Int J Life Cycle Assess (2017) 22:469–478
DOI 10.1007/s11367-016-1178-6
LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT: A TOOL FOR INNOVATION IN LATIN AMERICA
Preface
Isabel Quispe 1 & Ian Vázquez-Rowe 1 & Ramzy Kahhat 1 & Alejandro Pablo Arena 2,3 &
Nydia Suppen 4
Received: 16 June 2016 / Accepted: 27 July 2016 / Published online: 12 August 2016
# Springer-VerlagBerlinHeidelberg2016
1 The winding road to eco-innovation in Latin
America
Companies are increasingly seeking to become more profit-
able and competitive in a globalized market. These goals re-
quire augmenting the productivity of their processes and an
efficient use of resources (Schmidt and Nakajima 2013).
Innovation is a response to this objective through research
and development (R&D), generating new knowledge.
However, companies sometimes run the risk of not realizing
that there is a positive return on investment in R&D (Baumann
and Kritikos 2016). The lack of evaluation of this return on
investment tends to discourage innovation strategies (Dong
et al. 2014).
At the same time, economic growth and the development
of enterprises collide with a series of energy constraints, re-
source shortages, and environmental problems that require
problem-solving strategies to provide a holistic approach.
Similarly, governments must also face various problems when
Responsible editor: Mary Ann Curran
* Ian Vázquez-Rowe
ian.vazquez@pucp.pe
1
Peruvian LCA Network, Department of Engineering, Pontificia
Universidad Católica del Perú, 1801 Avenida Universitaria, San
Miguel, 32 Lima, Peru
2
Grupo CLIOPE—Universidad Tecnológica Nacional-Regional
Mendoza, Coronel Rodríguez 273, M5502AJE Mendoza, Argentina
3
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Tecnológicas
CONICET-CCT Mendoza, Ruiz Leal, Parque Gral. San Martín,
M5500 Mendoza, Argentina
4
Centro de Análisis de Ciclo de Vida y Diseño Sustentable—CADIS,
Mexico, DF, Mexico
it comes to improving the living conditions of their citizens.
Traditionally, these key parameters have been monitored and
analyzed from a socioeconomic perspective, considering the
quality of life conditions of citizens such as poverty, malnu-
trition, inequality, and climate change. Thus, companies and
governments understand the importance of promoting eco-
nomic growth with social responsibility and environmental
care, in other words, of fostering sustainability.
In this context, eco-innovation arises, a concept which,
according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation
and Development (OECD), is defined as Bthe creation or im-
plementation of new or significantly improved products
(goods and services), process, marketing methods, organiza-
tional structure, and institutional arrangements which—with
or without intent—lead to environmental improvements com-
pared to relevant alternatives^ (OECD 2009). In addition, in-
novation is a concept that is scarcely linked to social and
environmental aspects (Bossle et al. 2016), whereas eco-
innovation considers social, economic, and environmental di-
mensions for the innovation of products and processes
(Hellström 2007).
Eco-innovation can be understood as the link between
competitiveness and sustainability, which seeks traditional
ways of mitigating either environmental impacts or advanced
ways, making innovation a battle to reduce the use of natural
resources from design, production, use, reuse, and recycling
of products and materials, i.e., throughout the product life
cycle.
The concept of eco-innovation is relatively new, which
explains the fact that it has not been internalized sufficiently
within the management of organizations. Companies to date
have only taken initiatives to adopt green technology, environ-
mental management systems, and other specific activities
(Bossle et al. 2016), but these are still far from being consid-
ered eco-innovative companies or organizations. Thus,
470
businesses need to explicitly consider eco-innovation in their
strategies.
There are different factors (internal and external) that influ-
ence considering eco-innovation in the strategies of organiza-
tions. According to Bossle et al. (2016), the external factors
are regulatory pressure, market demand, cooperation, and re-
development of industrial technology, which boost the adop-
tion of the concept of eco-innovation by companies.
Regulatory pressure and market demand are key factors
because more governments are legislating in order to preserve
the environment, and consumers have become more demand-
ing, opting for eco-friendly products. Stakeholder cooperation
with suppliers, clients, consultants, and universities contribute
to obtaining products and processes that are less harmful to the
environment.
Cost savings, environmental capability, environmental
managerial concern, human resources, and environmental cul-
ture are some of the most important internal factors observed.
If organizations obtain cost savings through environmental
improvements and have the capability to integrate their com-
petences and resources in order to carry out environmental
innovation (environmental capability), they will invest in
eco-innovation. Whenever executives, managers, and human
resources are trained and involved in innovation processes
with sustainable criteria (environmental managerial concern
and human resources), it will be easier to integrate eco-
innovation in the business or institutional strategies. Finally,
the environmental culture of the institutions or companies will
seek that each member has a positive behavior toward sustain-
ability and competitiveness.
With the influence of internal and external factors, eco-
innovation seeks competitiveness through the efficient use of
resources and the innovation of their processes and products
considering sustainability criteria, such as the mitigation of
environmental impacts using cleaner technologies with social
responsibility. Therefore, eco-innovation is in line with the
concept of sustainable development, as shown in Fig. 1.
On the other hand, eco-innovation has been consid-
ered an important topic because of the interest in this
subject from an academic point of view, which is mir-
rored in the relevant number of published papers linked
to eco-innovation (Bossle et al. 2016). These researches
contribute with a new focus, tools, and methodologies to
the implementation of eco-innovation in the government
and companies by policy makers and managers. In spite
of a dynamic and intense debate around the world re-
garding the ratification of environment-oriented treaties
worldwide (e.g., the recently ratified Treaty of Paris),
businesses recognize the need to respond to the new
environmental requirements that are set through policies
and demanded by consumers, despite the difficulties
many of them find when trying to become green
(Walley and Whitehead 1994; Pujari et al. 2004).
