A Theoretical Foundation for Life‐Cycle Assessment

摘要: Summary The presence of value judgments in life-cycle impact assessment (LCIA) has been a constant source controversy. According to common interpretation, the international standard on LCIA requires that methods used published comparisons be “value free.” Epistemologists argue even natural science rests “constitutive” and “contextual” judgments. The example equivalency potential for climate change, global warming (GWP), demonstrates any method inevitably contains not only constitutive contextual values, but also preference values. Hence, neither (LCA) as whole nor its steps can As result, we suggest more comprehensive definition objectivity LCA allows arguments about values their relationship facts. We distinguish three types truth claims: factual claims, which are based science; normative refer values; relational address proper relation between knowledge Every method, GWP, each type claim. Rational made Factual claims assessed using scientific method. Normative ethical arguments. individuals or groups elicited various social methods. Relational must follow rules logic. most important development Because LCAs conducted satisfy need decision makers consider environmental impacts, should this goal. This article introduces conditions affect making discusses how LCA—values all—can defended rational response challenge moving uncertain information into policy arena.