The application of life cycle thinking in the context of European waste policy David Lazarevic a, b, * , Nicolas Buclet c , Nils Brandt a a Division of Industrial Ecology, Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), Teknikringen 34, SE-100 44 Stockholm, Sweden b Centre de Recherches et d’Etudes Interdisciplinaires sur le Développement Durable, Institut Charles Delaunay, UMR 6279 STMR, CNRS Université de Technologie de Troyes, Troyes, BP 2060, 10010 Troyes Cedex, France c Institut d’Urbanisme de Grenoble, UMR 5194 PACTE-Territoires, CNRS Université Pierre-Mendès-France,14 Avenue Marie Reynouard, 38100 Grenoble, France article info Article history: Received 27 April 2011 Received in revised form 16 January 2012 Accepted 17 January 2012 Available online 1 February 2012 Keywords: Waste management Policy Decision making Life cycle thinking Life cycle assessment Waste hierarchy abstract As the impetus of life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle thinking (LCT) in waste management policy is increasing, decision makers may face conflicting advice on the potential environmental impacts of competing end-of-life treatment options. This paper discusses the problem posed by the Waste Framework Directive, 2008/98/EC, where LCT is required to justify the departure of waste streams from the waste hierarchy. This paper places LCA of waste management systems in the context of applying ‘normal’ science to ‘post-normal’ problems. The current application of LCT in waste policy is reviewed in order to determine the epistemic basis to such applications. Furthermore, several cases are reviewed where controversy has surrounded the a priori purpose of applying LCT; the justification of a clear-cut solution to environmental problems. We show how the excess of objectivity, the social construction of knowledge and the playing out of actors’ games may limit the ability of LCT to offer an authoritative justification for the derogation of waste streams from the waste hierarchy. However, one of the major benefits of LCT lies in its ability to change actors problem perception. Hence, the application of LCT may be better suited to both the identification of areas of environmental impact and the positioning of waste management solutions further up the waste policy agenda. Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction 1.1. Life cycle thinking in the Waste Framework Directive The analytical tool life cycle assessment (LCA) and more recently the concept of life cycle thinking (LCT) have been gaining momentum in informing waste management policy. LCA is the “compilation and evaluation of the inputs, outputs and the potential environmental impacts of a product system throughout its life cycle” (ISO, 2006:2), whereas LCT is a concept which seeks to “identify possible improvements to goods and services in the form of lower environmental impacts and reduced use of resources across all life cycle stages” (European Commission, 2010:1). LCT has also been defined as incorporating the basic approach of LCA without the need for a detailed assessment of each process, using a range of reference data sources to identify trends in results and conclusions that are considered representative (DEFRA, 2011). Based on a cradle-to-grave approach and linking potential environmental impacts to the function of a system, the inherent ‘systems perspective’ of the life cycle approach makes it a valuable tool for assessing the environmental impacts of waste management options. Additionally, it enables one to identify the interaction of waste management systems with background systems (such as energy and material production) (Clift et al., 2000; Ekvall et al., 2007). Ekvall et al., submitted show this approach has been used to identify environmental impacts and/or benefits which include the substitution of: energy (potentially both heat and electricity) from waste incineration with energy recovery, virgin raw materials from the mechanical recycling of waste, fertilisers and/or fuel from the biological treatment of waste, and chemical feedstock from various pyrolysis/gasification techniques. However, whilst LCT and LCA have been gaining greater acceptance in the waste policy arena, several authors remind us of the limitations of applying LCA to waste management systems (Ekvall et al., 2007; Ekvall, 2009a; Finnveden et al., 2007; Morrissey and Browne, 2004). Further- more, at the policy level, there is doubt as to whether LCA can deliver what traditional political modes of problem solving expect (Bras-Klapwijk, 1998; Heiskanen, 1999). At the same time the life cycle approach has been gaining greater support at the European policy level, so too has the waste hierarchy. The Waste Framework Directive (WFD), 2008/98/EC (Council Directive, 2008), has made the waste hierarchy legally * Corresponding author. Division of Industrial Ecology, Royal Institute of Tech- nology (KTH), Teknikringen 34, SE-100 44 Stockholm, Sweden. Tel.: þ46 8 790 8761. E-mail address: dalaz@kth.se (D. Lazarevic). Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect Journal of Cleaner Production journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro 0959-6526/$ e see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.01.030 Journal of Cleaner Production 29-30 (2012) 199e207