Let’s be honest — conducting a comprehensive LCA comes with challenges. Data gaps, inconsistent methodologies, and supply chain blind spots can turn even the best intentions into frustration. If you have ever struggled with conflicting datasets or found yourself stuck in the modeling stage, you are not alone.
The good news? These challenges aren’t roadblocks — they’re opportunities to refine your approach and improve assessment reliability. Whether you’re navigating scope boundaries, handling supplier engagement, or interpreting impact results, practical solutions exist.
In this blog post, we are exploring the most common hurdles faced by all types of professionals working with LCA and showing how to tackle them like an expert, so you can make your assessments stronger, clearer, and more actionable.
Data availability and quality
One of the primary challenges in conducting a Life Cycle Assessment is dealing with the availability and quality of data. Reliable data is essential for producing accurate results, but in many cases, it’s difficult to obtain. Data gaps, particularly in emissions or resource use across lifecycle stages, are common. Additionally, the quality of secondary data, which is often pulled from external sources or databases, may not meet the standards needed for a thorough analysis.
Incomplete or unreliable data can lead to skewed LCA results, ultimately affecting decision-making processes. For instance, if data on energy consumption during a product’s use phase is missing, the resulting carbon footprint may be inaccurate.
To mitigate this issue, it’s important to use reputable and verified LCA databases to obtain secondary data. When gaps in data exist, conducting primary research (e.g., interviews with suppliers or on-site measurements) can provide more reliable results. Conducting an uncertainty analysis helps estimate outcome ranges based on data variability.
Complexity in defining system boundaries
Another significant challenge is defining the boundaries of the LCA system. A Life Cycle Assessment typically considers all stages of a product’s lifecycle — from raw material extraction (cradle) to final disposal (grave). However, the scope of what is included in an assessment can vary widely, and setting clear, consistent boundaries is not always easy.
For example, when assessing a product, you need to decide whether to include upstream processes, such as raw material extraction, or whether to exclude end-of-life considerations, such as recycling or disposal. These decisions can dramatically affect the results of the assessment.
To address this, define the product’s functional unit (e.g., 1 kg of material, 1 unit of service) upfront. Once the functional unit is established, you can determine which life cycle stages should be included. Using frameworks such as cradle-to-gate (production only) or cradle-to-cradle (including reuse and recycling) can help clarify system boundaries and ensure consistency across assessments.
Interpretation and subjectivity in LCA results
LCA results are often open to interpretation. Methodologies, assumptions, and categorization choices influence conclusions, sometimes leading to discrepancies. For example, classifying a product’s impact under climate change versus water usage or toxicity can shift how its environmental footprint is perceived. This subjectivity often causes confusion, particularly when stakeholders have competing priorities.
To reduce inconsistency, it’s essential to apply standardized guidelines. Aligning with established frameworks like ISO 14040 and 14044 helps create a common foundation for analysis. Sensitivity analyses can also highlight which assumptions have the greatest influence on results, allowing for more transparent discussions.
Another way to improve reliability is through third-party verification. Independent reviews help validate methodologies and ensure findings are based on sound data. Engaging suppliers early in the process can also lead to more accurate input data, minimizing guesswork. By strengthening these practices, LCA results become clearer, making sustainability efforts more actionable and credible.
Choosing the right LCA methodology
Choosing the correct LCA methodology is essential for producing reliable results. Different frameworks, such as ISO 14040/44, take distinct approaches to impact assessment and inventory analysis. The choice of impact categories — like global warming potential or eutrophication — determines which environmental effects receive the most attention.
The best approach is to align your methodology with your specific objectives. If climate change is the primary concern, selecting an approach that prioritizes global warming potential makes sense. If you’re evaluating water pollution, methodologies emphasizing eutrophication will be more useful. Consulting ISO standards and established best practices helps ensure your assessments are both credible and comparable.
Beyond compliance, a well-chosen methodology strengthens your findings, making them more actionable. A thoughtful selection process also prevents misinterpretation, allowing stakeholders to trust and apply your results effectively. Taking the time to refine your approach leads to more meaningful sustainability insights and better environmental outcomes.
Time and resource intensity
Conducting an LCA takes time and money. A full assessment requires collecting, analyzing, and interpreting data — a process that can stretch across weeks or months, especially for complex products. Costs can also pile up, from acquiring supplier data to using LCA software and hiring consultants.
Using LCA software to automate analysis speeds up the process. Pre-built LCA templates help structure data and generate results faster, reducing manual effort. Some companies also streamline assessments by starting with a screening LCA, which highlights major impact areas without requiring a deep dive into every detail.
Another approach is focusing on specific lifecycle stages, such as material sourcing or end-of-life disposal, rather than tackling the entire product system at once. By narrowing the scope, companies can gain meaningful insights while keeping costs and time commitments under control.
Variability in Life Cycle Impact Assessment results
Variability in LCA results often stems from differences in data quality, methodological choices, and underlying assumptions. Even when using identical datasets, analysts may interpret them differently, leading to inconsistent conclusions. These discrepancies can make it difficult to compare studies or draw reliable insights.
One effective way to manage this uncertainty is through sensitivity analysis. By testing different assumptions, datasets, and methods, you can assess how much variability exists and which factors influence the results most. This strengthens the analysis, enhancing transparency and credibility.
For example, adjusting emission factors for a specific material might reveal whether minor data shifts significantly impact the outcome. If results change drastically, it signals a need for more precise data or refined assumptions. Instead of viewing variability as a limitation, treat it as a tool to refine your approach, ensuring your assessments reflect reality as accurately as possible.
Limited stakeholder understanding and buy-in
Communicating LCA results to stakeholders unfamiliar with the methodology can be challenging. Whether you’re sharing findings with senior management, government regulators, or the general public, the way you present your assessment can determine whether your insights lead to action or get lost in translation.
Clear visualizations — graphs, infographics, or interactive dashboards — help simplify complex data. But visuals alone aren’t enough. Framing results in terms that resonate with your audience makes them more impactful. For executives, focus on cost implications and risk management. For regulators, emphasize compliance and industry benchmarks. For consumers, highlight product sustainability and emissions reductions.
Another common mistake is overloading reports with technical jargon. Instead, translate findings into plain language, providing real-world context. If stakeholders see how LCA insights connect to their priorities, they’ll be more likely to engage — and act. Strong communication turns analysis into meaningful change.
Overcoming LCA challenges and achieving accurate, actionable results
LCA challenges can feel overwhelming, but they are not insurmountable. With the right strategies, these hurdles become stepping stones to better, more reliable assessments.
An LCA is like a map — without complete data or a clear route, the journey becomes frustrating. But refining assumptions, conducting sensitivity analyses, and engaging suppliers transform guesswork into informed insights. Instead of seeing inconsistencies as obstacles, view them as opportunities to refine your model and uncover more precise sustainability impacts.
Efficiency is another factor. LCA software and streamlined methodologies reduce time and resource intensity without sacrificing depth. A screening LCA identifies key impact areas before diving into a full assessment. The key is balancing rigor with practicality — delivering insights that are both actionable and accessible to stakeholders.
Most importantly, communication makes or breaks an LCA’s influence. Translating technical findings into meaningful narratives ensures decision-makers can act on them. The more transparent and practical the results, the greater the impact on sustainability strategies. Addressing these challenges head-on doesn’t just improve your LCAs — it strengthens the foundation for smarter, more sustainable decisions.
Now that you know how to overcome these LCA challenges, how about maximizing the impact of your LCA? Learn the 8 key benefits that make businesses more sustainable and competitive.
