Real-Time LCA/LCC Integration: A Framework of Agile Sustainability and Cost Management

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors presented an article that proposes a conceptual framework for integrating Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Life Cycle Costing (LCC) in real time, with particular emphasis on the use of RFID and digital technologies to support more sustainable and economically viable decision-making within production chains. The work demonstrates notable strengths, including the relevance of the topic, the clarity of its methodological structure, and the consistency of its theoretical foundation. In the following, I will raise some questions that I believe remain open, with the aim of contributing to the improvement of the study.

 

In the section Materials and Methods, the authors discuss the incorporation of temporal variations in environmental and cost factors. How do they define the most appropriate temporal resolution (hourly, daily, seasonal) to balance analytical precision and computational feasibility? Furthermore, when using the SCOR model as a reference (2.2.2 – Digital Process Model), how do the authors intend to address situations in which parts of the supply chain lack sufficient data to feed the model in real time?

In the section Data Management, the authors emphasize RFID as the preferred solution for real-time data collection. How do they propose to overcome interoperability challenges with ERP/MES systems in supply chains that rely on different digital standards? In addition, although the technical feasibility of RFID is highlighted, it remains unclear how the environmental and economic costs of using this technology itself (production, chip disposal, energy consumption) would be accounted for within the LCA/LCC framework. Could the authors elaborate on this point?

In the section Results, the authors present relevant visualization tools (3.4 – Dashboard and Eco-Efficiency Portfolio), but without a case study. How do they plan to validate the practical usability of these dashboards in real industrial contexts? Moreover, when addressing strategic integration and policy development (3.5), the authors suggest that the obtained indicators can be transformed into corporate sustainability policies. How do they intend to ensure that these metrics are understood and applied by managers without technical training in LCA/LCC? Finally, considering that the framework is presented as applicable across different industries but requires significant infrastructure (sensor networks, ERP/MES integration), how do the authors envision adapting the model for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), which generally have more limited resources?

Regarding the references, I noted that approximately 65% of the citations used in the article are more than five years old. While these references are valuable for contextualizing the state of the art, this predominance of older sources may reduce the currency of the discussion, particularly in such a dynamic field as digital integration, IoT, and real-time sustainability management. It would be advisable to incorporate more recent works to strengthen the study’s relevance and timeliness, especially with respect to practical applications of RFID, IoT sensors, and dynamic LCA/LCC methodologies.

Author Response

Our response letter has been attached. Thank you so much for your reviews.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents an interesting contribution. However, several aspects require clarification and further elaboration before it can be considered for publication:

1. SSbD compliance: The authors should clarify whether and how the proposed methodology aligns with the principles of Safe and Sustainable by Design (SSbD).
2. Standardization issues: The authors should include information on existing and emerging standardization frameworks and how the proposed approach aligns with them.
3. Process simplification: The current approach may be complex. The authors should address how complexity could be managed in practice and whether the methodology can be simplified further.
4. Data requirements: The manuscript should clarify the types of data required and address potential issues related to data heterogeneity and the need for harmonization.
5. AI support: The role of AI should be elaborated. Could AI tools be used to support data integration, analysis, or decision-making within the proposed methodology?
6. Case study demonstration: The paper would be strengthened by a case study showing practical evidence on how the methodology components could be integrated using commercially available and/or open-source tools (e.g., openLCA).
7. Cost implications and SME uptake: The authors should elaborate on the potential costs of implementing the methodology. Considering that usually SMEs face financial and expertise-related barriers in conducting LCA, the paper should explain how these barriers could be overcome and whether this approach would facilitate uptake by SMEs.

Author Response

Our response letter has been attached. Thank you so much for your review.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents a conceptual framework for integrating real-time Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Life Cycle Costing (LCC) using RFID-based data acquisition and automated information flows. The topic is timely and relevant to the growing interest in dynamic and data-driven sustainability assessment. However, several critical aspects require further improvement before the manuscript can be considered for publication.

1. The manuscript remains at a conceptual framework level and does not provide any case study, experimental, or simulation data to verify the feasibility and effectiveness of the proposed “real-time LCA/LCC framework.” It is recommended to include at least one simplified case study to demonstrate the framework’s practical applicability.
2. The manuscript lacks sufficient technical implementation details, particularly regarding real-time data processing and the LCA/LCC computation mechanism. Although Section 2.2.3 emphasizes the integration of RFID and API systems, it does not explain how uncertainties in real-time data streams (e.g., sensor noise, latency, or missing values) are handled, nor how dynamic LCI/LCIA updates are realized within the LCA software (only a vague reference to “time-dependent characterization factors” is provided).
3. The normalization and eco-efficiency analysis logic is not aligned with the real-time nature of the proposed framework. The manuscript directly adopts static normalization equations from the EEA method, which rely on annual reference indicators such as GDP or GDEI. However, these static benchmarks are conceptually inconsistent with the temporal resolution of real-time LCA/LCC data, leading to a mismatch between the framework’s dynamic intent and its analytical foundation.
4. The manuscript lacks a clear explanation of the consistency between system boundaries and functional units. While it mentions that the functional unit is identical for both LCA and LCC, it does not specify how this unit is defined (e.g., per product, per mass, or per service) or clarify the life cycle boundaries applied (cradle-to-gate, gate-to-gate, or cradle-to-grave).
5. To strengthen the positioning of the proposed framework, the authors are encouraged to compare it with other emerging LCA paradigms such as automated and rapid LCA. Discussing how the proposed real-time dynamic framework complements or advances these approaches would clarify its novelty and practical contribution.
6. The discussion of challenges and limitations is superficial.
7. Uncertainty is presented as a key motivation for adopting dynamic assessments (e.g., using real-time data to reduce temporal bias), yet the manuscript lacks a systematic treatment of uncertainty itself. No quantitative analysis of parameter or scenario uncertainty is provided, nor are methods such as sensitivity analysis or Monte Carlo simulation discussed, which limits the robustness of the proposed framework.

Author Response

Our response letter has been attached. Thank you so much for your review.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors provided significant updates in the revised document. I believe it can be published in its current form.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors have revised accordingly and can be considered for publication.