Abstract
This chapter gives an overview of the mainstream approaches and solutions to the problem of multifunctionality in the Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) phase. Many industrial processes are multifunctional. Their purpose generally comprises more than a single product or service. Practitioners in Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) are thus faced with the problem that the product system(s) under study provide more functions than the one investigated in the functional unit of interest. Among others, an appropriate decision must therefore consider which economic and environmental flows of the multifunctional process or system are to be allocated to which of its products and services. The discussion on multifunctionality goes back to energy analysis (a precursor of LCA), and several of today’s well-known solutions for the multifunctionality problem origin from this time. There is no generally accepted solution for the multifunctionality problem, and it is even hard to imagine that there will ever be a solution. On the other hand, it is generally recognized that different solutions may considerably influence LCA results depending on the exact position of the multifunctional process in the product’s flow chart. As a consequence, sensitivity analyses should be applied to test the influence of different solutions. An issue that deserves more attention is the fact that most LCA case studies so far apply one of the solutions without properly justifying where and what exactly the multifunctionality problem is and which criteria are used for determining that. In this chapter, these steps are therefore distinguished, explicitly aiming for more transparency in the discussion on multifunctionality approaches and solutions.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
Throughout this chapter, the authors refer to the process-based LCA as conceived by the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) and ISO. In Input/Output-based LCA, the issue of multi-functionality and allocation is already resolved at the level of data collection.
- 2.
In some cases, a further distinction is made between recycling or reuse in the same system (closed-loop recycling) and in another system (open-loop recycling).
- 3.
Whether or not all these terms refer to the same feature is a matter of debate; see Heijungs and Guinée (2007).
- 4.
Over the period 1995–2015, the (cleaned) Web of Science search identified 506 articles dealing with allocation in their ‘Topic’ and 86 articles dealing with allocation in their ‘Title’ on a total of about 10,000 articles on LCA in general over the same period (≈1–5%). Note that first years of new journals are generally not included in Web of Science.
- 5.
The multi-functionality problem is often referred to as the ‘allocation problem’. Strictly speaking, allocation is not so much the problem but rather one of the solutions partitioning the non-functional inputs and outputs of a multi-functional process among its functional flows. To avoid confusion, the authors here refrain from using the term “allocation ” for a specific solution and will use the term “partitioning” to refer to the specific solution.
References
Anonymous (1984) Ökobilanzen von Packstoffen, Schriftenreihe Umweltschutz no. 24. Bundesamt für Umweltschutz, Bern
Anonymous (1991) Umweltprofile von Packstoffen und Packmitteln; Methode. Fraunhofer-Institut für Lebensmitteltechnologie und Verpackung München, Gesellschaft für Verpackungsmarktforschung Wiesbaden und Institut für Energie- und Umweltforschung Heidelberg
Anonymous (1992) Life-cycle assessment. Proceedings of SETAC-Europe workshop on environmental life cycle assessment of products, December 2–3, 1991 in Leiden. SETAC-Europe, Brussels
Arvidsson R, Janssen M, Svanström M, Johansson P, Sandén BA (2018) Energy use and climate change improvements of Li/S batteries based on life cycle assessment. J Power Sources 383:87–92
Aubin J, Baruthio A, Mungkung R, Lazard J (2015) Environmental performance of brackish water polyculture system from a life cycle perspective: a Filipino case study. Aquaculture 435:217–227
Azapagic A, Clift R (1998) Linear programming as a tool in life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 3(6):305–316
Basler und Hoffman (1974) Basler und Hoffman Ingenieure und Planer. Studie Umwelt und Volkswirtschaft, Vergleich der Umweltbelastung von Behältern aus PVC, Glas, Blech und Karton. Eidgenössisches Amt für Umweltschutz, Bern
Bengtsson J, Seddon J (2013) Cradle to retailer or quick service restaurant gate life cycle assessment of chicken products in Australia. J Clean Prod 41:291–300
Bickerstaffe J, Tucker B (1993) INCPEN guide to the Boustead study on resource use and liquid food packaging 1986–1990. INCPEN, London. http://www.incpen.org/docs/BousteadstudyJuly1993.pdf
Boustead I, Hancock GF (1979) Handbook of industrial energy analysis. Ellis Horwood Ltd., Chichester
