Skip Navigation Links
Journal of Environmental Accounting and Management
António Mendes Lopes (editor), Jiazhong Zhang(editor)
António Mendes Lopes (editor)

University of Porto, Portugal


Jiazhong Zhang (editor)

School of Energy and Power Engineering, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, Shaanxi Province 710049, China

Fax: +86 29 82668723 Email:

Calling for an Integrated Computational Systems Modelling Framework for Life Cycle Sustainability Analysis

Journal of Environmental Accounting and Management 3(3) (2015) 213--216 | DOI:10.5890/JEAM.2015.09.001

Antonino Marvuglia$^{1}$; Enrico Benetto$^{1}$; Beniamino Murgante$^{2}$

$^{1}$ Luxembourg Institute of Science and Technology (LIST), ERIN - Environmental Research & Innovation Department, 41, rue du Brill, L-4422 Belvaux, Luxembourg

$^{2}$ School of Engineering, University of Basilicata, 10 Viale dell’Ateneo Lucano, 85100, Potenza, Italy

Download Full Text PDF



The implementation process of sustainable development goals poses considerable challenges to policy makers, as well as to scientists. This requires improving the knowledge on linkages between the key types of resources, the resources and the environment and the resources and the economy. The underlying challenges are inherently integrated and shall be pursued in combination. This calls for an integrated approach, which still suffers of a lack of cohesion in quantitative sustainability assessment tools and cooperation among different disciplines. A conceptual framework for life cycle sustainability analysis (LCSA) which could embrace life cycle thinking methods, stakeholders analysis supported by multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) and dynamic system modelling has been advanced by some authors, but it still lacks of operationalization. This is the right moment to tackle this challenge because of the shared consensus on the need, added value and feasibility of creating new LCSA methodologies and tools to derive consumer information, supply chain improvements and policy support. This special issue does not present a solution for an integrated operational framework, however represents an attempt to enhance cooperation of scientists belonging to different disciplines under the overarching umbrella of a lifecycle based perspective.


  1. [1]  Carla P. Gomes (2009), Computational Sustainability: Computational Methods for a Sustainable Environment, Economy, and Society. The Bridge, Fronteers of engineering, 39, 5-13.
  2. [2]  Cooper, J., Noon, M., Jones, C., Kahn, E., Arbuckle, P. (2013), Big Data in Life Cycle Assessment. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 17, 796-799.
  3. [3]  Cucurachi, S., Suh, S. (2015). A Moonshot for Sustainability Assessment, Environmental Science & Technology. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.5b02960
  4. [4]  Dye, C., McNutt, M. (2008), The Science of Sustainability, Science, 1499.
  5. [5]  EU (2013), Sustainable process industry. Multi-annual roadmap for the contractual PPP under Horizon 2020. European Commission, Luxembourg.
  6. [6]  European Commission (2011), Analysis associated with the Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe - Part II.
  7. [7]  Guinée, J.B., Heijungs, R., Huppes, G., Zamagni, A., Masoni, P., Buonamici, R., Ekvall, T., Rydberg, T. (2011), Life Cycle Assessment: Past, Present, and Future, Environmental Science & Technology, 45, 90-96.
  8. [8]  Halog, A., Manik, Y. (2011), Advancing Integrated Systems Modelling Framework for Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment, Sustainability, 3, 469-499.
  9. [9]  Heijungs, R., Huppes, G., Guinée, J.B. (2010). Life cycle assessment and sustainability analysis of products, materials and technologies. Toward a scientific framework for sustainability life cycle analysis, Polymer Degradation and Stability, 95, 422-428.
  10. [10]  Helliwell, J., Layard, R., Sachs, J. (2013). World happiness report. United Nations Sustainable Development Solutions Network.
  11. [11]  Hellweg, S., Milà i Canals, L. (2014). Emerging approaches, challenges and opportunities in life cycle assessment, Science, 344, 1109-1113.
  12. [12]  Hey, T., Tansley, S., Tolle, K. (2009). The Fourth Paradigm: Data-Intensive Scientific Discovery. Microsoft Research, Redmond, Washington.
  13. [13]  Jeswani, H.K., Azapagic, A., Schepelmann, P., Ritthoff, M. (2010). Options for broadening and deepening the LCA approaches, Journal of Cleaner Production, 18, 120-127.
  14. [14]  Lu, Y., Nakicenovic, N., Visbeck, M., Stevance, A.-S. (2015). Policy: Five priorities for the UN Sustainable Development Goals, Nature, 520, 432-433.
  15. [15]  Onat, N., Kucukvar, M., Tatari, O. (2014). Integrating triple bottom line input-output analysis into life cycle sustainability assessment framework: the case for US buildings, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 19, 1488-1505.
  16. [16]  Rotmans, J. (2006). Tools for Integrated Sustainability Assessment: A two-track approach, The Integrated Assessment Journal, 6, 35-57.
  17. [17]  Sala, S., Farioli, F., Zamagni, A. (2013). Progress in sustainability science: lessons learnt from current methodologies for sustainability assessment: Part 1. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 18, 1653-1672.
  18. [18]  SDSN (2014). An Action Agenda for Sustainable Development. SDSN - United Nations Sustainable Development Solutions Network.
  19. [19]  UNEP-SETAC Lifecycle Initiative, 2011. Towards a Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment. UNEP.
  20. [20]  United Nations (2014). Report of the Open Working Group of the General Assembly on Sustainable Development Goals (No. A/68/970).