|
Description
|
Yet, the amendment text is not in line with his interpretation, as pointed out by us and by Schaubroeck et al. (2021). Even if the amendment text is not normative and just informative, consistency and correctness is needed throughout the complete ISO text. Moreover, we are worried by the implication that well-trained scientists interpreted in a different way a text that was intended to provide clarity. We consider ourselves as target audience of these standards, and these are apparently not as "crystal-clear" as Finkbeiner appears to think. Hence, it seems that the amendment has failed in its mission "that it should be clarified, that the "subtraction approach" can also be used as system expansion", as Finkbeiner phrases the amendment's "actual intention". A lost opportunity, after all. Let's hope that future ISO amendments are more consistent, and also understandable to the people who are not familiar with the ISO rules. Attributional & consequential life cycle assessment: definitions, conceptual characteristics and modelling restrictions. Sustainability 13, 7386. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137386 (2021-11-30)
***This entry has been automatically imported via OpenAlex by LIST harvest scripts. Please refer to https://doi.org/10.3389/frsus.2021.768194 for the original and latest version of the publication*** (2026-07-01)
|
|
Keyword
|
CLARITY, Normative, Interpretation (philosophy), Correctness, Consistency (knowledge bases), Amendment, Computer science, Law, Law and economics, Political science, Sociology, Artificial intelligence |