Int J Life Cycle Assess (2017) 22:469–478
However, these difficulties have been reduced substantially
in the developed world, mainly in Oceania, Europe, and North
America, thanks to the building of a complex and interactive
system in which policies passed through a variety of different
layers of government in continuous negotiation with a wide
range of industrial sectors have created a reciprocal process
where eco-innovation is engendered by the private sector and
regulated by governments to control and expand its applica-
tion (Cooke 2011).
In contrast, access to eco-innovation in developing and
emerging economies is still limited (Ockwell et al. 2010),
since most of these developing nations face a series of barriers
that impede the full development of eco-innovation within
their domestic economic systems. In fact, an OECD environ-
ment working paper written by Ockwell et al. (2010) high-
lights the lack of international support to link eco-innovation
with indigenous (i.e., local or regional) capabilities. In other
words, policy at an international level focuses too much on
delving into how existing eco-innovative possibilities would
adapt to these new contexts, rather than fostering and enhanc-
ing situations in which developing nations can produce their
own eco-innovative strategies (Bell 2009; Ockwell et al.
2010).
Hence, rather than prioritizing the transfer of hardware
knowledge in the field of eco-innovation, there is an increas-
ing interest from international organizations and NGOs to fos-
ter the transfer of know-how to these nations through capacity
building and the exchange of research experiences (Ockwell
et al. 2008). Nevertheless, it should be noted that certain draw-
backs will appear following this perspective, due to the reluc-
tance of certain well-positioned companies to stimulate un-
wanted competition in emerging economies, on the one hand,
and to the fact that policy making needs to be improved sub-
stantially to account for the specific technological and cultural
contexts that eco-innovation will face at the local, regional,
and national levels, on the other (Eckerberg and Nilsson
2013).
In this context, a widely known methodology that is ap-
plied in numerous corporate and policy making situations is
that of life cycle assessment (LCA), a tool that analyzes the
interconnected stages of a specific production system (good or
service) from the acquisition of raw materials up to final dis-
posal of residues (Hellweg and Mila i Canals 2014). Although
further developed in the academic world through universities
and research centers than in any other sector, businesses
around the world have started to recognize that the use of
LCA and other life cycle approaches constitute a solid re-
sponse to the challenges of sustainable development and to
develop a robust strategy toward eco-innovation progress in
the corporate world (Robèrt et al. 2002; Sala et al. 2013). For
instance, many multinational companies, especially in the
agro-industrial sector, now have life cycle sections within their
sustainable development areas, and in the cases of France or
Int J Life Cycle Assess (2017) 22:469–478
Fig. 1 Conceptual framework
and motivation factors of eco-
innovation
Colombia, collaborative associations between industrial, insti-
tutional, and scientific actors have been developed
(CECODES 2014; SCORELCA 2016). For instance, in
France, an association named SCORELCA was created in
2012 to share information and promote dissemination of
LCA studies (SCORELCA 2016).
In this worldwide context, LCA and other life cycle per-
spectives have slowly started to gain leadership in the Latin
America, Caribbean (LAC) region, ever since a small, but
ever-growing, scientific community started to identify and
disseminate the benefits that LCA could offer in terms of
corporate decision-making and public policy design.
Moreover, the current economic and environmental context
of the region and its relationship with the diverse worldwide
supply chains requires a holistic approach that helps mitigate
the environmental effects related to all the life cycle stages of
goods and services. Thus, LCA is an ideal tool to better un-
derstand these consequences and mitigate them, locally, re-
gionally, and globally. Additionally, the diverse supply chains
that connect the LAC region with the rest of the world increas-
ingly demands the use of environmental certifications for
exported products.
At a regional level, the Ibero-American Life Cycle
Network (ILCN), became, a decade ago, the first regional
organization in which stakeholders from the LAC region
(and Spain and Portugal) could share, promote, and dissemi-
nate their contributions to the LCA world. In fact, one of the
main goals of the ILCN is to build and strengthen capacities of
academics, managers, and public policy makers in the use of
these life cycle approaches and methodologies. Furthermore,
on a biannual basis, the ILCN organizes an International
Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in Latin America
(CILCA), a conference in which the main scientific advance-
ments in LCA in the region are presented, as well as the
ongoing application of the methodology to different industrial
471
sectors and their integration with public policies. In 2015, the
sixth edition of the CILCA conference was held in the city of
Lima (Peru), where over 180 oral presentations and posters
were presented.
The main goal of this Special Issue is to present selected
LCA studies, submitted to CILCA 2015, and related to the
application of LCA in the Ibero American region as a route to
achieving eco-innovation in the region.
2 Development of the special issue
CILCA 2015 was presented as a multidisciplinary conference
in which a wide range of life cycle issues was accepted, in-
cluding methodological advancements; the application of
LCA in public policies; or the development of numerous case
studies in diverse productive sectors, such as agriculture,
building, biofuels, or wastewater treatment. However, when
a look back is taken to the final disposition of oral presenta-
tions, it can be observed that the total amount was skewed
considerably towards agrifood topics. This observation is in
line with the fact that Latin America’s agricultural production
is highly dependent on the export of different types of food
products. However, it is also worth noting that other primary
sector activities, namely, mining or the extraction of fossil
fuels, which are important within the regions’ GDP, have been
repeatedly absent, not only in CILCA 2015 but also in previ-
ous CILCA events. The causes that explain the uneven imple-
mentation of life cycle thinking methods through sectors in the
region are somewhat heterogeneous. Nevertheless, we hy-
pothesize that there are two main causes behind this circum-
stance. On the one hand, despite the efforts of UNEP and
some national authorities (e.g., Chile, Mexico, or Brazil), the
lack of national life cycle inventories is an endemic problem in
the region, limiting the certainty of the results presented in
472
case studies (Beltran et al. 2016). On the other hand, it seems
as if important multinational companies that have developed
LCA schemes within their organigrams are yet to export this
expertise to their subsidiaries in Latin America.
