Consequential life cycle assessment: a review




Over the past two decades, consequential life cycle assessment (CLCA) has emerged as a modeling approach for capturing environmental impacts of product systems beyond physical relationships accounted for in attributional LCA (ALCA). Put simply, CLCA represents the convergence of LCA and economic modeling approaches.


In this study, a systematic literature review of CLCA is performed.


While initial efforts to integrate the two modeling methods relied on simple partial equilibrium (PE) modeling and a heuristic approach to determining affected technologies, more recent techniques incorporate sophisticated economic models for this purpose. In the last 3 years, Multi-Market, Multi-Regional PE Models and Computable General Equilibrium models have been used. Moreover, the incorporation of other economic notions into CLCA, such as rebound effects and experience curves, has been the focus of later research. Since economic modeling can play a prominent role in national policy-making and strategic/corporate environmental planning, developing the capacity to operate LCA concurrent to, or integrated with, these models is of growing importance.


This paper outlines the historical development of such efforts in CLCA, discusses key methodological advancements, and characterizes previous literature on the topic. Based on this review, we provide an outlook for further research in CLCA.


Experience curves CLCA Partial equilibrium modeling Computable general equilibrium modeling Consequential life cycle assessment Rebound effects 


  1. Adams D, Alig R, McCarl B et al. (2005) FASOMGHG Conceptual Structure and Specification: Documentation. Retrieved September 28, 2010 from:
  2. Argote L, Epple D (1990) Learning curves in manufacturing. Science 247:920–924CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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
  4. Dalgaard R, Schmidt J, Halberg N, Christensen P, Thrane M, Pengue WA (2008) LCA of soybean meal. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(3):240–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Earles JM, Halog A (2010a) Partial Equilibrium Modeling and LCA in the Forest Biorefinery Context. Proceedings from Cycle 2010—4th Canadian Forum on the Life Cycle Management of Products and Services. Presented on May 4th, 2010Google Scholar
  6. Earles JM, Halog A (2010b) Integrating Partial Equilibrium Modeling and LCA in the Forest Biorefinery Context. Proceedings from Life Cycle Assessment X Conference. Presented on November 3 rd, 2010. <>
  7. Ekvall T (2000) A market-based approach to allocation at open-loop recycling. Resour Conserv Recycl 29(1–2):91–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ekvall T (2002) Cleaner production tools: LCA and beyond. J Clean Prod 10(5):403–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ekvall T, Andrae A (2006) Attributional and consequential environmental assessment of the shift to lead-free solders. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(5):344–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ekvall T, Weidema B (2004) System boundaries and input data in consequential life cycle inventory analysis. Int J Life Cycle Assess 3:161–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eriksson O, Finnveden G, Ekvall T, Bjorklund A (2007) Life cycle assessment of fuels for district heating: a comparison of waste incineration, biomass- and natural gas combustion. Energy Policy 35(2):1346–1362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Francois JF, Hall HK (1997) Partial equilibrium modeling. In: Francois J, Reinert K (eds) Applied methods for trade policy analysis, 1st edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 122–155Google Scholar
  13. Frees N (2008) Crediting aluminium recycling in LCA by demand or by disposal. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(3):212–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gallego A, Rodriguez L, Hospido A, Moreira MT, Feijoo G (2010) Development of regional characterization factors for aquatic eutrophication. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:32–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Halog A, Manik Y (2011) Advancing integrated system modeling framework for life cycle sustainability assessment. Sustainability 3(2):469–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hofstetter P, Norris GA (2003) Why and how should we assess occupational health impacts in integrated product policy? Environ Sci Technol 37(10):2025–2035CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kløverpris J (2009) Identification of biomes affected by marginal expansion of agricultural land use induced by increased crop consumption. J Clean Prod 17(4):463–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kløverpris J, Wenzel H, Nielsen P (2008) Life cycle inventory modeling of land use induced by crop consumption part 1: conceptual analysis and methodological proposal. In J Life Cycle Assess 13(1):12–21Google Scholar
  19. Kløverpris JH, Baltzer K, Nielsen PH (2010) Life cycle inventory modelling of land use induced by crop consumption part 2: example of wheat consumption in Brazil, China, Denmark and the USA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:90–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lesage P, Ekvall T, Deschenes L, Samson RJ (2007) Environmental assessment of brownfield rehabilitation using two different life cycle inventory models: part 1. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12(7):497–513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lesage P, Ekvall T, Deschenes L, Samson, RJ (2007b) Environmental assessment of brownfield rehabilitation using two different life cycle inventory models: part 2. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12(7):497–513Google Scholar
