ILCD Handbook: General guide for Life Cycle Assessment - Detailed guidance First edition 2 How to use this document (excluding the substituted co-function from this mix). If also this is not possible or feasible, then allocation is the third, alternative solution. Detailed guidance is given for these three options. If the second or third alternative is used, the resulting lack in accuracy shall be explicitly reported and considered in the results interpretation. "Assumption scenarios" of data, parameters, and method assumptions shall be performed for comparative LCA studies; exclusively the "shall" provisions cannot be rejected in these scenarios. Uncertainty calculation can support the analysis of the robustness of the results. Situation B: This comprises meso-level and macro-level, strategic ("policy") decision support studies


Uncertainty calculation can support the analysis of the robustness of the results. Situation B: This comprises meso-level and macro-level, strategic ("policy") decision support studies. The analysed systems shall be modelled as in Situation A, except for those processes in the background system that are affected by large-scale consequences of the analysed decision. These are modelled with the mix of the long-term marginal processes / systems. Contrary to Situation A, the assumption scenarios can also vary the "shall" provisions; the assumption scenarios and uncertainty calculation shall be defined via a best attainable consensus among the interested parties. Situation C: Most monitoring type studies fall into Situation C1; Situation C2 studies are less common. For Situation C1, the life cycle and all cases of multifunctionality are modelled as in Situation A. In contrast to Situation A, this also applies to macro-level monitoring studies under Situation C1, i.e

European Commission – JRC, ILCD Handbook: General Guide for LCA (2010)


In contrast to Situation A, this also applies to macro-level monitoring studies under Situation C1, i.e. independent from the absolute size of the system (e.g. 1 t or 1 Mio t material X consumed). This means that the data and models of studies performed under Situation A can be directly used for deriving monitoring indicators under Situation C1. For Situation C2, the life cycle is equally modelled as in Situation A, but multifunctionality shall always be solved via allocation, through application of the detailed allocation guidance provided. Note that across all goal Situations the same life cycle model can chiefly be used, except for cases of multifunctionality that need to be switched between substitution and allocation, depending on the applicable Situation


Additionally, the very few processes that are typically affected by large-scale consequences under Situation B, need to be modelled differently: These processes need to be the long-term marginal mixes (note that for these processes the upstream or downstream life cycles will be different as well). Other differences in the guidance for Situations A, B, and C A few more differences exist in the provisions for Situations A, B, and C. The more relevance ones are: The general critical review requirements of ISO 14040 and 14044 are specified in the separate documents "Review schemes for Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)", "Reviewer qualification", and "Review scope, methods and documentation". This includes the provisions on the applicable type of review for different types of studies and audiences, on the qualification of the reviewer, and regarding what and how to review


This includes the provisions on the applicable type of review for different types of studies and audiences, on the qualification of the reviewer, and regarding what and how to review. Finally, as another key item of further specification, the ISO 14044 provisions for "comparative assertions disclosed to the public" are extended also to most non-assertive but comparative LCA studies.


ILCD Handbook: General guide for Life Cycle Assessment - Detailed guidance First edition 2 How to use this document Figure 3 Main differentiation of the document for the three goal situations A, B, and C (indicative only; few other differences exist). 2.2.4 How to perform an LCI or LCA study in accordance with this document The structure of this guide generally orients to the workflow encountered in LCA. It cannot do this however in a strict sense without jumping forth and back in the formal logic of the phases of an LCA. The fact that performing an LCA studies is an iterative process, poses an additional challenge to a workflow-based structure


Critical review Optionally extending the goal - Function, functional unit, reference flow Identify processes attributionally Data collection - dealing with missing data - selecting secondary data - modeling the product system Calculating LCI results Calculating LCIA results (may include normalisation, weighting) Iterative approach - Six aspects of the goal definition Interpretation Reporting Classifying the decision context Selection of LCI modeling System boundary - Preparing impact assessment - Data quality, types and source of data – Comparisons - Planning critical review and reporting Identify processes consequentially For all situations For all situations For all situations For all situations For all situations For all situations Annex For all situations For all situations For all situations For all situations Situation A Situation B Situation C Situation A Situation B Situation C Situation C Situation A Situation B Situation A Situation B Situation C1


ILCD Handbook: General guide for Life Cycle Assessment - Detailed guidance First edition 2 How to use this document The following steps take this into account and recommend a way to efficiently perform an LCI or LCA study in line with this document and awith the general frame of ISO 14044:  This chapter: Read the "Provisions" of this chapter; they inform you about the specific character of the provisions in the "Provisions" of this document and how they relate to ILCD compliant studies.  LCAs are iterative: Unless you are fully familiar with this, read chapter 4 on the iterative nature of LCA. It has two graphics that illustrate the steps that are described in more detail here.  Prepare for documentation: Prepare to document all relevant steps taken, decisions and assumptions made, data sources used, calculations performed, etc. This is a valuable basis for correct and efficient reporting