Unevenness in the region does not only occur in terms of
productive sectors. Important disparities have been identified
between nations in terms of the overall implementation of life
cycle methods. Interestingly, the existence of a national LCA
network tends to be a crucial trigger for the proliferation of life
cycle studies. In fact, the region has experienced a steady
increase in the number of national LCA networks. For in-
stance, the recent development of a national network in
Ecuador has been accompanied by new publications in the
field (Salas et al. 2015). The creation of similar structures in
Venezuela and Bolivia in the upcoming months is expected, a
circumstance that would leave a limited number of South
American countries without a national network.
In contrast, the situation in the Caribbean and Central
America is substantially different, with the exception of
Costa Rica and Cuba, which currently possess a robust nation-
al network. Hence, for nations in these two subregions, it will
be imperative to augment the number of trained experts in
LCA and other life cycle perspectives. However, linguistic
barriers between nations or the reduced size of these countries
may constitute relevant limitations to the expansion of LCA
networks in the region. Hence, strategies to achieve this ob-
jective may include the creation of clusters of countries with
similar characteristics which share geographical proximity.
Moreover, the role of the Ibero-American LCA Network and
the International Life Cycle Initiative of UNEP will be crucial
in the introduction of dissemination activities and introductory
workshops. Despite these barriers in the subregion, there have
been certain advancements in the region, including studies on
social-LCA on biofuels in Jamaica destined to policy support
(Chargoy Amador et al. 2015) or sustainable building in
Trinidad and Tobago (Iwaro and Mwasha 2013).
2.1 Agriculture, forestry, and biofuels
When analyzing the articles published in this Special Issue in
more detail, a total of nine were linked to the agricultural or
forestry sectors (including in both cases, biofuel production).
Within this group, a first block of papers was linked to the
environmental performance of horticultural products in the
Ibero-American region. Firstly, Ribal et al. (2016) analyzed
a relevant sample (over 250 farms) of organic and convention-
al systems for the production of citrus in the main producing
area in Spain: Valencia, highlighting the high variability iden-
tified in both farming systems in terms of environmental im-
pact. In addition, they suggest that this high standard deviation
may be intimately linked to the degree of mechanization on
farms or to the size of these. A second study, developed in
Tucumán (Argentina), studies the influence that the
Int J Life Cycle Assess (2017) 22:469–478
technological level of the sugar industry has on the final en-
vironmental performance of the products: alcohol and sugar
(Nishihara Hun et al. 2016). The main results indicate that
high-level technology guarantees better environmental perfor-
mance, although the economic and social sustainability as-
pects of this production system were excluded from the scope
of the study. A third study, by Vázquez-Rowe et al. (2016a),
analyzed the environmental impacts of agricultural activities
along the hyperarid Peruvian coast. The selected product,
pomegranate (Punica granatum), of which Peru is becoming
an incipient exporter, appears to present high productivity in a
region in which the agricultural frontier tends to expand in
desert areas (Vázquez-Rowe et al. 2016b). Despite the fact
that the article focuses on the direct land use changes due to
the expansion of the agricultural frontier and on the green-
house gas emission benefits that this implies, the authors ac-
knowledge the threats that this dynamic may cause in the long
run due to the water stress that is being inflicted on the dwin-
dling coastal aquifers.
A second block of papers linked to the agricultural sector
included contributions from Brazil. Sánchez-Moore et al.
(2016) analyzed the appropriateness of using vinasse and filter
cake, both residues from the prominent bioethanol industry in
Brazil. For this, they implemented two separate LCA perspec-
tives: attributional and consequential, arriving at similar con-
clusions. Results proved that the use of these residues rather
than fertilization with inorganic chemical fertilizers creates an
improved environmental profile, although results may be
strongly influenced by the content of nitrogen in the vinasse.
Another Brazilian study that is strongly linked to the use of
chemical fertilizers is the one presented by Matsuura et al.
(2016). More specifically, the synergies that are created be-
tween the combined production of sunflower and soybean in
the Brazilian cerrado are analyzed using LCA and compared
to the production of these two crops as monocultures. The
results confirm the benefits of combining nitrogen-fixing le-
gumes with other plant species in a production system, al-
though the authors advocate an optimization of the use of
chemical fertilizers to reduce environmental impacts. In addi-
tion, the environmental benefits of the dual crop system are
highly dependent on the allocation strategy that is considered
in the assessment. Finally, in terms of greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions, the prevention of land use changes, especially in
areas with native vegetation, appeared to be the dominant
environmental hotspot. A third study by Willers et al.
(2016), in this case linked to the environmental analysis of
semi-intensive beef cattle production system in Northeast
Brazil, confirms the environmental benefits of substituting
nitrogen-based chemical fertilizers by organic fertilizers.
A final study in this block, Kulay et al. (2016), delves into
the production of a widely used pesticide in Brazil:
thiophanate-methyl, a benzimidazole precursor employed for
pest control throughout a wide range of crops, such as
Int J Life Cycle Assess (2017) 22:469–478
soybean, cotton, beans, rice, tomatoes, or citrus crops.
Typically, most agriculture LCA studies do not analyze in
depth the way in which plant protection agents are produced,
since these tend to have a much lower environmental impact
than the production of fertilizers (Meisterling et al. 2009; Roy
et al. 2009; Vázquez-Rowe et al. 2016b), as well as other on-
field activities. Hence, unless toxicity impact categories are
being included within the scope of the study, pesticides tend
to have a discreet contribution to overall impacts. In contrast,
Kulay and colleagues provide a deep analysis of the life cycle
of this pesticide, highlighting the main environmental hotspots
through the production process and proposing a series of
cleaner production propositions to reduce the impact of this
type of products, such as improved wastewater treatment or
energy recovery. Undoubtedly, this study is an important step
forward regarding the inclusion of more case-specific model-
ing for plant protection agents in agriculture.
