Author
Listed:
- Veridiana Souza da Silva Alves
(Industrial Engineering Department, São Paulo State University—UNESP, Bauru 17033-360, Brazil)
- Vivian Karina Bianchini
(Industrial Engineering Department, São Paulo State University—UNESP, Bauru 17033-360, Brazil)
- Barbara Stolte Bezerra
(Industrial Engineering Department, São Paulo State University—UNESP, Bauru 17033-360, Brazil)
- Carlos do Amaral Razzino
(Industrial Engineering Department, São Paulo State University—UNESP, Bauru 17033-360, Brazil)
- Fernanda Neves da Silva Andrade
(Industrial Engineering Department, São Paulo State University—UNESP, Bauru 17033-360, Brazil)
- Sofia Seniciato Neme
(Industrial Engineering Department, São Paulo State University—UNESP, Bauru 17033-360, Brazil)
Abstract
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a fundamental methodology for evaluating environmental impacts across the life cycle of products, processes, and services. However, selecting appropriate LCA software is a complex task due to the wide variety of tools, each with different functionalities, sectoral focuses, and technical requirements. This study conducts a systematic literature review, following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, to map the main characteristics, strengths, and limitations of LCA tools. The review includes 41 studies published between 2017 and 2025, identifying and categorizing 24 different tools. Technical and operational features were analyzed, such as modelling capacity, database compatibility, usability, integration capabilities, costs, and user requirements. Among the tools, five stood out for their frequent application: SimaPro, GaBi, OpenLCA, Umberto, and Athena. SimaPro is recognized for flexibility and robustness; GaBi for its industrial applications and Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) support; OpenLCA for being open-source and accessible; Umberto for energy and process modelling; and Athena for integration with Building Information Modelling (BIM) in construction. Despite their advantages, all tools presented specific limitations, including learning curve challenges and limited scope. The results show that no single tool fits all scenarios. In addition to the synthesis of these characteristics, this study also emphasizes the general features of the identified software, the challenges in making a well-supported selection decision, and proposes a decision flowchart designed to guide users through key selection criteria. This visual tool aims to support a more transparent, systematic, and context-oriented choice of LCA software, aligning capabilities with project-specific needs. Tool selection should align with research objectives, available expertise, and context. This review offers practical guidance for enhancing LCA applications in sustainability science.
Suggested Citation
Veridiana Souza da Silva Alves & Vivian Karina Bianchini & Barbara Stolte Bezerra & Carlos do Amaral Razzino & Fernanda Neves da Silva Andrade & Sofia Seniciato Neme, 2025.
"No One-Size-Fits-All: A Systematic Review of LCA Software and a Selection Framework,"
Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 18(1), pages 1-37, December.
Handle:
RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:18:y:2025:i:1:p:197-:d:1825615
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:18:y:2025:i:1:p:197-:d:1825615. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.