The 6th International Conference on Life Cycle Management in Gothenburg 2013 USE OF MULTI CRITERIA DECISION ANALYSIS TO SUPPORT LIFE CYCLE SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT: AN ANALYSIS OF THE APPROPRIATENESS OF THE AVAILABLE METHODS Marco Cinelli 1,* , Stuart R. Coles 1 , Kerry Kirwan 1 1 WMG, International Manufacturing Centre, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK * Corresponding author e-mail address: m.cinelli@warwick.ac.uk Keywords: multi-criteria-decision-analysis; sustainability assessment; data integration. ABSTRACT Main multi criteria decision analysis methods (i.e. MAUT, AHP, ELECTRE and PROMETHEE) were assessed with 10 criteria considered pivotal in sustainability assessments, from life cycle perspective and thresholds use to uncertainty management. It resulted that MAUT and AHP are fairly simple to use and have good software support, but can only uphold a weak sustainability perspective. Concerning ELECTRE and PROMETHEE, they can enforce strong sustainability concept, deal well with thresholds, support dynamic results re-evaluation, but suffer from rank reversal and are quite complex. Overall, the analysis has indicated that multi criteria decision analysis methods are appropriate for supporting life cycle sustainability assessment. INTRODUCTION Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA) represents a set of methodologies/tools that can cover different spheres, scales and objectives of sustainability (i.e. micro, meso and macro) (Cinelli et al., 2013; Zamagni et al., 2009). Multi criteria decision analysis (MCDA) is considered an appropriate set of methods for the “assessment of sustainability” (Gasparatos & Scolobig, 2012), and this study investigates how MCDA can contribute to LCSA, analyzing the main MCDA methods, namely multi attribute utility theory (MAUT), analytical hierarchy process (AHP), ELECTRE and PROMETHEE, on the basis of 10 criteria that they should satisfy to appropriately deal with problems concerning sustainable development. MATERIALS AND METHODS The analysis of the MCDA methods was performed with the following criteria derived and assessed from several sources (Antunes et al., 2012; Belton & Stewart, 2002; Benoit & Rousseaux, 2003; Buchholz, Rametsteiner, Volk, & Luzadis, 2009; Munda, 2005, 2008; Polatidis, Haralambopoulos, Munda, & Vreeker, 2006; Rowley, Peters, Lundie, & Moore, 2012; Sala, Farioli, & Zamagni, 2012; Teghem, Delhaye, & Kunsch, 1989): (i) inclusion of life cycle perspective; (ii) compensation degree among sustainability spheres; (iii) weights