Developing a systematic framework for consistent allocation in LCA

  • Dieuwertje L. Schrijvers
  • Philippe Loubet
  • Guido SonnemannEmail author



Multifunctionality in life-cycle assessment (LCA) is solved with allocation, for which many different procedures are available. Lack of sufficient guidance and difficulties to identify the correct allocation approach cause a large number of combinations of methods to exist in scientific literature. This paper reviews allocation procedures for recycling situations, with the aim to identify a systematic approach to apply allocation.


Assumptions and definitions for the most important terms related to multifunctionality and recycling in LCA are given. The most relevant allocation procedures are identified from literature. These procedures are expressed in mathematical formulas and schemes and arranged in a systematic framework based on the underlying objectives and assumptions of the procedures.

Results and discussion

If the LCA goal asks for an attributional approach, multifunctionality can be solved by applying system expansion—i.e. including the co-functions in the functional unit—or partitioning. The cut-off approach is a form of partitioning, attributing all the impacts to the functional unit. If the LCA goal asks for a consequential approach, substitution is applied, for which three methods are identified: the end-of-life recycling method and the waste mining method, which are combined in the 50/50 method. We propose to merge these methods in a new formula: the market price-based substitution method. The inclusion of economic values and maintaining a strict separation between attributional and consequential LCA are considered to increase realism and consistency of the LCA method.

Conclusions and perspectives

We identified the most pertinent allocation procedures—for recycling as well as co-production and energy recovery—and expressed them in mathematical formulas and schemes. Based on the underlying objectives of the allocation procedures, we positioned them in a systematic and consistent framework, relating the procedures to the LCA goal definition and an attributional or consequential approach. We identified a new substitution method that replaces the three existing methods in consequential LCA. Further research should test the validity of the systematic framework and the market price-based substitution method by means of case studies.


Allocation Consistency End-of-life recycling Multifunctionality Product environmental footprint Recovery Substitution 



We acknowledge Solvay and the French National Association for Technical Research (CIFRE Convention N° 2013/1146) for the funding of the PhD study of the first author and for their contributions to this paper. We thank Koen van Woerden for solving the first-order linear recurrence relation. Finally, we thank Bo Weidema and the two anonymous reviewers for their useful and important feedback, which has greatly improved the quality of the paper.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

11367_2016_1063_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (583 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 583 kb)


