System boundaries and input data in consequential life cycle inventory analysis

LCA Methodology


Goal, Scope and Background

A consequential life cycle assessment (LCA) is designed to generate information on the consequences of decisions. This paper includes a comprehensive presentation of the consequential approach to system boundaries, allocation and data selection. It is based on a text produced within the SETAC-Europe working group on scenarios in LCA. For most of the methodological problems, we describe ideal methodological solutions as well as simplifications intended to make the method feasible in practice.


We compile, summarize and refine descriptions of consequential methodology elements that have been presented in separate papers, in addition to methodological elements and general conclusions that have not previously been published.

Results and Conclusions

A consequential LCA ideally includes activities within and outside the life cycle that are affected by a change within the life cycle of the product under investigation. In many cases this implies the use of marginal data and that allocation is typically avoided through system expansion. The model resulting from a consequential life cycle inventory (LCI) also includes the alternative use of constrained production factors as well as the marginal supply and demand on affected markets. As a result, the consequential LCI model does not resemble the traditional LCI model, where the main material flows are described from raw material extraction to waste management. Instead, it is a model of causal relationships originating at the decision at hand or the decision-maker that the LCI is intended to inform.


Allocation consequential life cycle inventory analysis input data methodology modelling system boundaries 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Azapagic A (1996) Environmental System Analysis: the Application of Linear Programming to Life Cycle Assessment — Volume 1. PhD thesis. University of Surrey, Guilford, UKGoogle Scholar
  2. Azapagic A, Clift R (1999) Allocation of environmental burdens in multiple-function systems. J Cleaner Prod 7 (2) 101–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baumann H (1998): Life Cycle Assessment and Decision Making — Theories and Practices. Ph.D thesis, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  4. Baumann H (1996): LCA Use in Swedish Industry. Int J LCA 1 (3) 122–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baumann H, Ekvall T, Eriksson E, Kullman M, Rydberg T, Ryding S-O, Steen B, Svensson G (1993): Environmental comparison between recycling/re-use and incineration/landfilling. FoU nr 79, REFORSK, Malmö, Sweden (in Swedish)Google Scholar
  6. Berlin J (2002): Environmental life cycle assessment (LCA) of Swedish semi-hard cheese. Int Dairy J 12 (11) 939–953CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bouman M, Heijungs R, van der Voet E, van den Bergh JCJM, Huppes G (2000): Material flows and economic models: an analytical comparison of SFA, LCA and partial equilibrium models. Ecol Econ 32, 195–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cowell SJ (1998): Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Agricultural Systems: Integration Into Decision-Making. Ph.D thesis. University of Surrey, Guildford, UKGoogle Scholar
  9. Curran MA, Mann M, Norris G (2001): Report on the International Workshop on Electricity Data for Life Cycle Inventories, US Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, USAGoogle Scholar
  10. Ekvall T (1999a): System Expansion and Allocation in Life Cycle Assessment — With Implications for Wastepaper Management. Ph.D thesis, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  11. Ekvall T (1999b): Key methodological issues for Life Cycle Inventory Analysis of Paper Recycling. J Cleaner Prod 7 (4) 281–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ekvall T (2000): A Market-Based Approach to Allocation at Open-Loop Recycling. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 29, 91–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ekvall T (2003): Tools for consequential modelling. Poster presented at 13th SETAC-Europe Annual Meeting, Hamburg, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  14. Ekvall T, Finnveden G (2001): Allocation in ISO 14041 — A Critical Review. J Cleaner Prod 9 (3) 197–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ekvall T, Tillman A-M (1997): Open-Loop Recycling: Criteria for Allocation Procedures. Int J LCA 2 (3) 155–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ekvall T, Person L, Ryberg A, Widheden J, Frees N, Nielsen PH, Pedersen BW, Wesnös M (1998): Life Cycle Assessment of Packaging Systems for Beer and Soft Drinks — Main Report. Miljøprojekt nr. 399, Danish Environmental Protection Agency, Copenhagen, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  17. Finnveden G, Ekvall T (1997): On the Usefulness of LCA in Decision-Making — the Case of Recycling vs. Incineration of Paper. Presentation Summaries, 5th LCA Case Studies Symposium, Brussels, Belgium, 9–17Google Scholar
  18. Frischknecht R (1997): Goal and Scope Definition and Inventory Analysis. In: Udo de Haes H, Wrisberg N (eds) Life Cycle Assessment: State-of-the-Art and Research Priorities. LCA Documents, Vol. 1, Ecoinforma Press Bayreuth and ecomed publishers, Landsberg, Germany, 59–88Google Scholar
  19. Grubbström RW (1977): Decision and gambling theory. Studentlitteratur, Lund, Sweden (in Swedish)Google Scholar
  20. Hauschild M, Wenzel H (1998): Environmental Assessment of Products — Vol. 2: Scientific Background. Chapman & Hall, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  21. Heijungs R (1997): Economic Drama and the Environmental Stage — Formal Derivation of Algorithmic Tools for Environmental Analysis and Decision Support from a Unified Epistemological Principle. Ph.D thesis, Leiden University, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  22. Heintz B, Baisnée P-F (1992): System Boundaries. In: Life Cycle Assessment — Workshop Report, Leiden, The Netherlands, 35–52Google Scholar
  23. Hofstetter P (1998): Perspectives in Life Cycle Impact Assessment — A Structured Approach to Combine Models of the Technosphere, Ecosphere and Valuesphere. Kluwer Academic Publishers, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  24. ISO (1998): Environmental Management- Life Cycle Assessment — Goal and Scope Definition and Inventory Analysis. ISO 14041:1998(E) International Organisation of Standardisation, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  25. Kåberger T, Karlsson R (1998): Electricity from a Competitive Market in Life-Cycle Analysis. J Cleaner Prod 6 (2) 103–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mattsson N, Unger T, Ekvall T (2001): Marginal Effects in a Dynamic System — The Case of the Nordic Power System. Presented to the International Workshop on Electricity Data for Life Cycle Inventories, Cincinnati, USA, 2001.10.23-25Google Scholar
  27. Palmer K, Sigman H, Walls M (1997): The Cost of Reducing Municipal Solid Waste. J Environ Econom Manage 33, 128–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Steen B (1999): A Systematic Approach to Environmental Priority Strategies in Product Development (EPS). Version 2000 — Models and Data of the Default Method. CPM report 1999:5, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  29. Tillman A-M (1998): Use of LCA and its Implications for LCA Methodology. Handout, Environmental Engineering Research Event 1998, New South Wales, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  30. Tillman A-M (2000): Significance of Decision-Making for LCA Methodology. Environ Impact Assess Rev 20, 113–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Weidema BP (1993): Development of a Method for Product Life Cycle Assessment with Special bl]References to Food Products (Summary). PhD thesis, Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  32. Weidema B (2000): Avoiding Co-Product Allocation in Life Cycle Assessment. J Ind Ecol 4 (3) 11–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Weidema BP (2003): Market Information in LCA. Environmental Project no. 863. Danish Environmental Protection Agency, Copenhagen, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  34. Weidema BP, Frees N, Nielsen P (1999): Marginal Production Technologies for Life Cycle Inventories. Int J LCA 4(1) 48–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Weidema BP, Ekvall T, Pesonen H-L, Rebitzer G, Sonnemann GW, Spielmann M (2004): Scenarios in LCA. Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Brussels/Pensacola (in press)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Ecomed Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Energy Systems Technology DivisionChalmers University of TechnologyGöteborgSweden
  2. 2.2.-0 LCA consultantsKøbenhavn KDenmark

Personalised recommendations