カーボンフットプリントを超えて：気候サービスとライフサイクル持続可能性評価の橋渡し
Beyond the Carbon Footprint: Bridging Climate Services and Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (原題)
Uglješa Stankov, Miroslav D. Vujičić, Biljana Basarin, Milica Solarević, Angela Daniela La Rosa, Brindusa Sluser, Wei Wang, Konstantinos P. Tsagarakis
🤖 gxceed AI 要約
日本語
LCSA（ライフサイクル持続可能性評価）への気候サービスの統合状況を、26件の文献レビューと69組織のLinkedInプロファイル分析で調査した研究。既存研究は排出量・緩和策に偏り、適応志向や将来予測的アプローチは乏しく、気候サービス出力とLCSAを結ぶ標準枠組みは存在しない。著者らはシナリオ整合的予測・ハザードデータ・モニタリングデータの3つのインターフェースを提案し、基準設定機関や実務者への示唆を示す。
English
This study examines how climate services are integrated into life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) via a Scopus review of 26 studies and analysis of 69 LinkedIn profiles of life-cycle service organizations. It finds a strong emphasis on emissions and mitigation, with adaptation-oriented and prospective approaches rare and no standardized framework linking climate service outputs to LCSA. The authors propose three interfaces—scenario-consistent projections, hazard data for exposure analysis, and monitoring data for validation—and outline implications for standard-setters and practitioners.
Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.
📝 gxceed 編集解説 — Why this matters
日本のGX文脈において
SSBJ基準や有報での気候関連開示が進む日本では、Scope 3算定の先にある適応・リスク評価の高度化が課題。LCSAと気候サービスの接続は、統合報告書での長期レジリエンス開示を検討する日本企業に示唆を与える。
In the global GX context
As ISSB/CSRD and TCFD-aligned disclosure mature, the paper highlights a gap between mitigation-centric carbon accounting and forward-looking adaptation and physical-risk assessment. Its proposed interfaces speak directly to standard-setters and to the broader push for scenario-based, prospective climate disclosure.
👥 読者別の含意
🔬研究者:LCSAと気候サービスの統合ギャップを整理し、将来予測的評価の研究課題を提示する点が参考になる。
🏢実務担当者:Scope 3排出量算定に留まらず、適応・ハザードデータをライフサイクル評価に組み込む際の枠組み設計に活用できる。
🏛政策担当者:開示基準において緩和偏重を超え適応・リスク情報の標準化を促す論拠として参照できる。
📄 Abstract（原文）
Life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) evaluates the environmental, economic, and social impacts of products and systems, yet the systematic integration of future-oriented climate information remains poorly documented. Climate services, such as climate projections, early warning systems, and risk maps, offer a largely untapped source of such information. This paper examines how climate data and climate services are currently integrated into LCSA by combining a structured Scopus review of 26 LCSA-related studies with an analysis of 69 LinkedIn profiles of organizations offering life-cycle-related services. The review shows an emphasis on emissions and mitigation: 18 of the 26 studies are directly climate-related, mostly through emission-based impact categories, whereas adaptation-oriented and prospective approaches are less common, and no standardized framework links climate service outputs with LCSA. The LinkedIn profiles show a similar emphasis, with 30 of 81 coded climate-related mentions concerning measurement and quantification and only 8 concerning risk and adaptation, reflecting professional framing rather than verified practice. The paper proposes three interfaces between climate services and LCSA (scenario-consistent projections for time-differentiated inventories, hazard data for exposure analysis, and monitoring data for validating prospective assessments) and outlines implications for standard-setting bodies, climate service providers, research funders, and life cycle assessment practitioners. Article history: Received (October 27, 2026); Revised (October 30, 2026); Accepted (October 30, 2026); Published online (October 31, 2026)
🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース
- openalex https://doi.org/10.65984/ctbp5n69first seen 2026-11-10 05:07:27 · last seen 2026-11-14 05:15:22
🔔 こうした論文の新着を逃したくない方は キーワードアラート に登録（無料・3キーワードまで）。
gxceed は公開メタデータに基づく研究支援データセットです。要約・翻訳・解説は AI 支援で生成されています。 最終的な解釈・検証は利用者が原典資料に基づいて行うことを前提とします。