  1. AFNOR (2011) BP X30-323-0—repository of good practices. French agency for the environment and energy management, ParisGoogle Scholar
  2. Allacker K, Mathieux F, Manfredi S et al (2014) Allocation solutions for secondary material production and end of life recovery: proposals for product policy initiatives. Resour Conserv Recycl 88:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ardente F, Cellura M (2012) Economic allocation in life cycle assessment. J Ind Ecol 16:387–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Atherton J (2007) Life cycle management declaration by the metals industry on recycling principles. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12:59–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baumann H, Tillman A-M (2004) The hitch hiker’s guide to LCA—an orientation in life cycle assessment methodology and application. Studentlitteratur, LundGoogle Scholar
  6. Bouman M, Heijungs R, van der Voet E et al (2000) Material flows and economic models: an analytical comparison of SFA, LCA and partial equilibrium models. Ecol Econ 32:195–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brandão M, Clift R, Cowie A, Greenhalgh S (2014) The use of life cycle assessment in the support of robust (climate) policy making: comment on “Using Attributional Life Cycle Assessment to Estimate Climate-Change Mitigation ….”. J Ind Ecol 18:461–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bringezu S, Bleischwitz R (eds) (2009) Sustainable resource management: global trends, visions and policies. Greenleaf Publishing, Wuppertal institute, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  9. BSI (2011) PAS 2050:2011—specification for the assessment of the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of goods and services. BSI, LondonGoogle Scholar
  10. CEN (2012) Sustainability of construction works - Environmental product declarations - Core rules for the product category of construction products. EN 15804. Comité Européen de Normalisation, Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  11. Curran M (2007) Co-product and input allocation approaches for creating life cycle inventory data: a literature review. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12:65–78Google Scholar
  12. Dale BE, Kim S (2014) Can the predictions of consequential life cycle assessment be tested in the real world? Comment on “Using Attributional Life Cycle Assessment to Estimate Climate-Change Mitigation…”. J Ind Ecol 18:466–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. De Camillis C, Brandão M, Zamagni A, Pennington D (2013) Sustainability assessment of future-oriented scenarios: a review of data modelling approaches in life cycle assessment. doi:  10.2788/95227
  14. Dubreuil A, Young SB, Atherton J, Gloria TP (2010) Metals recycling maps and allocation procedures in life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:621–634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ekvall T (2000) A market-based approach to allocation at open-loop recycling. Resour Conserv Recycl 29:91–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ekvall T, Tillman A-M (1997) Open-loop recycling: criteria for allocation procedures. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2:155–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ekvall T, Weidema BP (2004) System boundaries and input data in consequential life cycle inventory analysis. Int J Life Cycle Assess 9:161–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Eurofer, Eurometaux, European Aluminum Association (2013) Ferrous and non-ferrous metals comments on the PEF methodology. Brussels, Belgium.
  19. European Commission (2010) ILCD Handbook—general guide for life cycle assessment—detailed guidance. doi:  10.2788/38479
  20. European Commission (2011) Roadmap to a resource efficient Europe. COM/2011/0571 final, Brussels, Belgium.
  21. European Commission (2013) Commission Recommendation of 9 April 2013 on the use of common methods to measure and communicate the life cycle environmental performance of products and organisations (2013/179/ EU). Official Journal of the European Union, Volume 56, 4 May 2013Google Scholar
  22. Finkbeiner M (2013) Product environmental footprint—breakthrough or breakdown for policy implementation of life cycle assessment? Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:266–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Frees N (2008) Reducing environmental impacts: aluminium recycling crediting aluminium recycling in LCA by demand or by disposal. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13:212–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Frischknecht R (1998) Life cycle inventory analysis for decision-making: scope-dependent inventory system models and context-specific joint product allocation. Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich, DissertationGoogle Scholar
