Controversy and consensus: common ground and best practices for life cycle assessment of emerging technologies
20 affiliations
- 1Clean Energy Institute, University of Washington, 3946 W Stevens Way NE, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA
- 2National Laboratory of the Rockies, 15013 Denver W Pkwy, Golden, CO, 80401, USA
- 3Quantitative Sustainability Assessment, Department of Environmental and Resource Engineering, Technical University of Denmark (DTU), 2800, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark
- 4Environmental Engineering & Earth Sciences, Clemson University, Brackett Hall, Clemson, SC, 29634, USA
- 5Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, 5215 Wean Hall, Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, USA
- 6Carbon Direct, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
- 7Ramboll, 333 Bush Street, Suite 2500, San Francisco, CA, 94104, USA
- 8Helmholtz Institute Ulm (HIU), Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Helmholtzstraße 11, 89081, Ulm, Germany
- 9School of Mechanical Engineering, Purdue University, 585 Purdue Mall, West Lafayette, IN, 47907, USA
- 10School of Sustainability Engineering & Environmental Engineering, Purdue University, 500 Central Drive, West Lafayette, IN, 47907, USA
- 11Aftan Engineering, 839 Alleghenyville Rd, Mohnton, PA, 19540, USA
- 12Department of Civil, Architectural and Environmental Engineering, Drexel University, 3141 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA
- 13Department of Civil & Mineral Engineering, University of Toronto, 35 St. George Street, Toronto, ON, M5S 1A4, Canada
- 14NETL Support Contractor, Pittsburgh, PA, 15236, USA
- 15National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), Pittsburgh, PA, 15236, USA
- 16Department of Civil Engineering, Schulich School of Engineering, University of Calgary, 2500 University Drive NW, Calgary, AB, T2N 1N4, Canada
- 17National Laboratory of the Rockies, 930 D St. SW, Suite 930, Washington, DC, 20024, USA
- 18Build Neutral Inc., 850 11 Street Southwest, Calgary, AB, T2P 1P6, Canada
- 19Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, University of Notre Dame, 250 Nieuwland Hall, Notre Dame, IN, 46556, USA
- 20Department of Chemical and Petroleum Engineering, Schulich School of Engineering, University of Calgary, 2500 University Drive NW, Calgary, AB, T2N 1N4, Canada
Abstract
Public and private interest in life cycle assessment (LCA) has grown as environmental disclosure norms tighten, driving demand for decision-relevant assessment early in technological development cycles. Early-stage LCA has the potential to guide design choices, steer innovation, and mitigate lock-in of adverse environmental impacts. However, many aspects of early-stage LCA practice remain unsettled. We convened experts in a series of Faraday Discussion-style workshops to address recurring debates across six key topics for emerging technologies: appropriate use of LCA, uncertainty, comparison with incumbents, standardization, scale-up, and stakeholder engagement. For each issue, we present a declarative resolution, summarize key arguments for and against it, identify points of consensus, and provide recommendations. Across topics, the research network converged on practical priorities including framing studies to the decision context; setting minimum reporting expectations for data and study quality; and explicitly stating limits of transferability for scenario-based uncertainty assessment or analytically scaled-up projections. Disagreements persisted on when to formalize standards and how extensively uncertainty can/should be treated for low-maturity technologies. Supplementing the workshop findings with examples and context from relevant literature, we synthesize outcomes into a set of shared challenges and research priorities to strengthen transparent, evidence-based, and context-informed approaches for early-stage LCA.
Related
- Bioremediation of Heavy Metal-Contaminated Agricultural Soils: Mechanisms, Emerging Technologies, and Pathways to Field-Scale Application
- Emerging downhole sensing technologies for mineral exploration.
- Artificial intelligence-enabled monitoring of pesticide contamination in agricultural water systems: a comprehensive review of intelligent sensing technologies for water quality surveillance and environmental risk assessment
- Environmental footprint of High-Throughput Screening technologies for enzyme discovery and engineering: a Life Cycle Assessment comparison
- Evaluating environmental impacts of thorium extraction: A comparative study of solvent and electrosorption technologies using life cycle assessment (LCA)
BibTeX
@article{woodsrobinson2026controversy,
title = {{Controversy and consensus: common ground and best practices for life cycle assessment of emerging technologies}},
author = {Rachel Woods‐Robinson and Amila Abeynayaka and Michael Carbajales‐Dale and Hao Chen and Anthony Cheng and Gregory Cooney and Abby Kirchofer and Manish Kumar and Heather P. H. Liddell and Lisa Peterson and I. Daniel Posen and Sheikh Moniruzzaman Moni and Sylvia Sleep and Liz Wachs and Shiva Zargar and Joule A. Bergerson},
journal = {Journal of Industrial Ecology},
year = {2026},
month = aug,
doi = {10.1007/s44498-026-00100-5},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s44498-026-00100-5},
note = {CC BY},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Controversy and consensus: common ground and best practices for life cycle assessment of emerging technologies
AU - Rachel Woods‐Robinson
AU - Amila Abeynayaka
AU - Michael Carbajales‐Dale
AU - Hao Chen
AU - Anthony Cheng
AU - Gregory Cooney
AU - Abby Kirchofer
AU - Manish Kumar
AU - Heather P. H. Liddell
AU - Lisa Peterson
AU - I. Daniel Posen
AU - Sheikh Moniruzzaman Moni
AU - Sylvia Sleep
AU - Liz Wachs
AU - Shiva Zargar
AU - Joule A. Bergerson
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/08/01
JO - Journal of Industrial Ecology
DO - 10.1007/s44498-026-00100-5
UR - https://doi.org/10.1007/s44498-026-00100-5
AB - Public and private interest in life cycle assessment (LCA) has grown as environmental disclosure norms tighten, driving demand for decision-relevant assessment early in technological development cycles. Early-stage LCA has the potential to guide design choices, steer innovation, and mitigate lock-in of adverse environmental impacts. However, many aspects of early-stage LCA practice remain unsettled. We convened experts in a series of Faraday Discussion-style workshops to address recurring debates across six key topics for emerging technologies: appropriate use of LCA, uncertainty, comparison with incumbents, standardization, scale-up, and stakeholder engagement. For each issue, we present a declarative resolution, summarize key arguments for and against it, identify points of consensus, and provide recommendations. Across topics, the research network converged on practical priorities including framing studies to the decision context; setting minimum reporting expectations for data and study quality; and explicitly stating limits of transferability for scenario-based uncertainty assessment or analytically scaled-up projections. Disagreements persisted on when to formalize standards and how extensively uncertainty can/should be treated for low-maturity technologies. Supplementing the workshop findings with examples and context from relevant literature, we synthesize outcomes into a set of shared challenges and research priorities to strengthen transparent, evidence-based, and context-informed approaches for early-stage LCA.
SN - 1088-1980
SN - 1530-9290
ER -