Boustead I, Hancock GF (1989) EEC Directive 85/339. UK data 1986. A report for INCPEN (Industry Council for Packaging and the ENvironment). The Open University, Milton Keynes
BSI–British Standards Institution (2008) PAS 2050. Specification for the assessment of the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of goods and services. http://aggie-horticulture.tamu.edu/faculty/hall/publications/PAS2050_Guide.pdf
Cederberg C, Stadig M (2003) System expansion and allocation in life cycle assessment of milk and beef production. Int J Life Cycle Assess 8(6):350–356
de Smet B (ed) (1990) Life-cycle analysis for packaging environmental assessment. Proceedings of the specialised workshop, 24–25 September 1990, Leuven. Procter & Gamble Technical Center, Strombeek-Bever
European Commission (2010) International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) handbook – general guide for life cycle assessment: detailed guidance, EUR 24708 EN. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg
European Commission (2013) On the use of common methods to measure and communicate the life cycle environmental performance of products and organisations. Off J Eur Union 4:210
Finnveden G, Hauschild MZ, Ekvall T, Guinée JB, Heijungs R, Hellweg S, Koehler A, Pennington D, Suh S (2009) Recent developments in life cycle assessment. J Environ Manag 91(1):1–21
Frischknecht R (1994) Allocation – an issue of valuation? In: Huppes G, Schneider F (eds) Proceedings of the European Workshop on Allocation in LCA under the Auspices of SETAC-Europe, February 24–25, 1994, Leiden. SETAC-Europe, Brussels
Frischknecht R (1997) Goal and scope definition and inventory analysis. In: Udo de Haes HA, Wrisberg N (eds) LCANET European Network for strategic life cycle assessment research and development. In: Life cycle assessment: State-of-the art and research priorities. LCA Documents, vol 1 (eds Klöpffer W and Hutzinger O) Ecoinforma Press, Bayreuth 1997, 59–88
Frischknecht R (1998) Life cycle inventory analysis for decision-making. Scope-dependent inventory system models and context specific joint product allocation. Ph.D. dissertation 12599. ETH, Zürich
Frischknecht R (2000) Allocation in life cycle inventory analysis for joint production. Int J Life Cycle Assess 5(2):85–95
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(7):666–671
Frischknecht R, Stucki M (2010) Scope-dependent modelling of electricity supply in life cycle assessments. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15(8):806–816
Frischknecht R, Hofstetter P, Knöpfel I, Walder E (1991) Funktionsorientierte Systemanalyse; ein Beitrag zur Oekobilanzdiskussion. Arbeitspapier 3/91 des Projektes “Umweltbelastung durch die End- und Nutzenergiebereitstellung”. ETH-Zentrum, Zürich
Guinée JB (ed), Gorrée M, Heijungs R, Huppes G, Kleijn R, de Koning A, van Oers L, Wegener Sleeswijk A, Suh S, Udo de Haes HA, de Bruijn JA, van Duin R, Huijbregts MAJ (2002) Handbook on life cycle assessment: operational guide to the ISO standards. Series: Eco-efficiency in industry and science, vol 7. Springer, Dordrecht
Guinée JB, Udo de Haes HA, Huppes G (1990) Environmental analysis and evaluation of products. In: de Smet B Life-cycle analysis for packaging environmental assessment. Proceedings of the specialised workshop, 24–25 September 1990, Leuven. Procter & Gamble Technical Center, Strombeek-Bever
Guinée JB, Udo de Haes HA, Huppes G (1993) Quantitative life cycle assessment of products: goal definition and inventory. J Clean Prod 1(1):3–13
Guinée JB, Heijungs R, Huppes G (2004) Economic allocation: examples and derived decision tree. Int J Life Cycle Assess 9(1):23–33
Guinée JB, Heijungs R, van der Voet E (2009) A greenhouse gas indicator for bio-energy: some theoretical issues with practical implications. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14(4):328–339
Günkaya Z, Müfide B (2016) An environmental comparison of biocomposite film based on orange peel-derived pectin jelly-corn starch and LDPE film: LCA and biodegradability. Int J Life Cycle Assess 21(4):465–475
Hanes RJ, Craze NB, Goel PK, Bakshi BR (2015) Allocation games: addressing the III-posed nature of allocation in life-cycle inventories. Environ Sci Technol 49(13):7996–8003
Heijungs R (2014) Ten easy lessons for good communication of LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19(3):473–476
Heijungs R, Frischknecht R (1998) A special view on the nature of the allocation problem. Int J Life Cycle Assess 3(5):321–332
Heijungs R, Guinée JB (2007) Allocation and ‘what-if’ scenarios in life cycle assessment of waste management systems. Waste Manag 27:997–1005
Heijungs R, Suh S (2002) The computational structure of life cycle assessment. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht
Heintz B, Baisnée P-F (1992) Introduction paper – system boundaries. In: Assessment L-C (ed) Proceedings of SETAC-Europe workshop on environmental life cycle assessment of products, December 2–3 1991 in Leiden. SETAC-Europe, Brussels, pp 35–52