A final block of primary sector-oriented papers is made
up of two studies that deal with the production of biofuels
in the region and their comparison with conventional
fossil fuels. On the one hand, Morales et al. (2016) ana-
lyze a production system linked to the use of eucalyptus
in Chile to produce domestic bioethanol that can be
blended with gasoline. According to the authors, the E5
blend implies a series of environmental improvements in
most impact categories as compared to regular gasoline,
but these improvements tend to dwindle when an E10
blend is proposed. On the other hand, Castanheira and
Freire (2016) analyze the tradeoffs of using palm biodie-
sel in Portugal, in which the biofuel is imported from
Colombia. The authors generate a series of scenarios in
which they analyze the combination of different fertiliza-
tion (e.g., poultry manure, urea, or ammonium sulfate),
biogas management (i.e., flared or released), and direct
land use change (dLUCs) alternatives. The results demon-
strated that the final environmental impacts in terms of
GHG emissions were highly dependent on the dLUCs
linked to the expansion of palm plantations. Palm, a pe-
rennial crop, showed that it tends to sequester carbon
whenever it is substituting previous shrubland, grassland,
or other crops but shows very high net emissions when
tropical deforestation occurs to ensure its cultivation.
Nevertheless, when biogas is captured flared at the oil
extraction mill, GHG emission reductions of up to 60 %
can be attained. Results for the remaining impact catego-
ries assessed were highly contradictory due mainly to the
selection of a specific fertilization scheme for palm
cultivation.
Interestingly, neither of the studies in which biofuels were
assessed address the issue of indirect land use changes
(iLUCs), despite the fact that numerous studies highlight the
scarce benefits that biofuels have when an expansion of the
system boundaries to account for these iLUCs is considered
473
(Searchinger et al. 2008; Hertel et al. 2010), especially in areas
where land for biofuels may compete directly with areas rich
in carbon storage potential and biodiversity such as tropical
and subtropical primary and secondary forests.
2.2 Construction and building
Three articles linked to the building sector were included
within the Special Issue. Firstly, Ochoa Sosa et al. (2016)
compared the life cycle energy and costs linked to the
construction and occupation of social housing in areas
with different urban planning: compact and sprawling
neighborhoods. The former appear to have reduced envi-
ronmental impacts in terms of energy usage for a specific
case study in Mexico City, whereas sprawling neighbor-
hoods also present increased energy and land costs. The
study, though concentrating on Mexico City, could be
easily replicable for other urban metropolitan areas in
emerging cities in the LAC region, since the urbanization
trends described in this specific article are not common
in European and North American cities. In other words,
we consider that a study of these characteristics has an
interesting potential in urban planning in the region.
Rodrigues and Freire (2016), though also centered in
the building sector, focus on the environmental sustain-
ability of building retrofit, which they considered an
important aspect to be taken into consideration in the
historic district of Coimbra. The results interestingly
suggest that extra insulation levels in this type of con-
struction may lead to increased environmental impacts
due to the high embodied impacts of the materials used.
In fact, the authors identify tradeoffs between the
amount of insulation employed to improve the building
and the amount of energy needed in the operation
phase, an interesting finding that could help steer poli-
cies in historic districts in southern Europe where a
relevant part of the population still lives in historic
houses or buildings. Despite the fact that this study is
probably not as replicable in the LAC region, lessons
learned could be of utility in the transformation of vast
urban areas in which the thriving middle class is de-
manding increased comfort in their households.
Articles in this section demonstrate the utility of using
life cycle methods applied to the construction sector to
answer miscellaneous research questions, contributing to
the sustainable development of the LAC region: (i) under-
standing how the increasing sprawl of urban areas in the
region can be done in a more sustainable manner, (ii)
identification of sustainable materials to improve the hab-
itability of historic buildings, and (iii) the application of
low-cost environmentally - friendly solutions for modest
housing in tropical environments.
474
2.3 Software development
Software development in LCA has always been an ongoing
activity, in which the improvement of databases and
computational software has been the main objective.
However, we argue that an underdeveloped issue in life
cycle studies is the development of tools that can aid LCA
practitioners and stakeholders to make data compilation
efficient and less tiresome. In this line of thinking, Torres
et al. (2016) have developed a combined software that allows
farmers to calculate their own GHG emissions based on the
information they handle at the farm. The main idea of this
software is to combine clarity and reduced time consumption
in filling the primary data with a comprehensive analysis of
the farms. The IPCC method is used to compute the results
following the guidelines fixed by PAS 2050. Furthermore, an
uncertainty analysis and a graphical representation of hotspots
were provided to combine easily interpretable results for
farmers and relevant LCA results for practitioners.
On the other hand, YUPI® is software that has been devel-
oped to raise awareness among the local population in
Argentina in terms of life cycle environmental impacts that
are a consequence of their daily routines and habits (Arena
et al. 2016). The software provides users with an easy-to-use
computation of ecological, carbon, and water footprint
adapted to regional conditions in Argentina when possible
but maintaining calculation emission factors of widely used
assessment methods, such as those from IPCC or the Water
Footprint Network, as well as guidelines such as the PAS 2050
from Carbon Trust (IPCC 2006; BSI 2011). Interestingly, the
software also delves into specific ways through which citizens
can reduce their impact on the environment.