  25. Frischknecht R (2010) LCI modelling approaches applied on recycling of materials in view of environmental sustainability, risk perception and eco-efficiency. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:666–671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Frischknecht R, Stucki M (2010) Scope-dependent modelling of electricity supply in life cycle assessments. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:806–816CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Galatola M, Pant R (2014) Reply to the editorial “Product environmental footprint—breakthrough or breakdown for policy implementation of life cycle assessment?” written by Prof. Finkbeiner (Int J Life Cycle Assess 19(2):266–271). Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:1356–1360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Guinée JB (ed) (2002) Handbook on life cycle assessment: operational guide to the ISO standards. Springer Netherlands, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  29. Guinée JB, Heijungs R, Huppes G (2004) Economic allocation: examples and derived decision tree. Int J Life Cycle Assess 9:23–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Guiton M, Benetto E (2013) Analyse du Cycle de Vie consequentielle: Identification des conditions de mise en oeuvre et des bonnes pratiques. Villeurbanne, FranceGoogle Scholar
  31. Heijungs R (1997) Economic drama and the environmental stage—formal derivation of algorithmic tools from a unified epistemological principle. Rijksuniversiteit Leiden, DissertationGoogle Scholar
  32. Heijungs R (2013) Ten easy lessons for good communication of LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:473–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Heijungs R, Guinée JB (2007) Allocation and “what-if” scenarios in life cycle assessment of waste management systems. Waste Manag 27:997–1005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hertwich E (2014) Understanding the climate mitigation benefits of product systems: comment on “Using Attributional Life Cycle Assessment to Estimate Climate-Change Mitigation….”. J Ind Ecol 18:464–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. ISO (2006a) ISO 14044—environmental management—life cycle assessment—requirements and guidelines. The International Organization for Standardization (ISO), GenevaGoogle Scholar
  36. ISO (2006b) ISO 14040: environmental management—life cycle assessment—principles and framework. The International Organization for Standardization (ISO), GenevaGoogle Scholar
  37. ISO (2012) ISO/TR 14049: environmental management—life cycle assessment—illustrative examples on how to apply IS0 14044 to goal and scope definition and inventory analysis. The International Organization for Standardization (ISO), GenevaGoogle Scholar
  38. ISO (2013) ISO/TS 14067—greenhouse gases—carbon footprint of products—requirements and guidelines for quantification and communication. The International Organization for Standardization (ISO), GenevaGoogle Scholar
  39. Klöpffer W, Grahl B (2014) Life cycle assessment (LCA)—a guide to best practice. John Wiley & Sons, WeinheimCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Koffler C, Florin J (2013) Tackling the downcycling issue—a revised approach to value-corrected substitution in life cycle assessment of aluminum (VCS 2.0). Sustainability 5:4546–4560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Laurent A, Clavreul J, Bernstad A et al (2014) Review of LCA studies of solid waste management systems—part II: methodological guidance for a better practice. Waste Manag 34:589–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Leroy C, Thomas J, Bollen J, Tikana L (2012) Tackling recycling aspects in EN15804 : the metal case. International symposium on life cycle assessment and construction, July 10-12, Nantes, France.
  43. Ligthart TN, Ansems TAMM (2012) Modelling of recycling in LCA, Post-consumer waste recycling and optimal production, Prof. Enri Damanhuri (Ed.), ISBN: 978-953-51-0632-6, InTech, Available from: recycling-in-lca
  44. Majeau-Bettez G, Wood R, Strømman AH (2014) Unified theory of allocations and constructs in life cycle assessment and input–output analysis. J Ind Ecol 18:747–770CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Manfredi S, Allacker K, Pelletier N, et al (2015) Comparing the European Commission product environmental footprint method with other environmental accounting methods. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20:389–404Google Scholar
  46. Merrild H, Damgaard A, Christensen TH (2008) Life cycle assessment of waste paper management: the importance of technology data and system boundaries in assessing recycling and incineration. Resour Conserv Recycl 52:1391–1398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. National Council for Air and Stream Improvement Inc. (NCASI) (2012) Methods for open-loop recycling allocation in life cycle assessment and carbon footprint studies of paper products. Technical Bulletin No. 1003. National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc, Research Triangle Park, N.C.Google Scholar
  48. Neugebauer S, Finkbeiner M (2012) The multi-recycling-approach as a new option to deal with the end-of-life allocation dilemma. In: LCA-Center. Accessed 17 Feb 2015
  49. Östermark U, Rydberg T (1995) Reuse versus recycling of PET-bottles—a case study of ambiguities in life cycle assessment proc. R’95 International Congress. EMPA, Debendorf, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  50. PE Americas (2010) Final report life cycle impact assessment of aluminum beverage cans. Boston, USA.
