Critical review of guidelines against a systematic framework with regard to consistency on allocation procedures for recycling in LCA

  • Dieuwertje L. Schrijvers
  • Philippe Loubet
  • Guido Sonnemann
LCI METHODOLOGY AND DATABASES

Abstract

Purpose

Multifunctionality in LCA can be solved by several allocation procedures. Various official guidelines give divergent recommendations in which allocation procedure to apply, and up to now, no consensus has been reached. We aim to identify the obstacles to a consistent allocation approach that can be applied to all product categories and is supported by a broad range of stakeholders.

Methods

Based on a systematic framework for consistent allocation, developed by Schrijvers et al. (Int J Life Cycle Assess, 2016), we identify five review criteria that indicate the degree of consistency in the proposed allocation procedure of official guidelines. Several relevant guidelines, i.e. ISO 14044, ISO/TR 14049, ISO/TS 14067, the ILCD Handbook, BP X30-323-0, PAS 2050, the Greenhouse Gas Protocol, EN15804, PEF Guide and guidance documents for EPDs and PCRs, are reviewed according to these criteria.

Results and discussion

None of the investigated guidelines fully follows the systematic framework for allocation. Often, different approaches are recommended for co-products and recycled materials, although the boundary between these flows is not always clear. Many guidelines do not recognize the existence of different LCA goals; therefore, elements of attributional and consequential LCAs are often mixed. The market situation of the recycled material is not always taken into account, e.g. in the mandatory 50/50 method of the PEF Guide. The ILCD Handbook and the General Programme Instructions for the International EPD® System provide most consistent guidance. We argue that consistency does not require a one-formula-fits-all method, as this would favour some product categories and only responds to a certain LCA goal.

Conclusions and perspectives

A critical review of guidelines against a systematic framework for allocation of co-products and recycled materials shows that few guidelines propose a consistent allocation approach. The main obstacles for consistency are the different approaches for co-production and (different types of open-loop) recycling and disregarding of different LCA goals and recycled material markets. We recommend to include material specific guidance in Product Category Rules on the determination of market prices, quality determining factors and relevant material properties for different applications.

Keywords

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

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Solvay and the French National Association for Technical Research (CIFRE Convention No. 2013/1146) for the funding of the Ph.D. study of the first author and for their contributions to this paper. Furthermore, 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.

References

  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, Mathieux F (2014) Identification and assessment of product’s measures to improve resource efficiency: the case-study of an Energy Using Product. J Clean Prod 83:126–141CrossRefGoogle 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, Lund, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  6. BSI (2011a) PAS 2050:2011—specification for the assessment of the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of goods and services. BSI, LondonGoogle Scholar
  7. BSI (2011b) The Guide to PAS 2050:2011. London, United KingdomGoogle Scholar
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. Ekvall T, Finnveden G (2001) Allocation in ISO 14041—a critical review. J Clean Prod 9:197–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ekvall T, Tillman A-M (1997) Open-loop recycling: criteria for allocation procedures. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2:155–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ekvall T, Azapagic A, Finnveden G et al (2016) Attributional and consequential LCA in the ILCD handbook. Int J Life Cycle Assess 21:293–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eurofer, Eurometaux, European Aluminum Association (2013) Ferrous and non-ferrous metals comments on the PEF methodology. Brussels, Belgium. http://www.european-aluminium.eu/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Final-Metal-position-on-PEF-clean_25042013.pdf
  15. European Commission (2010) ILCD Handbook - General guide for Life Cycle Assessment - Detailed Guidance. doi:  10.2788/38479
  16. 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). Off J Eur Union 56, 4 May 2013Google Scholar
  17. European Commission (2014) Environmental Footprint Pilot Guidance document—Guidance for the implementation of the EU Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) during the Environmental Footprint (EF) pilot phase, v. 4.0Google Scholar
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. 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 1:1356–1360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Global Footprint Network (2009) Ecological Footprint Standards. Available at www.footprintstandards.org
  22. Guinée JB (ed) (2002) Handbook on Life Cycle Assessment: Operational Guide to the ISO Standards. Springer Netherlands, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  23. Heijungs R (2013) Ten easy lessons for good communication of LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:473–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Heijungs R, Guinée JB (2007) Allocation and “what-if” scenarios in life cycle assessment of waste management systems. Waste Manag 27:997–1005. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2007.02.013
  25. ISO (2006) ISO 14044—environmental management—life cycle assessment—requirements and guidelines. The International Organization for Standardization (ISO), GenevaGoogle Scholar
  26. ISO (2010) ISO 14025—type III environmental declarations—principles and procedures. The International Organization for Standardization (ISO), GenevaGoogle Scholar
  27. 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
  28. 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
  29. 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: http://www.intechopen.com/books/post-consumer-waste-recycling-and-optimal-production/modelling-of-recycling-in-lca
  30. 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
  31. 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
  32. 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. Research Triangle Park, N.C.: National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc.Google Scholar
  33. 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. http://lcacenter.org/lcaxii/final-presentations/603.pdf. Accessed 17 Feb 2015
  34. Pelletier N, Allacker K, Pant R, Manfredi S (2013) The European Commission Organisation Environmental Footprint method: comparison with other methods, and rationales for key requirements. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:387–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Plastics Recyclers Europe (2012) How to boost plastics recycling and increase resource efficiency? Brussels, Belgium. http://www.plasticsrecyclers.eu/sites/default/files/EuPR%20Strategy%20Paper%202012_0.pdf
  36. Schrijvers DL, Loubet P, Sonnemann G (2016) Developing a systematic framework for consistent allocation in LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess. doi: 10.1007/s11367-016-1063-3
  37. Suh S, Yang Y (2014) On the uncanny capabilities of consequential LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:1179–1184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Suh S, Weidema B, Schmidt JH, Heijungs R (2010) Generalized make and use framework for allocation in life cycle assessment. J Ind Ecol 14:335–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. The International EPD® System (2013) General programme instructions for the International EPD® system 2.01.Google Scholar
  40. The Product Category Rule Guidance Development Initiative (2013) Guidance for Product Category Rule Development, Version 1. http://www.pcrguidance.org
  41. Tillman A-M (2000) Significance of decision-making for LCA methodology. Environ Impact Assess Rev 20:113–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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. http://www.unep.org/pdf/Global-Guidance-Principles-for-LCA.pdf
  43. Weidema BP (2001) Avoiding Co-Product Allocation in Life-Cycle Assessment. J Ind Ecol 4:11–33Google Scholar
  44. Weidema BP (2003) Market information in life cycle assessment. Copenhagen: Danish Environmental Protection Agency. (Environmental Project no. 863). http://www2.mst.dk/Udgiv/publications/2003/87-7972-991-6/pdf/87-7972-992-4.pdf
  45. Weidema BP (2013) Guide to interpret the EU Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) Guide. 2.-0 LCA consultants, AalborgGoogle Scholar
  46. Weidema B (2014a) ISO system expansion = substitution. In: 2.0 LCA Consult. http://lca-net.com/blog/2014/09/. Accessed 10 Oct 2015
  47. Weidema B (2014b) Has ISO 14040/44 Failed its role as a standard for life cycle assessment? J Ind Ecol 18:324–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 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
  49. 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
  1. 1.University of Bordeaux, ISMTalenceFrance
  2. 2.CNRS, ISMTalenceFrance
  3. 3.Bordeaux INP - ENSCBPPessacFrance

Personalised recommendations