2.4 Reviews
Valdivia et al. (2016) is the final published contribution in this
Special Issue. Its main objective was to describe the imple-
mentation of LCA and life cycle management (LCM) in the
LAC region in the period from 2005 to 2014. Four main
blocks are analyzed for such a purpose in those countries of
the LAC regions that had developed a life cycle network by
2014: (i) the expansion of training activities linked to LCA
and/or LCM, (ii) the availability of LCA studies, (iii) the ex-
istence of an operational national LCA database, and (iv) the
existence and developed actions of national networks. The
results presented indicate that Spanish-speaking nations in
the LAC region, together with Brazil, are the key actors in
the expansion of LCA in the region. Moreover, the authors
establish a certain degree of correlation between the existence
of LCA databases and the development of LCA-based poli-
cies and regulations (e.g., Brazil and Mexico). It is concluded
that future actions in the existing national networks should
focus on fostering alliances with the private sector to expand
Int J Life Cycle Assess (2017) 22:469–478
the utility of life cycle methods in business case studies.
Similarly, increased political will could trigger the advance-
ment of improved national databases and the disclosure of
financial resources for such a purpose. Furthermore, all coun-
tries should continue supporting training activities to expand
the number of professionals with skills in LCM, although it
should be the international community who should support
these activities in nations in which life cycle networks are still
to be created.
3 Future steps
LCA and other life cycle methods, such as water or carbon
footprint, appear to have consolidated in the region as robust
environmental sustainability methods to be applied in numer-
ous productive sectors. In fact, an increasing number of re-
search centers and universities in the LAC region have incor-
porated life cycle thinking in their strategy. Based on the re-
cently released 2015 QS University Rankings, 19 Latin
American universities appear among the top 500 universities
in the world (QS Top Universities 2016). Out of these, three
universities are represented through case studies in this
Special Issue, including the University of São Paulo, number
one in the region, demonstrating that LCA is becoming a
strategic methodology in this area.
However, despite this proliferation, there are still many
challenges for the full development of life cycle methodolo-
gies in the LAC region (Hou et al. 2015). For instance, the
development of consequential studies is scarce while not non-
existent in the region, a circumstance that can be interpreted as
a weakness when supporting policy makers in certain sectors,
such as biofuels (Vázquez-Rowe et al. 2014). However,
Sánchez-Moore et al. (2016) set an interesting precedent in
the current Special Issue for the development of this life cycle
perspective in the region.
The combination of LCA and other life cycle methods with
other methodologies, such as multiple-criteria decision analy-
sis (MCDA), other management tools, such as data envelop-
ment analysis (Avadí et al. 2014), or spatial management tools
(e.g., GIS) (Escamilla and Habert 2015), is still performed in
very few cases, which hinders the potential utility of life cycle
methods in policy and business support. For instance, the use
of operational research, including MCDA, in combination
with LCA could imply a step forward in the optimization of
industrial and agricultural processes in the region (Azapagic
and Clift 1999).
Other life cycle tools, such as social LCA, life cycle cost-
ing, or life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) have been
developed in recent years (Benoît et al. 2010; Valdivia et al.
2013). There has been much talk about the methodological
structure of these relatively new methods, although their im-
plementation in actual case studies is uneven worldwide.
Int J Life Cycle Assess (2017) 22:469–478
However, despite the fact that the present Special Issue does
not cover studies in which these methods were applied, they
are slowly starting to be implemented with case studies spe-
cific to the LAC region (Luo et al. 2009; Franze and Ciroth
2011).
Finally, from a methodological perspective, the region
lacks experience when it comes to developing specific char-
acterization factors at a local and regional level, although cer-
tain experiences have already been developed for desertifica-
tion (Núñez et al. 2010). Nevertheless, global assessment
methods, such as the Impact World + method (Boulay et al.
2011; Helmes et al. 2012), have recently included regional
characterization factors for different regions at a global level.
4 Threats
The current economic downfall in South America, although
not extensive to the entire LAC region, may constitute an
important barrier for the consolidation of investment in life
cycle projects and studies. In fact, the lack of good economic
prospects may hinder the willingness of multinational compa-
nies to develop or expand their environmental sustainability
programs in the region (The Guardian 2015; Forbes 2016).
Another potential drawback could be linked to the insuffi-
cient number of LCA practitioners that are currently active in
the region. Although numbers vary from 4 to 18 practitioners
per 10 million inhabitants according to the results published
by Valdivia et al. (2016), these values are only available for
those nations in which a life cycle network has been imple-
mented, so it is plausible to presume that numbers may be
even lower for most LAC nations. Further capacity building,
which has already been implemented at different levels, with
the support of the Life Cycle Initiative (UNEP) and the na-
tional LCA networks, as well as the proliferation of life cycle
topics in master and doctorate programs across the continent,
appear as two solid ways forward to consolidate the know-
how needed to maintain and improve the utility of LCA in the
region.
Finally, it should be noted that in a globalized world, the
lack of investment in life cycle projects and databases in such
a vast continent rich in biotic and abiotic raw materials may
constitute a relevant limitation for the proliferation and quality
of other studies elsewhere that could benefit from these
databases.
5 Opportunities
Medellin will host the seventh International Conference on
Life Cycle Assessment in Latin America in June 2017 (i.e.,
CILCA 2017). This event will be of interest in order to iden-
tify if the increase in life cycle-oriented studies in Latin
475
America not only consolidates but also diversifies to a broader
number of industrial sectors. For instance, in the case of water
and wastewater treatment, LCA has proved to be a very useful
tool to aid policy makers and companies when it comes to
improving old plants or developing new ones (Corominas
et al. 2013; Niero et al. 2014). A proliferation of studies in
this sector, which are recently being developed at a national
level in many megacities across the region, as well as in solid
wastes, mining, or traffic, would definitely demonstrate that
the LCA community in the region is on the right track toward
integrating the main productive sectors and is managing to
expand and increase the number of active practitioners in the
region.
Despite a series of economic threats described above, new
opportunities, such as the H2020 or ERANET-LAC funding
schemes in the European Union, include substantial funding
for cooperative projects between European and LAC partners
(ERANET-LAC 2016; European Commission 2016).