  22. Marshall A (1920) Principles of Economics. Library of Economics and Liberty. Retrieved September 28, 2010 from:
  23. Palmer K, Sigman H, Walls M (1997) The cost of reducing municipal solid waste. J Environ Econ Manage 33:128–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pehnt M, Oeser M, Swider DJ (2008) Consequential environmental system analysis of expected offshore wind electricity production in Germany. Energy 33(5):747–759CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Reinhard J, Zah R (2009) Global environmental consequences of increased biodiesel consumption in Switzerland: consequential life cycle assessment. J Clean Prod 17(S1):46–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Roningen VO (1997) Multi-market, multi-region partial equilibrium modeling. In: Francois J, Reinert K (eds) Applied methods for trade policy analysis, 1st edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 231–257Google Scholar
  27. Sanden BA, Karlstrom M (2007) Positive and negative feedback in consequential life-cycle assessment. J Clean Prod 15(15):1469–1481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Schmidt JH (2008) System delimitation in agricultural consequential LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(4):350–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Schmidt JH, Weidema B (2008) Shift in the marginal supply of vegetable oil. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(3):235–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schmidt JH, Holm P, Merrild A, Christensen P (2007) Life cycle assessment of the waste hierarchy—a Danish case study on waste paper. Waste Manage 27(11):1519–1530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Searchinger T, Heimlich R, Houghton R, Dong F, Elobeid A, Fabiosa J, Tokgoz S, Hayes D, Yu T (2008) Use of U.S. croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land-use change. Science 319(5867):1238–1240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Silalertruksa T, Gheewala SH, Sagisaka M (2009) Impacts of Thai bio-ethanol policy target on land use and greenhouse gas emissions. Appl Energy 86:S170–S177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Spielmann M, de Haan P, Scholz RW (2008) Environmental rebound effects of high-speed transport technologies: a case study of climate change rebound effects of a future underground maglev train system. J Clean Prod 16(13):1388–1398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Steinberger JK, Friot D, Jolliet O, Erkman S (2009) A spatially explicit life cycle inventory of the global textile chain. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14:443–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Thiesen J, Christensen T, Kristensen T, Andersen R, Brunoe B, Gregersen T, Thrane M, Weidema B (2008) Rebound effects of price differences. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(2):104–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Thomassen M, Dalgaard R, Heijungs R, de Boer I (2008) Attributional and consequential LCA of milk production. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(4):339–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Thrane M (2006) LCA of Danish fish products: new methods and insights. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(1):66–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tillman A-M, Baumann H, Eriksson E, Rydberg T (1991) Life cycle analysis of packaging materials. Calculation of environmental load. Chalmers Industriteknik, GöteborgGoogle Scholar
  39. Tillman A-M, Svingby H, Lundstrom H (1998) Life cycle assessment of municipal waste water systems. Int J Life Cycle Assess 3(3):145–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tillman A-M (2000) Significance of decision making for LCA methodology. Environ Impact Assess Rev 20:113–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. US EPA (2010) Renewable Fuel Standard Program (RFS2) Regulatory Impact Analysis. EPA-420-R-10-006. February, 2010Google Scholar
  42. Vieira PS, Horvath A (2008) Assessing the end-of-life impacts of buildings. Environ Sci Technol 42(13):4663–4669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Vigon BW, Tolle DA, Cornaby BW et al. (1993) Life cycle assessment: Inventory guidelines and principles. Washington D.C. & Cincinnati: United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development. (EPA/600/R-92/245)Google Scholar
  44. Wegener Sleeswijk A, Heijungs R (2010) GLOBOX: a spatially differentiated global fate, intake and effect model for toxicity assessment in LCA. Sci Total Environ 408(14):2817–2832CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Weidema BP (1993) Market aspects in product life cycle inventory methodology. J Clean Prod 1(3–4):161–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Weidema BP (2003) Market information in life cycle assessment. Copenhagen: Danish Environmental Protection Agency. (Environmental Project no. 863):
  47. Weidema BP, Frees N, Nielsen A (1999) Marginal production technologies for life cycle inventories. Int J Life Cycle Assess 4(1):48–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Zamagni A, Buttol P, Porta PL, Buonamici R, Masoni P, Guinée J, Heijungs R, Ekvall T, Bersani R, Biekowska A, Pretato U (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:

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of MaineOronoUSA

Personalised recommendations