Huisingh D (1992) Workshop conclusions on inventory session. In: Life-cycle assessment. Proceedings of SETAC-Europe workshop on environmental life cycle assessment of products, December 2–3, 1991 in Leiden. SETAC-Europe, Brussels, pp 71–72
Huppes G (1992) Allocating impacts of multiple economic processes in LCA. In: Life-cycle assessment. Proceedings of SETAC-Europe workshop on environmental life cycle assessment of products, December 2–3, 1991 in Leiden. SETAC-Europe, Brussels, pp 57–70
Huppes G (1993) Macro-environmental policy, principles and design. Elsevier, Amsterdam
Huppes G (1994) A general method for allocation in LCA. In: Huppes G, Schneider F (eds) Proceedings of the European workshop on allocation in LCA under the auspices of SETAC-Europe, February 24–25, 1994. SETAC-Europe, Brussels, pp 74–90
Huppes G, Schneider F (eds) (1994) Proceedings of the European Workshop on allocation in LCA under the auspices of SETAC-Europe, February 24–25, 1994 in Leiden. SETAC-Europe, Brussels
ISO 14040 (ISO 2006a) Environmental management – life cycle assessment – principles and framework. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva
ISO 14044 (ISO 2006b) Environmental management – Life cycle assessment – Requirements and guidelines. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva
ISO 14067 (2012) Greenhouse gases – carbon footprint of products – requirements and guidelines for quantification and communication. ISO, Geneva
JRC-IES (2012) Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) guide. Deliverable 2 and 4A of the administrative arrangement between DG Environment and the Joint Research Centre No N 070307/2009/552517, including Amendment No 1 from December 2010. Ispra, Italy
Jung J, Assen N, Bardow A (2013) Sensitivity coefficient-based uncertainty analysis for multi-–functionality in LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19(3):661–676
Kindler H, Nikles A (1980) Energieaufwand zur Herstellung von Werkstoffen – Berechnungsgrundsätze und Energieäquivalenz von Kunststoffen. Kunststoffe 70(12):802–807
Lindfors L-G, Christiansen K, Hoffman L, Virtanen Y, Juntilla V, Hanssen OJ, Rønning A, Ekvall T, Finnveden G (1995) Nordic guidelines on life-cycle assessment, Nord 1995:20. Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen
Majeau-Bettez G, Dandres T, Pauliuk S, Wood R, Hertwich E, Samson R, Hammer Strømman A (2017) Choice of allocations and constructs for attributional or consequential life cycle assessment and input-output analysis. J Ind Ecol 22(4):656–670
Marvuglia A, Cellura M, Heijungs R (2010) Toward a solution of allocation in life cycle inventories: the use of least-squares techniques. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15(9):1020–1040
Mekel OCL, Huppes G, Huele R, Guinée JB (1990) Environmental effects of different package systems for fresh milk, CML report 70. Centrum voor Milieukunde, Leiden
Mendoza Beltran A, Guinée JB, Heijungs R, Tukker A (2015) A pseudo-statistical approach to treat choice uncertainty: the example of partitioning allocation methods. Int J Life Cycle Assess 21(2):252–264
Mill JS (1848) Principles of political economy; with some of their applications to social philosophy. John W Parker, London
Pigou AC (1913) Railway rates and joint cost. Q J Econ 27:687–669
Prox M, Curran MA (2016) Consequential life cycle assessment. Chapter 4 “Goal and scope definition in life cycle assessment” (Curran MA ed). In: LCA compendium – the complete world of life cycle assessment (Klöpffer W, Curran MA, series eds). Springer, Dordrecht, pp 145–160
Reap J, Roman F, Duncan S, Bras B (2008) A survey of unresolved problems in life cycle assessment, part 1: goal and scope and inventory analysis. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(4):290–300
Thomas AL (1969) The allocation problem in financial accounting theory, Studies in accounting research #3. American Accounting Association, Evanston
Thomas AL (1974) The allocation problem part two, Studies in accounting research #9. American Accounting Association, Evanston
Thomassen MA, Dalgaard R, Heijungs R, de Boer L (2008) Attributional and consequential LCA of milk production. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(4):339–349
Tillman A-M, Baumann H, Eriksson E, Rydberg T (1992) Packaging and the environment: life-cycle analyses of selected packaging materials: quantification of environmental loadings, Offprint from SOU 1991:77. Chalmers Industriteknik, Göteborg
Tillman A-M, Ekvall T, Baumann H, Rydberg T (1994) Choice of system boundaries in life cycle assessment. J Clean Prod 2(1):21–29
van Engelenburg BCW, Nieuwlaar E (1994) A framework for a just allocation procedure. In: Huppes G, Schneider F (eds) Proceedings of the European Workshop on allocation in LCA, February 24–25, Leiden 1994. SETAC-Europe, Brussels, pp 102–119
