–1018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-015-0899-2.
Bjørn, A., Diamond, M., Owsianiak, M., Verzat, B., Hauschild, M.Z., 2015. Strengthening
the link between life cycle assessment and indicators for absolute sustainability to
support development within planetary boundaries. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49 (11),
6370–6371. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b02106.
Bjørn, A., Margni, M., Roy, P.O., Bulle, C., Hauschild, M.Z., 2016. A proposal to measure
absolute environmental sustainability in life cycle assessment. Ecol. Ind. 63, 1–13.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.11.046.
Bjørn, A. (DTU). (2015). Better, but good enough? Indicators for absolute environmental
sustainability in a life cycle perspective. Technical University of Denmark. APA. 129-
189. Retrieved from http://orbit.dtu.dk/files/118946760/Better_but_good_enough.
pdf.
Bruille, V.D.E., 2014. Impact de l’utilisation des ressources Minérales et métalliques dans
M. Vargas-Gonzalez, et al.
un contexte cycle de vie : une approche fontionnelle. École Polytechnique de
Montréal, pp. 47–89.
De Benedetto, L., Klemeš, J., 2009. The Environmental Performance Strategy Map: an
integrated LCA approach to support the strategic decision-making process. J. Cleaner
Prod. 17 (10), 900–906. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2009.02.012.
Doka, G. (2015). Combining life cycle inventory results with planetary boundaries: The
Planetary Boundary Allowance impact assessment method PBA’05. Zurick. Retrieved
from http://www.doka.ch/Doka2ndDraftPBAMethod.pdf.
Eldh, P., Johansson, J., 2006. Weighting in LCA based on Ecotaxes - development of a
mid-point method and experiences from case studies. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 11 (S1),
81–88. https://doi.org/10.1065/lca2006.04.015.
European Commission – Joint Research Centre – Institute for Environment and
Sustainability, 2010. International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) hand-
book – general guide for life cycle assessment – detailed guidance. Constraints.
https://doi.org/10.2788/38479.
European Commission. (2012). Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) Guide, 154.
European Commission, 2017. Report from the commission to the European parliament,
the council, the European economic and social committee and the committee of the
regions: On the implementation of the Circular Economy Action Plan. Retrieved
from. Off. J. Eur. Union, COM 33, 1–14. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/circular-
economy/implementation_report.pdf.
Goedkoop, M., Heijungs, R., Huijbregts, M., Schryver, A. De, Struijs, J., van Zelm, R.
(2009). ReCiPe 2008, A life cycle impact assessment method which comprises har-
monised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level. Retrieved from
http://www.pre-sustainability.com/download/misc/ReCiPe_main_report_final_27-
02-2009_web.pdf.
Gronlund, C.J., Humbert, S., Shaked, S., O’Neill, M.S., Jolliet, O., 2015. Characterizing
the burden of disease of particulate matter for life cycle impact assessment. Air Qual.
Atmos. Health 8 (1), 29–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11869-014-0283-6.
Henkel AG & CO. KGAA. (2008). Case Study undertaken within the PCF Pilot Project.
Distribution. Retrieved from http://www.pcf-projekt.de/main/press-and-
documentation/case-studies/.
Huijbregts, M.A.J., Steinmann, Z.J.N., Elshout, P.M.F., Stam, G., Verones, F., Vieira, M.,
van Zelm, R., 2017. ReCiPe2016: a harmonised life cycle impact assessment method
at midpoint and endpoint level. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 22 (2), 138–147. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11367-016-1246-y.
Humbert, S., Marshall, J.D., Shaked, S., Spadaro, J.V., Nishioka, Y., Preiss, P., Jolliet, O.,
2011. Intake fraction for particulate matter: recommendations for life cycle impact
assessment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 45 (11), 4808–4816. https://doi.org/10.1021/
es103563z.
ICRP, 2007. The 2007 recommendations of the international commission on radiological
protection. ICRP Publication 103. Ann. ICRP 37, 2–4.
International Organization for Standardisation. (2006). IS/ISO 14044 (2006):
Environmental Management-Life Cycle Assessment-Requirements and Guidelines. Iso
14044. https://doi.org/2009.
Itsubo, N., Murakami, K., Kuriyama, K., Yoshida, K., Tokimatsu, K., Inaba, A., 2015.
Development of weighting factors for G20 countries—explore the difference in en-
vironmental awareness between developed and emerging countries. Int. J. Life Cycle
Assess. 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-015-0881-z.
Karagulian, F., Belis, C.A., Dora, C.F.C., Prüss-Ustün, A.M., Bonjour, S., Adair-Rohani, H.,
Amann, M., 2015. Contributions to cities’ ambient particulate matter (PM): a sys-
tematic review of local source contributions at global level. Atmos. Environ. 120,
475–483. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2015.08.087.
Kerkhof, A., Boer, E. de, Meijer, G., Scheepmaker, J., Blok, K. (2015). Towards companies
that perform within the earth’s regenerative capacity. Eneco – ECOFYS, 2014(Figure
1), 18. Retrieved from https://www.ecofys.com/files/files/eneco-ecofys-2015-paper-
one-planet-thinking.pdf.
Kim, K.-H., Kabir, E., Kabir, S., 2015. A review on the human health impact of airborne
particulate matter. Environ. Int. 74, 136–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.
2014.10.005.
