What environmental constraints will materials have to face in the future? Can current
measurement tools like LCA (Life Cycle Analysis) support the choices of material and adapt
to these constraints to pave the way to a sustainable world? Are there some alternative or
complementary approaches to enhance the quality of information for decision makers? The
aim of this article is to provide answers to these three questions. The society of
tomorrow, in the second half of the 21st century, will be a society where the circular
economy will play a more important role and thus will help reduce materials waste. This is
a critical aspect of sustainability. To get there, the decisions have to be enlightened
and fair, because the decisions (or non-decisions) made today shape the world that future
generations will have to manage. Furthermore, Lord Kelvin used to say: “what you can’t
measure, you can’t improve”. Therefore, these decisions have to be supported by
measurement tools that will properly capture the stakes of reuse and recycling at the end
of life of products. Today, LCA is the common tool used to address this matter. However,
the present article has shown that LCA cannot incorporate the whole complexity of
sustainability. LCA is good at considering micro-scale issues, comparing one solution with
another, in a static approach. How can it give right directions to decision makers in
order to support the vision of a circular economy? The application of different standards
showed that it is not easy at all and that recycling product at their end of life are not
rewarded equally and sometimes not promoted at all. Therefore rebound effects leading to
contradictory decisions may occur. LCA alone is not enough to make enlightened decisions.
It should be complemented by other methods. This was proposed in the last part. Based on
the IPAT equation, this approach tries to capture different aspects that are not addressed
properly by LCA, due to the fact that the functional unit is too restrictive, that the
time dimension and prospective approach should be more integrated, and that it should
enlarge the scale of the analysis to the macro-economy and the socio-economy. It should
also recognize that the efforts have to be shared by different players including material
industry and manufacturers, policy makers and society in general. As a general conclusion,
we are convinced that tomorrow’s society will recognize the value of materials that are
recyclable and reusable, like steel has been for many decades. But there is still a clear
need to addressing, in research and development, the improvement of the metrics, combining
social, environmental and economic assessment, so that the sustainability value of
materials is properly measured. These are the objectives of the Sovamat Initiative and the
SAM conferences.