Vogtländer JG, Brezet HC, Hendriks CF (2001a) The virtual eco-costs ‘99. A single LCA-based indicator for sustainability and the eco-costs-value ratio (EVR) model for economic allocation – a new LCA-based calculation model to determine the sustainability of products and services. Int J Life Cycle Assess 6(3):157–166
Vogtländer JG, Brezet HC, Hendriks CF (2001b) Allocation in recycling systems. An integrated model for the analyses of environmental impact and market value. Int J Life Cycle Assess 6(6):344–355
Wardenaar T, van Ruijven T, Mendoza Beltran A, Vad K, Guinée J, Heijungs R (2012) Differences between LCA for analysis and LCA for policy: a case study on the consequences of allocation choices in bio-energy policies. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17(8):1059–1067
Weidema BP (1995) Life cycle screenings of two food products. In: Cleaner technologies and cleaner products for sustainable development, NATO ASI series 2. Springer, New York, pp 53–64
Weidema BP, Frees N, Nielsen A-M (1999) Marginal production technologies in life cycle inventories. Int J Life Cycle Assess 4(1):48–56
Werner F, Richter K (2000) Economic allocation in LCA: a case study about aluminium window frames. Int J Life Cycle Assess 5(2):79–83
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix: The Special Case of Closed-Loop Recycling
Appendix: The Special Case of Closed-Loop Recycling
Suppose a system of two processes, process 1 and process 2 (Fig. 4.5), of which process 2 produced a product (i.e., recycled material) from a waste inflow. For the sake of simplicity, all other flows of both processes are left out, but in practice there will of course be other flows.
Hypothetical system of two processes constituting an example of closed-loop recycling (functional flows in italics)
Process 1 has one product as inflow as well as one product and one waste as outflows; it thus has one functional flow and is thus a monofunctional process, no allocation needed. Process 2 has one waste as inflow and one product as outflow; it thus has two functional flows, is a multi-functional process, i.e., a (closed-loop) recycling process, and thus requires allocation (note that waste is a functional flow for process 2 but a non-functional flow for process 1). As a result of allocation , process 2 is split up in two virtual processes: process 2a, which represents a monofunctional waste process, and process 2b, which represents a monofunctional production process of recycled material (Fig. 4.6).
Result of splitting up process 2 is two virtual processes: process 2a, representing a monofunctional waste process, and process 2b, representing a monofunctional production process of recycled material (functional flows in italics)
As a result of this allocation , now the problem is faced that in the modeling of closed-loop recycling the demand of product 2 from process 2a does not necessarily have to match the demand of product 2 by process 1, while in the real-world process demand and supply of recycled material in a closed-loop situation should exactly match. This is an important constraint of closed-loop recycling that should be kept in mind. If more recycled material is needed by process 1 than can be supplied by process 2, i.e., 5 kg, another flow should be added to process 1 providing the same material (either primary material or the same quality of recycled material but provided by another recycling process); see Fig. 4.7.
Total demand (t) of recycled material (rm)by process 1 is >5:extra inflow needed in process 1 providing t-5 kg of similar material as rm (rm’) (functional flows italics)
If less recycled material is needed by process 1 than can be supplied by process 2, i.e., less than 5 kg, another flow should be added to process 2, representing partial open-loop recycling to another product system of the remainder material; see Fig. 4.8.
Total demand (t) of recycled material (rm) by process 1 is<5: extra outflow needed in process 2b providing 5-t kg of rm for other product system (i.e., partial open-loop recycling) (functional flows in italics)
The lesson learned is that for closed-loop recycling, allocation does not matter in theory as long as supply of the recycled material by process 2 and demand of the same material by process 1 exactly balance.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Guinée, J., Heijungs, R., Frischknecht, R. (2021). Multifunctionality in Life Cycle Inventory Analysis: Approaches and Solutions. In: Ciroth, A., Arvidsson, R. (eds) Life Cycle Inventory Analysis . LCA Compendium – The Complete World of Life Cycle Assessment. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-62270-1_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-62270-1_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-62269-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-62270-1
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)