Similarly, many LAC region national governments, such as
Ecuador (Prometeo), Peru (Concytec), or Chile (CONICYT),
have created or improved their national research funding
schemes in recent years, granting additional money to support
doctoral students, research programs, or incentives for re-
searchers to publish in international journals. Funding oppor-
tunities that have recently arisen are also linked to the Green
Climate Fund of the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate
Change, aimed at boosting investment funds for low-
emission and climate-resilient development, especially in de-
veloping and emerging countries (GCF 2016). The impor-
tance of many ecosystems in the region, and the need to pre-
serve them whilst controlling the sprawl of human activities, is
a crucial challenge in which life cycle tools may have a say
(Davidson et al. 2012).
Another window of opportunity arises with the prolif-
eration of the Product Environmental Footprints (PEFs)
for a wide range of products in different nations, namely,
in the European Union (European Commission 2013). A
pilot example of these is that of coffee, in which
European stakeholders are using European Union policy
developments to engage with other stakeholders in
coffee-producing nations, such as Costa Rica, Peru, and
Colombia (ECF 2016). This strategy allows the develop-
ment of a standardized method that all stakeholders can
use as a common way to identify the environmental pro-
file of coffee-based products and improve the perfor-
mance of these products, as well as allowing them to
communicate their environmental profile in a transparent
and reliable manner (ECF 2016). In this context, the
example of coffee can be an opportunity for other agri-
cultural products in the LAC region to improve their
environmental information and establish alliances with
wholesalers and retailers in the main consuming nations
in Europe.
476
6 Conclusions
The concepts of sustainability, competitiveness, and eco-
innovation have proven to be intimately related in the race
toward attaining a world that provides welfare within the de-
sired standards of sustainable development. Years of research
in North America and Europe have shown that life cycle ap-
proaches, such as LCA, can be key methods to help academia
and industries to foster the principles of sustainable develop-
ment. However, given the data inventory-intensive character-
istics of LCA, it is necessary to expand this know-how to other
regions of the world to account for the globalized economy
that we live in. In this context, the development of a strong
LCA community in the LAC region is of the utmost impor-
tance to guarantee an integral environmental understanding of
raw materials and products produced in this area of the world.
The Special Issue Life Cycle Assessment: a tool for innovation
in Latin America aims to be a small step in this direction,
publishing relevant articles presented at the CILCA 2015 con-
ference in Lima that can be of interest for policy makers,
regional industry, NGOs, and for LCA practitioners elsewhere
in the world who may use this Special Issue as an opportunity
to engage new partnerships in the region.
Acknowledgments The editing committee warmly thanks all contrib-
utors to this Special Issue, as well as Mary Ann Curran for her support in
the preparation of the issue. Sonia Valdivia and Jair Santillán are also
acknowledged for their administrative help in making this Special Issue
possible. The Red Iberocamericana de Ciclo de Vida (Ibero-American
Life Cycle Network—ILCN) and the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative
are thanked for their support throughout the organization of the CILCA
2015 conference.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no conflicts of
interest.
References
Arena AP, Piastrelleni R, Barón GN, Civit BM (2016) YUPI®, a regional
footprint calculator. Int J Life Cycle Assess. doi:10.1007/s11367-
016-1049-1
Avadí Á, Vázquez-Rowe I, Fréon P (2014) Eco-efficiency assessment of
the Peruvian anchoveta steel and wooden fleets using the LCA+
DEA framework. J Clean Prod 70:118–131
Azapagic A, Clift R (1999) The application of life cycle assessment to
process optimisation. Comp Chem Eng 23(10):1509–1526
Baumann J, Kritikos AS (2016) The link between R&D, innovation and
productivity: are microfirms different? Res Policy:45263–41274
Bell M (2009) Innovation capabilities and directions of development,
domain paper for innovation, sustainability, development: a new
manifesto, University of Sussex, UK. Retrieved from:
http://anewmanifesto.org/wp-content/uploads/bell-paper-33.pdf.
Last accessed: May 8th 2016
Int J Life Cycle Assess (2017) 22:469–478
Beltran AM, Heijungs R, Guinée J, Tukker A (2016) A pseudo-statistical
approach to treat choice uncertainty: the example of partitioning
allocation methods. Int J Life Cycle Assess 21(2):252–264
Benoît C, Norris GA, Valdivia S, Ciroth A, Moberg A, Bos U, Beck T
(2010) The guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products:
just in time! Int J Life Cycle Assess 15(2):156–163
Bossle MB, Dutra de Barcellos M, Vieira LM (2016) The drivers for
adoption of eco-innovation. J Clean Prod 113:861–872
Boulay A-M, Bulle C, Bayart J-B, Deschenes L, Margni M (2011)
Regional characterization of freshwater use in LCA: modeling direct
impacts on human health. Environ Sci Technol 45:8948–8957
BSI (2011) PAS 2050–1:2011. Specification for the assessment of the life
cycle greenhouse gas emissions of goods and services. British
Standards Institution. ISBN: 978–0–580-71382-8
Castanheira EG, Freire F (2016) Environmental life-cycle assessment of
biodiesel produced with palm oil from Colombia. Int J Life Cycle
Assess. doi:10.1007/s11367-016-1097-6
CECODES (2014) Aportes Empresariales a la Sostenibilidad. ISBN:
77706. Retrieved from: http://cecodes.org.co/site/wp-
content/uploads/publicaciones/Aportes-empresariales-a-la-
sostenibilidad.compressed.pdf (Last accessed: June 21st 2016)
Chargoy Amador JP, Palma Rojas S, Domínguez ER, Sojo Benítez A,
Suppen Reynaga N, Thomas de Benítez S (2015) Social life cycle
assessment and GBEP indicators of biofuels in Jamaica. Center for
Life Cycle Assessment and Sustainable Design (CADIS), August
2015
Cooke P (2011) Transition regions: regional–national eco-innovation sys-
tems and strategies. Progress Planning 76(3):105–146
Corominas L, Foley J, Guest JS, Hospido A, Larsen HF, Morera S, Shaw
A (2013) Life cycle assessment applied to wastewater treatment:
state of the art. Water Res 47:5480–5492
Davidson EA, de Araújo AC, Artaxo P, Balch JK, Brown IF, Bustamante
MM, Munger JW (2012) The Amazon basin in transition. Nature
481(7381):321–328
Dong Y, Wang X, Jin J, Qiao Y, Shi L (2014) Effects of eco-innovation
typology on its performance: empirical evidence from Chinese en-
terprises. J Eng Technol Manage 34:78–98
ECF (2016) The European Coffee Federation. Retrieved from:
http://www.ecf-coffee.org/ (Last accessed: June 9th 2016)
Eckerberg K, Nilsson M (2013) Environmental policy integration in prac-
tice: shaping institutions for learning. Routledge
ERANET-LAC (2016) ERANet-LAC—Network of the European Union,
Latin America and the Caribbean Countries on Joint Innovation and
Research Activities. Retrived from: http://eranet-lac.eu/ (Last
accessed: April 21st 2016)
Escamilla EZ, Habert G (2015) Regionalizing the environmental
impact of bamboo-based buildings by integrating life cycle
assessment with geographic information systems. A compar-
ative case study in Colombia. 10th World Bamboo Congress,
Korea 2015
European Commission (2013) COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
of 9 April 2013 on the use of common methods to measure and
communicate the life cycle environmental performance of products
and organisations (2013/179/EU). Official Journal of the European
Union. May 4th 2013. Retrieved from: http://eur-lex.europa.
eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32013H0179&from=
EN (Last accessed: April 21st 2016)
European Commission (2016) Horizon 2020: The EU Framework
Programme for Research and Innovation. Retrieved from:
https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/ (Last accessed:
April 21st 2016)
Folegatti Matsuura MIS, Dias FRT, Picoli JF, Garcia Lucas KR,
de Castro C, Hirakuri MH (2016) Life cycle assessment of
soybean-sunflower production system in the Brazilian
cerrado. Int J Life Cycle Assess. doi:10.1007/s11367-016-
1089-6
Int J Life Cycle Assess (2017) 22:469–478
Forbes (2016) How will Latin America’s economy perform In 2016?
Contributor: Nathaniel Parish Flannery. January 25th 2016.
Retrieved from: http://www.forbes.com/sites/nathaniel
parishflannery/2016/01/25/how-will-latin-americas-economy-
perform-in-2016/#40e6ed4f6c98 (Last accessed: April 21st 2016)
Franze J, Ciroth A (2011) A comparison of cut roses from Ecuador and
the Netherlands. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16(4):366–379
GCF (2016) Green Climate Fund. Retrieved from: http://www.
greenclimate.fund/home (Last accessed: June 9th 2016)
Hellström T (2007) Dimensions of environmentally sustainable innova-
tion: the structure of eco-innovation concepts. Sustain Dev 15(3):
148–159
Hellweg S, Mila i Canals L (2014) Emerging approaches, challenges and
opportunities in life cycle assessment. Nature 344(6188):1109–1113
Helmes RJ, Huijbregts MA, Henderson AD, Jolliet O (2012) Spatially
explicit fate factors of phosphorous emissions to freshwater at the
global scale. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17(5):646–654
Hertel TW, Golub AA, Jones AD, O’Hare M, Plevin RJ, Kammen DM
(2010) Effects of US maize ethanol on global land use and green-
house gas emissions: estimating market-mediated responses.
Bioscience 60(3):223–231
Hou Q, Mao G, Zhao L, Du H, Zuo J (2015) Mapping the scientific
research on life cycle assessment: a bibliometric analysis. Int J
Life Cycle Assess 20(4):541–555
IPCC (2006) Chapter 11: N2O emissions from managed soils, and CO2
emissions from lime and urea application. Volume 4: agriculture,
forestry and other land use. 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National
Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Retrieved from: http://www.ipcc-
nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/4_Volume4/V4_11_Ch11_N2
O&CO2.pdf. Last accessed: May 18th 2016
Iwaro J, Mwasha A (2013) The impact of sustainable building envelope
design on building sustainability using integrated performance mod-
el. Int J Sustain Built Environ 2(2):153–171
Kulay L, Sette Gripp V, Rodrigues Nogueira A, Anderi Silva G (2016)
Verifying the effectiveness of environmental performance improve-
ment actions in the chain of production of an agrochemical produced
in Brazil. Int J Life Cycle Assess. doi:10.1007/s11367-016-1108-7
Luo L, Van Der Voet E, Huppes G (2009) Life cycle assessment and life
cycle costing of bioethanol from sugarcane in Brazil. Renew Sust
Energ Rev 13(6):1613–1619
Meisterling K, Samaras C, Schweizer V (2009) Decisions to reduce
greenhouse gases from agriculture and product transport: LCA case
study of organic and conventional wheat. J Clean Prod 17(2):222–
230
Morales M, Quintero J, Aroca G (2016) Environmental assessment of the
production and addition of bioethanol produced from Eucalyptus
globulus to gasoline in Chile. Int J Life Cycle Assess. doi:10.1007
/s11367-016-1119-4
Niero M, Pizzol M, Gundorph Bruun H, Thomsen M (2014) Comparative
life cycle assessment of wastewater treatment in Denmark including
sensitivity and uncertainty analysis. J Clean Prod 68:25–35
Nishihara Hun AL, Mele FD, Pérez GA (2016) A comparative life cycle
assessment of the sugarcane value chain in the province of Tucumán
(Argentina) considering different technology levels. Int J Life Cycle
Assess. doi:10.1007/s11367-016-1047-3
Núñez M, Civit B, Muñoz P, Arena AP, Rieradevall J, Antón A (2010)
Assessing potential desertification environmental impact in life cy-
cle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15(1):67–78
Ochoa Sosa R, Hernández Espinosa A, Garfias Royo M, Morillón Gálvez
D (2016) Life cycle energy and costs of sprawling and compact
neighborhoods. Int J Life Cycle Assess. doi:10.1007/s11367-016-
1100-2
Ockwell D, Watson J, Mallett A, Haum R, MacKerron G, Verbeken AM
(2010) BEnhancing developing country access to eco-innovation:
the case of technology transfer and climate change in a post-2012
477
policy framework^, OECD Environment Working Papers, No. 12,
OECD Publishing. doi: 10.1787/5kmfplm8xxf5-en
Ockwell D, Watson J, MacKerron G, Pal P, Yamin F (2008) Key policy
considerations for facilitating low carbon technology transfer to de-
veloping countries. Energ Policy 36(11):4104–4115
OECD (2009) Sustainable manufacturing and eco-innovation: towards a
green economy. Policy Brief June 2009. Found at: https://www.
