S.

No BARRIERS IN LCA EXPLANATION REFERENCE

1 Lack of LCA dedicated method to decide There is not a single Bhander, Hauschild,
ambit and conduct of LCA study agreed-upon method and McAloone
to conduct an LCA. 2003;Heidrich and
Moreover, users are Tiwary 2013
not always clear how
LCA fits in as
associated with other
available
environmental
management tools.
The SMEs also face
dearth of methods to
decide on the scope
of the study or
adequate
representation of
system boundary

2 Lack of LCA expertise or know-how The absence of Cha and Suh 2011;
knowledge base to Heidrich and Tiwary
conduct and 2013
comprehend LCA is a
problem in developing
economies for
manufacturing
enterprises. The
problem to
communicate
potential results and
benefits of LCA also
exist in developing
nations.

3 Lack of financial resources There is a postulation Testa et al. 2017

that LCA is expensive
due to the wide need
for records and
proficiency. This is
particularly correct for
emerging nations and
manufacturing
industries. Besides,
ISO requirement for
the appraisal of
methods and
procedure can
enhance the cost of
LCA implementation.

4 Integration shop floor activities with the Effective integration Clark and De Leeuw
 information system of industry of LCA methodology 1999; Shin et al. 2017
at production shop
floor level can
contribute to the
successful execution
of LCA. The
integration will assist
in the collection of
real-time authentic
data and prompts
organisations
members for LCA
success. In house
information sharing
through the
integration of
activities can help to
support process or
product development
and formation of the
effective
environmental
management system.

5 Lack of education and training of LCA investigator Rossi, Germani, and

employee on environmental should have a Zamagni 2016;
management comprehensive Marconi and Favi
understanding of 2020
manufacturing
process flow,
environment
interactions, and LCA
methodology for
effective
implementation of
this environmental
impact assessment
tool. The lack of
knowledge and
training on
environmental and
LCA methodology
leads to inappropriate
and non-credible
results.

6 Resistive culture of the organisation The endorsement and Da Incognito et al.

implementation of a 2015
life cycle thinking
culture in
manufacturing is to a
 large extent also a
matter of
organisational and
social change. By
making LCA accessible
and understandable
at the shop-floor,
staffs themselves are
proactively included in
sustainability issues so
that it becomes part
of working culture and
continuous
improvement
processes. So, the
resistive culture of
organisation members
defers the inclusion of
LCA pro activities in
the organisations that
leads to failure of LCA
at shop floor of
manufacturing
enterprises.

7 Lack of management support The decisive power to Clark and De Leeuw

adopt or implement a 1999
new approach lies
with top management
of an organisation.
LCA is a capital
intensive, it demands
purchase for new
software, expert
knowledge, and real-
time effective data
collection. So
management support
is highly appreciable
to get effective LCA
results.

8 Link of green technologies with Effective LCA Bojarski et al. 2009

organisational objectives execution demands
implementing
industry must interact
effectively with
internal and external
resources. This can be
established by
embedding green
 technology aspects
with organisational
objectives. Linking the
organisation
objectives with green
aspects prompts
members to assess,
collect, and estimate
different wastes and
environmental
measures that work as
an effective database
for LCA.

9 Lack of effective data assimilation The quality of data Heidrich and Tiwary
and its accessibility 2013;Farooque et al.
are the major 2020
bottlenecks for LCA
execution. Reporting
and exchange of data
even become more
monotonous when a
business run across
different nations as
the global supply
chain is often more
fragmented.

10 Lack of team effort across supply chain The effective Testa et al. 2016
partners to collect effective data management of the
supply chain of the
product, resource
management, and
real-time authentic
data sharing are
prerequisite to realise
full throttle of LCA.
This demand for
effective
communication,
mutual trust, and
ounce for LCA success
among supply chain
partners. This can be
obtained when all
partner of SC works as
a team. Lack of
confidence and
deficiency in rigour
pursuits will not
realise effective LCA
 execution.

11 Artificiality of the process (Norman, 1990)

12 Lack of software tools ( D'Incognito et al.,
2015)
13 Lack of common methods in calculating (Higham et al., 2015),
LCC ( D'Incognito et al.,
2015)
14 Lack of industrial standards for reporting (Higham et al., 2015),
the LCC (Heralova, 2017),
15 Lack of regional and global consensus (Cole and Sterner,
2000)
16 Lack of transparency in calculations (Olubodun et al.,
2010), (Bruce-Hyrkas
et al., 2018)
17 Need of employers to budget within (Higham et al., 2015)
short-term horizons
18 Difficulties in arriving conclusions on LCC (El-Haram et al., 2002)
process of a building
19 Lack of adjustable personal parameters (Dale, 1993)
20 Technological barriers ( D'Incognito et al.,
2015),