Skip to main content

Developing a systematic framework for consistent allocation in LCA

The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment volume 21, pages 976–993 (2016)Cite this article

Abstract

Purpose

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.

Methods

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

References

  • AFNOR (2011) BP X30-323-0—repository of good practices. French agency for the environment and energy management, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 88:1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ardente F, Cellura M (2012) Economic allocation in life cycle assessment. J Ind Ecol 16:387–398

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atherton J (2007) Life cycle management declaration by the metals industry on recycling principles. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12:59–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumann H, Tillman A-M (2004) The hitch hiker’s guide to LCA—an orientation in life cycle assessment methodology and application. Studentlitteratur, Lund

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 32:195–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 18:461–463

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bringezu S, Bleischwitz R (eds) (2009) Sustainable resource management: global trends, visions and policies. Greenleaf Publishing, Wuppertal institute, Germany

  • BSI (2011) PAS 2050:2011—specification for the assessment of the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of goods and services. BSI, London

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, Belgium

  • Curran M (2007) Co-product and input allocation approaches for creating life cycle inventory data: a literature review. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12:65–78

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 18:466–467

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • Dubreuil A, Young SB, Atherton J, Gloria TP (2010) Metals recycling maps and allocation procedures in life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:621–634

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ekvall T (2000) A market-based approach to allocation at open-loop recycling. Resour Conserv Recycl 29:91–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ekvall T, Tillman A-M (1997) Open-loop recycling: criteria for allocation procedures. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2:155–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ekvall T, Weidema BP (2004) System boundaries and input data in consequential life cycle inventory analysis. Int J Life Cycle Assess 9:161–171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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-Metalposition-on-PEF-clean_25042013.pdf

  • European Commission (2010) ILCD Handbook—general guide for life cycle assessment—detailed guidance. doi: 10.2788/38479

  • European Commission (2011) Roadmap to a resource efficient Europe. COM/2011/0571 final, Brussels, Belgium. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52011DC0571&from=EN

  • 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 2013

  • Finkbeiner M (2013) Product environmental footprint—breakthrough or breakdown for policy implementation of life cycle assessment? Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:266–271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frees N (2008) Reducing environmental impacts: aluminium recycling crediting aluminium recycling in LCA by demand or by disposal. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13:212–218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, Dissertation

  • 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 15:666–671

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frischknecht R, Stucki M (2010) Scope-dependent modelling of electricity supply in life cycle assessments. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:806–816

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 19:1356–1360

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guinée JB (ed) (2002) Handbook on life cycle assessment: operational guide to the ISO standards. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Guinée JB, Heijungs R, Huppes G (2004) Economic allocation: examples and derived decision tree. Int J Life Cycle Assess 9:23–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guiton M, Benetto E (2013) Analyse du Cycle de Vie consequentielle: Identification des conditions de mise en oeuvre et des bonnes pratiques. Villeurbanne, France

    Google Scholar 

  • Heijungs R (1997) Economic drama and the environmental stage—formal derivation of algorithmic tools from a unified epistemological principle. Rijksuniversiteit Leiden, Dissertation

    Google Scholar 

  • Heijungs R (2013) Ten easy lessons for good communication of LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:473–476

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heijungs R, Guinée JB (2007) Allocation and “what-if” scenarios in life cycle assessment of waste management systems. Waste Manag 27:997–1005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 18:464–465

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ISO (2006a) ISO 14044—environmental management—life cycle assessment—requirements and guidelines. The International Organization for Standardization (ISO), Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • ISO (2006b) ISO 14040: environmental management—life cycle assessment—principles and framework. The International Organization for Standardization (ISO), Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • 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), Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • ISO (2013) ISO/TS 14067—greenhouse gases—carbon footprint of products—requirements and guidelines for quantification and communication. The International Organization for Standardization (ISO), Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • Klöpffer W, Grahl B (2014) Life cycle assessment (LCA)—a guide to best practice. John Wiley & Sons, Weinheim

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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 5:4546–4560

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 34:589–606

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. http://lca-construction2012.ifsttar.fr/downloads/s7/12085_Leroy.pdf

  • 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

  • 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 18:747–770

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 20:389–404

  • 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 52:1391–1398

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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

  • 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, Switzerland

  • PE Americas (2010) Final report life cycle impact assessment of aluminum beverage cans. Boston, USA. http://www.container-recycling.org/assets/pdfs/aluminum/LCA-2010-AluminumAssoc.pdf

  • Pelletier N, Tyedmers P (2011) An ecological economic critique of the use of market information in life cycle assessment research. J Ind Ecol 15:342–354

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 20:74–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 110–117

  • Plastic ZERO (2013) Action 4.1: market conditions for plastic recycling. http://www.plastic-zero.com/media/30825/action_4_1_market_for_recycled_polymers_final_report.pdf. Accessed 10 Aug. 2015

  • 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

  • Plevin R, Delucchi M, Creutzig F (2014a) Response to comments on “Using Attributional Life Cycle Assessment to Estimate Climate-Change Mitigation ….”. J Ind Ecol 18:468–470

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plevin RJ, Delucchi MA, Creutzig F (2014b) Using attributional life cycle assessment to estimate climate-change mitigation benefits misleads policy makers. J Ind Ecol 18:73–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • Suh S, Yang Y (2014) On the uncanny capabilities of consequential LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:1179–1184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The International EPD® System (2013) General programme instructions for the International EPD® system 2.01

  • Thomassen MA, Dalgaard R, Heijungs R, de Boer I (2008) Attributional and consequential LCA of milk production. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13:339–349

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tillman A-M (2000) Significance of decision-making for LCA methodology. Environ Impact Assess Rev 20:113–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. http://www.unep.org/resourcepanel/Portals/24102/PDFs/Metals_Recycling_Rates_110412-1.pdf

  • 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

  • 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, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 6:1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weidema BP (2001) Avoiding co-product allocation in life-cycle assessment. J Ind Ecol 4:11–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • Weidema BP (2013) Guide to interpret the EU Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) Guide. 2.-0 LCA consultants, Aalborg

  • Weidema B (2014) ISO system expansion = substitution. In: 2.0 LCA Consult. http://lca-net.com/blog/2014/09/. Accessed 10 Oct 2015

  • Weidema BP, Schmidt JH (2010) Avoiding allocation in life cycle assessment revisited. J Ind Ecol 14:192–195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. Gallen

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 12:160–172

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wolf M, Chomkhamsri K (2014) The “Integrated formula” for modelling recycling, energy recovery and reuse in LCA—white paper. Berlin, Germany

  • Worldsteel Association (2011) Life Cycle assessment methodology report. Brussels, Belgium. https://www.worldsteel.org/dms/internetDocumentList/bookshop/LCA-Methodology-Report/document/LCA%20Methodology%20Report.pdf

  • 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), USA

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, Italy

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Université de Bordeaux, ISM, UMR 5255, 33400, Talence, France

    Dieuwertje L. Schrijvers & Guido Sonnemann

  2. CNRS, ISM, UMR 5255, 33400, Talence, France

    Dieuwertje L. Schrijvers & Guido Sonnemann

  3. Bordeaux INP - ENSCBP, ISM, UMR 5255, 33607, Pessac, France

    Philippe Loubet

Authors
  1. Dieuwertje L. Schrijvers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Philippe Loubet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Guido Sonnemann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Guido Sonnemann.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Responsible editor: Mary Ann Curran

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM 1

(PDF 583 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schrijvers, D.L., Loubet, P. & Sonnemann, G. Developing a systematic framework for consistent allocation in LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 21, 976–993 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1063-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1063-3

Keywords

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