L’Haridon, J., Martz, P., Chenèble, J.C., Campion, J.F., Colombe, L., 2018. Ecodesign of
cosmetic formulae: methodology and application. Int. J. Cosmet. Sci In press.
Lee, K., Xue, J., Geyh, A.S., Ozkaynak, H., Leaderer, B.P., Weschler, C.J., Spengler, J.D.,
2002. Nitrous acid, nitrogen dioxide, and ozone concentrations in residential en-
vironments. Retrieved from. Environ. Health Perspect. 110 (2), 145–150. http://
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11836142.
Ecological Indicators 107 (2019) 105498
Mekonnen, M.M., Hoekstra, A.Y., 2015. Global gray water footprint and water pollution
levels related to anthropogenic nitrogen loads to fresh water. Environ. Sci. Technol.
49 (21), 12860–12868. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b03191.
Murakami, K., Itsubo, N., Kuriyama, K., Yoshida, K., Tokimatsu, K., 2017. Development of
weighting factors for G20 countries. Part 2: estimation of willingness to pay and
annual global damage cost. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11367-017-1372-1.
OECD, 2016. The Economic Consequences of Outdoor Air Pollution. OECD Publishing,
Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264257474-en.
Ortiz, E. E. A. A. G. (2015). Air quality in Europe — 2015 report. Retrieved from https://
www.eea.europa.eu/publications/air-quality-in-europe-2015.
Pizzol, M., Laurent, A., Sala, S., Weidema, B., Verones, F., Koffler, C., 2017. Normalisation
and weighting in life cycle assessment: quo vadis? Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 22 (6),
853–866. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1199-1.
Prüss-Ustün, A., Wolf, J., Corvalán, C., Bos, R., Neira, M. (2016). Preventing disease
through healthy environments. Analysis of Estimates of the Environmental
Attributable Fraction, By Disease. France. Retrieved from http://apps.who.int/iris/
bitstream/10665/204585/1/9789241565196_eng.pdf?ua=1.
Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin, F.S., Lambin, E.F., Foley, J.A.,
2009. A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461 (7263), 472–475. https://doi.
org/10.1038/461472a.
Ryberg, M.W., Owsianiak, M., Richardson, K., Hauschild, M.Z., 2016. Challenges in im-
plementing a planetary boundaries based life-cycle impact assessment methodology.
J. Cleaner Prod. 139, 450–459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.08.074.
Sandin, G., Peters, G.M., Svanström, M., 2015. Using the planetary boundaries framework
for setting impact-reduction targets in LCA contexts. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 20 (12),
1684–1700. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-015-0984-6.
Schmidt, W.-P., Sullivan, J., 2002. Weighting in Life Cycle assessments in a global con-
text. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 7 (1), 5–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02978904.
The International Standards Organisation. (2006). Environmental management — Life
cycle assessment — Principles and framework. Iso 14040, 2006, 1–28. https://doi.
org/10.1136/bmj.332.7550.1107.
The World Bank. (2017). PM2.5 air pollution, mean annual exposure (micrograms per
cubic meter) | Data. Retrieved May 6, 2017, from https://data.worldbank.org/
indicator/EN.ATM.PM25.MC.M3?name_desc=false.
Tuomisto, H.L., Hodge, I.D., Riordan, P., MacDonald, D.W., 2012. Exploring a safe op-
erating approach to weighting in life cycle impact assessment - a case study of or-
ganic, conventional and integrated farming systems. J. Cleaner Prod. 37, 147–153.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.06.025.
United Nations Economic and Social Council. (2017). Progress towards the Sustainable
Development Goals. Agenda Items 5, 6 and 18 (a): High-Level Segment; High-Level
Political Forum on Sustainable Development, Convened under the Auspices of the
Economic and Social Council; Economic and Environmental Questions: Sustainable
Development, E/2017/66(May), 19. http://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300006640.
United Nations General Assembly. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for
sustainable development. Retrieved from https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/
content/documents/21252030 Agenda for Sustainable Development web.pdf.
van Goethem, T.M.W.J., Azevedo, L.B., van Zelm, R., Hayes, F., Ashmore, M.R.,
Huijbregts, M.A.J., 2013. Plant species sensitivity distributions for ozone exposure.
Environ. Pollut. 178, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENVPOL.2013.02.023.
van Goethem, T.M.W.J., Preiss, P., Azevedo, L.B., Roos, J., Friedrich, R., Huijbregts,
M.A.J., van Zelm, R., 2013. European characterization factors for damage to natural
vegetation by ozone in life cycle impact assessment. Atmos. Environ. 77, 318–324.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ATMOSENV.2013.05.009.
van Zelm, R., Huijbregts, M.A.J., den Hollander, H.A., van Jaarsveld, H.A., Sauter, F.J.,
Struijs, J., van de Meent, D., 2008. European characterization factors for human
health damage of PM10 and ozone in life cycle impact assessment. Atmos. Environ.
42 (3), 441–453. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ATMOSENV.2007.09.072.
World Economic Forum. (2017). The Global Risks Report 2017 12th Edition. Insight
Report. Geneva, Switzerland. Retrieved from http://www3.weforum.org/docs/
GRR17_Report_web.pdf.
World Health Organization, 2006. WHO Air Quality Guidelines for Particulate Matter,
Ozone, Nitrogen Dioxide and Sulfur Dioxide: Global Update 2005: Summary of Risk
Assessment. World Health Organization, Geneva, pp. 1–22. http://doi.org/10.1016/
0004-6981(88)90109-6.