  51. Pelletier N, Tyedmers P (2011) An ecological economic critique of the use of market information in life cycle assessment research. J Ind Ecol 15:342–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Pelletier N, Ardente F, Brandão M et al (2015) Rationales for and limitations of preferred solutions for multi-functionality problems in LCA: is increased consistency possible? Int J Life Cycle Assess 20:74–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Peuportier B, Herfray G, Malmqvist T, et al (2011) Life cycle assessment methodologies in the construction sector: the contribution of the European LORE-LCA project. SB11 Helsinki World Sustain. Build. Conf. Helsinki, Finland, p 110–117Google Scholar
  54. Plastic ZERO (2013) Action 4.1: market conditions for plastic recycling. Accessed 10 Aug. 2015
  55. Plastics Recyclers Europe (2012) How to boost plastics recycling and increase resource efficiency? Brussels, Belgium.
  56. Plevin R, Delucchi M, Creutzig F (2014a) Response to comments on “Using Attributional Life Cycle Assessment to Estimate Climate-Change Mitigation ….”. J Ind Ecol 18:468–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Plevin RJ, Delucchi MA, Creutzig F (2014b) Using attributional life cycle assessment to estimate climate-change mitigation benefits misleads policy makers. J Ind Ecol 18:73–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Schrijvers DL, Loubet P, Sonnemann G (2016) Critical review of guidelines against a systematic framework with regard to consistency on allocation procedures for recycling in LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess. doi: 10.1007/s11367-016-1069-x
  59. Suh S, Yang Y (2014) On the uncanny capabilities of consequential LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:1179–1184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. The International EPD® System (2013) General programme instructions for the International EPD® system 2.01Google Scholar
  61. Thomassen MA, Dalgaard R, Heijungs R, de Boer I (2008) Attributional and consequential LCA of milk production. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13:339–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Tillman A-M (2000) Significance of decision-making for LCA methodology. Environ Impact Assess Rev 20:113–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. UNEP (2011) Recycling rates of metals—a status report, a report of the Working Group on the Global Metal Flows to the International Resource Panel. Graedel TE, Allwood J, Birat J-P, Reck BK, Sibley SF, Sonnemann G, Buchert M, Hagelüken C.
  64. UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative (2011) Global guidance principles for life cycle assessment databases—a basis for greener processes and products. UNEP/ SETAC Life Cycle Initiative, United Nations Environment Programme, Paris.
  65. Vigon BW, Tolle DA, Cornaby BW et al (1993) Life-cycle assessment: inventory guidelines and principles. EPA/600/R-92/245. United States Environmental Protection Agency, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  66. Vogtländer JG, Brezet HC, Hendriks CF (2001) Allocation in recycling systems an integrated model for the analyses of environmental impact and market value. Int J Life Cycle Assess 6:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Weidema BP (2001) Avoiding co-product allocation in life-cycle assessment. J Ind Ecol 4:11–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Weidema BP (2003) Market information in life cycle assessment. Copenhagen: Danish Environmental Protection Agency. (Environmental Project no. 863).
  69. Weidema BP (2013) Guide to interpret the EU Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) Guide. 2.-0 LCA consultants, AalborgGoogle Scholar
  70. Weidema B (2014) ISO system expansion = substitution. In: 2.0 LCA Consult. Accessed 10 Oct 2015
  71. Weidema BP, Schmidt JH (2010) Avoiding allocation in life cycle assessment revisited. J Ind Ecol 14:192–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Weidema BP, Bauer C, Hischier R et al (2013) Overview and methodology—data quality guideline for the ecoinvent database version 3. Ecoinvent Report 1 (v3). The ecoinvent Centre, St. GallenGoogle Scholar
  73. Werner F, Althaus H-J, Richter K, Scholz RW (2007) Post-consumer waste wood in attributive product LCA. Context specific evaluation of allocation procedures in a functionalistic conception of LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12:160–172Google Scholar
  74. Wolf M, Chomkhamsri K (2014) The “Integrated formula” for modelling recycling, energy recovery and reuse in LCA—white paper. Berlin, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  75. Worldsteel Association (2011) Life Cycle assessment methodology report. Brussels, Belgium.
  76. WRI, WBCSD (2011) Greenhouse gas protocol product life cycle accounting and reporting standard. World Resources Institute (WRI) and World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), USAGoogle Scholar
  77. Zamagni A, Buttol P, Porta PL et al (2008) Critical review of the current research needs and limitations related to ISO-LCA practice—deliverable D7 of work package 5 of the CALCAS project. ENEA, ItalyGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dieuwertje L. Schrijvers
    • 1
    • 2
  • Philippe Loubet
    • 3
  • Guido Sonnemann
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Université de Bordeaux, ISM, UMR 5255TalenceFrance
  2. 2.CNRS, ISM, UMR 5255TalenceFrance
  3. 3.Bordeaux INP - ENSCBP, ISM, UMR 5255PessacFrance

Personalised recommendations