Does What We Call It Matter? Why Terminology Shapes Understanding in Life Cycle Assessment
Technically sound LCAs often stall not because of calculation errors but because stakeholders read the same results through different assumptions and vocabulary. This post looks at how inconsistent terminology across ISO standards, software tools and sectors creates friction. Examples include assessment vs. analysis and elementary flows vs. substances. It also shows how structured facilitation helps stakeholders agree on terms early, so LCA results can move decisions forward.
Blog Author: Lise Laurin
Why Terminology Shapes Understanding in Life Cycle Assessment
Life cycle assessment (LCA) is often presented as a standardized methodology. In practice, it is shaped by sectoral norms, regulatory contexts, and institutional histories. As a result, one of the less visible but highly consequential challenges in LCA is terminology. What we call things, and how consistently we do so, directly affects how results are interpreted and whether they influence decisions.
LCA is frequently expected to bring clarity to complex questions. By quantifying impacts and making trade-offs explicit, it promises a more rational basis for action. Yet even technically sound LCAs can struggle to move decisions forward. This is not necessarily because the analysis is flawed, but because the assumptions and language surrounding the results are not shared or fully understood.
When Disagreement Is About Interpretation
Over time, I have observed that disagreements around LCA results rarely arise from calculation errors alone. More often, they stem from how results are framed, which assumptions are emphasized, and how different stakeholders interpret the same information through their own institutional, commercial, or regulatory lenses.
Two practitioners can look at the same results and reach different conclusions. One may focus on relative differences between scenarios, another on absolute values. One may prioritize methodological consistency, another real-world representativeness. These differences are not trivial, but they are also not always technical.
LCA necessarily involves choices, system boundaries, allocation approaches, data sources, impact categories, and time horizons. While these choices are documented, their implications are not always equally understood or accepted. When stakeholders come to an assessment with different expectations of what it should deliver, frustration and LCA fatigue can set in: more numbers, but little movement toward agreement or action.
Why Terminology Matters
One of the first things I noticed when I entered the field was how often different experts used different terms for the same concepts. For a relatively young discipline, LCA still carries a surprising diversity of jargon. Even today, when working with organizations or teaching LCA, a substantial part of the effort goes into establishing a shared vocabulary.
The distinction between Life Cycle Analysis and Life Cycle Assessment illustrates this well. ISO standards deliberately use “assessment” rather than “analysis,” because assessment implies interpretation and judgment, not just calculation. Analysis can end with impact results; assessment requires asking what those results mean and how they should inform decisions. If change is the objective, assessment is essential.
Inconsistencies extend further. What ISO 14044 calls elementary flows, essentially emissions and resource extractions, are referred to as “substances” in some tools and “elementary exchanges” in others. Even the term “flow” itself can mean different things to different practitioners. Similar inconsistencies exist for processes (or product systems), system (or aggregated) processes, recycling approaches, and modeling structures. These differences can create unnecessary barriers, particularly for those new to LCA or working across sectors.
Facilitation as a Bridge
This is where facilitation becomes critical. Structured dialogue creates space for stakeholders to clarify what they mean by key terms, what assumptions matter most to them, and how they interpret results. In many cases, stakeholders discover that they agree on most aspects of the analysis and differ only on a small number of definitional or interpretive points.
Facilitation shifts the focus from defending numbers to understanding perspectives. It also helps prevent technical language from becoming an obstacle to collaboration. Clarifying terms such as “baseline,” “allocation,” or “carbon intensity” early in the process can avoid misunderstandings that might otherwise derail productive discussion.
From Language to Action
In several of our projects, meaningful alignment emerged only after stakeholders engaged directly with one another around both the results and the terminology used to describe them. Often, the LCA itself did not change significantly. What changed was the shared understanding of its scope, limitations, and relevance, and that shift was enough to move decisions forward.
As LCA is increasingly used to inform high-stakes business and policy decisions, its social dimension becomes harder to ignore. Numbers remain essential, but they are rarely sufficient on their own. Language shapes interpretation, and interpretation shapes action.
Paying attention to terminology may seem like a small detail, but in practice it can determine whether LCA serves as a shared framework for dialogue or another source of friction. Speaking the same language even temporarily may be one of the most practical contributions LCA practitioners can make.
Explore how LCA can help you understand what matters most in your business.