oecd.org/env/consumption-innovation/42957785.pdf (accessed
20.04.16)
Pujari D, Peattie K, Wright G (2004) Organizational antecedents of envi-
ronmental responsiveness in industrial new product development.
Ind Market Manag 33(5):381–391
QS Top Universities (2016) Available from: http://www.topuniversities.
com/latin-american-rankings (Last accessed: April 24th 2016)
Ribal J, Ramírez-Sanz C, Estruch V, Clemente G, Sanjuán N (2016)
Organic vs. conventional citrus. Impact assessment and variability
analysis in the Comunitat Valenciana (Spain). Int J Life Cycle
Assess. doi:10.1007/s11367-016-1048-2
Robèrt KH, Schmidt-Bleek B, De Larderel JA, Basile G, Jansen JL,
Kuehr R, Wackernagel M (2002) Strategic sustainable develop-
ment—selection, design and synergies of applied tools. J Clean
Prod 10(3):197–214
Rodrigues C, Freire F (2016) Environmental impact trade-offs in building
envelope retrofit strategies. Int J Life Cycle Assess. doi:10.1007
/s11367-016-1064-2
Roy P, Nei D, Orikasa T, Xu Q, Okadome H, Nakamura N, Shiina T
(2009) A review of life cycle assessment (LCA) on some food prod-
ucts. J Food Eng 90(1):1–10
Sala S, Farioli F, Zamagni A (2013) Life cycle sustainability assessment
in the context of sustainability science progress (part 2). Int J Life
Cycle Assess 18(9):1686–1697
Salas DA, Ramirez AD, Rodríguez CR, Petroche DM, Boero AJ, Duque-
Rivera J (2015) Environmental impacts, life cycle assessment and
potential improvement measures for cement production: a literature
review. J Clean Prod 113(1):114–122
Sánchez-Moore CC, Rodrigues Nogueira A, Kulay L (2016)
Environmental and energy assessment of the substitution of chemi-
cal fertilizers for industrial wastes of ethanol production in sugar-
cane cultivation in Brazil. Int J Life Cycle Assess. doi:10.1007
/s11367-016-1074-0
Schmidt M, Nakajima M (2013) Material flow cost accounting as an
approach to improve resource efficiency in manufacturing compa-
nies. Resources 2(3):358–369
SCORELCA (2016) SCORELCA. Retrieved from: http://www.scorelca.
org/en/index.php. Last accessed: May 8th 2016
Searchinger T, Heimlich R, Houghton RA, Dong F, Elobeid A, Fabiosa J,
Yu TH (2008) Use of US croplands for biofuels increases green-
house gases through emissions from land-use change. Science
319(5867):1238–1240
The Guardian (2015) 2016 will be a year of living dangerously for the
global economy. Contributor: Larry Elliot. Economics viewpoint.
December 27th 2015. Retrieved from: http://www.theguardian.
com/business/2015/dec/27/living-dangerously-2016-light-fuse-
impending-explosion-global-economy (Last accessed: April 21st
2016)
Torres CM, Antón A, Ferrer F, Castells F (2016) Greenhouse gases cal-
culator at farm level addressed to the growers. Int J Life Cycle
Assess. doi:10.1007/s11367-016-1068-y
Valdivia S, Ugaya CM, Hildenbrand J, Traverso M, Mazijn B,
Sonnemann G (2013) A UNEP/SETAC approach towards a life
cycle sustainability assessment—our contribution to Rio + 20. Int
J Life Cycle Assess 18(9):1673–1685
Valdivia S, Sonnemann G, Milà i Canals L (2016) LCA mainstreaming
conditions in Latin America-based on learnings from 2005 to 2014.
Int J Life Cycle Assess. doi:10.1007/s11367-016-1142-5
478
Vázquez-Rowe I, Marvuglia A, Rege S, Benetto E (2014) Applying
consequential LCA to support energy policy: land use change effects
of bioenergy production. Sci Total Environ 472:78–89
Vázquez-Rowe I, Kahhat R, Quispe I, Bentín M (2016b) Environmental
profile of green asparagus production in a hyper-arid zone in coastal
Peru. J Clean Prod 112:2505–2517
Vázquez-Rowe I, Kahhat R, Santillán J, Quispe I, Bentin M (2016a)
Carbon footprint of pomegranate (Punica granatum) cultivation in
Int J Life Cycle Assess (2017) 22:469–478
a hyper-arid region in coastal Peru. Int J Life Cycle Assess doi.
doi:10.1007/s11367-016-1046-4
Walley N, Whitehead B (1994) It’s not easy being green. Reader Business
Environ 36:81
Willers CD, Maranduba HL, de Almeida Neto JA, Rodrigues LB (2016)
Environmental impact assessment of a semi-intensive beef cattle
production in Brazil’s northeast. Int J Life Cycle Assess.
doi:10.1007/s11367-016-1062-4