This is a valuable basis for correct and efficient reporting. While it is the last step of an LCI or LCA study before a critical review (if foreseen), reporting actually starts from the very beginning of the process. Reporting is supported here with a template for LCI and LCA study reports, and a data set format for LCI data sets; these are available as files and a supporting editor tool.  Goal definition, key aspects: Define the following of the goal aspects of your study: the decision context, the intended applications, and the intended audience (chapters 5.2.1, 5.2.3, and 5.2.4).  Scope definition - study object: Unless you have defined the study object explicitly in the goal definition, identify it now as closely as possible (e.g. a specific branded product or a commodity, a processing step, a policy option, etc.) and specify what its function is in the sense of LCA (if unclear, see chapter 6.4 and related box on "Function, functional unit, and reference flow")


 Scope definition - classify applicable goal situation A, B, or C: Check in Table 3 to which archetypal goal Situation A, B, C1 or C2 your study belongs. If in doubt, chapter 5.3 provides the detailed guidance and explains what each class A, B, C1, and C2 implies. Also in Table 3, check which types of deliverable the LCA study can typically have for your intended application, unless you already have decided that in the goal definition.  Complete initial round of goal definition: With this information at hand, perform the outstanding steps of the goal phase. This means to carry out all of the following: - Identify pre-set limitations due to method choices, assumptions, or impact coverage (e.g


This means to carry out all of the following: - Identify pre-set limitations due to method choices, assumptions, or impact coverage (e.g. Carbon footprint studies) (chapter 5.2.2) - Name the reasons for carrying out the study (chapter 5.2.3) - Clarify whether the study involves comparisons and whether they are intended to be disclosed to the public (chapter 5.2.5) - Identify the commissioner and other potentially influential actors that are actively involved in the study (chapter 5.2.6)  Complete the initial round of scope definition: In line with the detailed goal definition, perform the outstanding steps of the scope phase. Note that many chapters of the scope phase give provisions that will be applied only in the later Life Cycle Inventory phase, and hence are defining requirements without direct need for action at that point. It is however recommended to obtain a general understanding of what is required, also because it affects some subsequent scope definition steps


It is however recommended to obtain a general understanding of what is required, also because it affects some subsequent scope definition steps. What now needs to be actively carried out in the scope phase is:


ILCD Handbook: General guide for Life Cycle Assessment - Detailed guidance First edition 2 How to use this document - Detail functional unit and reference flow; chapter 6.4: Detail quantitatively and qualitatively the study object(s)' functional unit(s) and/or reference flow(s) (and provide technical specifications etc., as required for the type of study object). This information will later typically be revised to some extent. - Define system boundary; chapters 6.6 and especially 6.6.2: Provide an initial system boundary definition and a list of potentially excluded life cycle stages, activity types, processes, and elementary flow, if any. This initial setting will later typically be extensively revised. Note that at this stage no individual processes will be identified; this is the first step of the later Life Cycle Inventory work. - Define cut-off; chapter 6.6.3: Define the quantitative cut-off criteria that are aimed at, unless this has been defined already in the goal definition


- Define cut-off; chapter 6.6.3: Define the quantitative cut-off criteria that are aimed at, unless this has been defined already in the goal definition. This initial aim will later typically be extensively revised if the study is comparative. If the targeted completeness cannot be met due to limited access to data or lack of resources, it will later be revised to some extent. Note that the latter can mean in few cases that the general goal of the study cannot be achieved and that it needs to be revised. - Prepare basis for LCIA; chapter 6.7: Identify the impact categories to be included, the LCIA methods to be used, the impact level that will be analysed, and whether normalisation and weighting will be used for either cut-off and/or in support of the results interpretation. This decision must not be fundamentally revised later


This decision must not be fundamentally revised later. However - based on the outcome of the next iterations - irrelevant impact categories can be excluded, new ones outside the default list may need to be added, the modification to location non-generic LCIA methods may be necessary, and the normalisation basis and weighting set may see some adjustments in relation to the before-mentioned adjustments. - Derive data quality needs; chapter 6.9: Define the other data quality needs apart from the cut-off criteria, i.e. the study related data accuracy and precision that is intended, as far as initially possible. Similarly as for the initial cut-off settings, this will later see more substantial revision if the study is comparative. Finally, if the inventory data quality cannot be met due to lack of access to data or lack of resources, some revisions will typically need to be made


Finally, if the inventory data quality cannot be met due to lack of access to data or lack of resources, some revisions will typically need to be made. - Shortlist information sources; also within chapter 6.9: Principle data and information sources may now be shortlisted. This can alternatively be carried out in the later step of planning data collection (chapter 7.3). - Plan reporting; chapter 6.12: Plan the reporting, depending on the type of study and deliverable, as well as the intended audience. - Plan review; chapter 6.11: Identify, which review type applies and preferably already who is/are the reviewer(s). Both depend on the type of study and target audience. Note that for Situation B it is required to involve the interested parties in some initial steps of the study


Both depend on the type of study and target audience. Note that for Situation B it is required to involve the interested parties in some initial steps of the study.  Life Cycle Inventory work: The main part of an LCA is generally the inventory work, regarding both duration and resources used: - Identify processes within system boundary: As first step of the LCI phase and depending on the applicable Goal Situation, identify the to-be-included processes within your system boundaries. Note that the step relates to the processes of the foreground system only, and to the product and waste flows that connect foreground and background system. Chapter 7.2.3 gives the provisions for all Situations, except


ILCD Handbook: General guide for Life Cycle Assessment - Detailed guidance First edition 2 How to use this document for those processes in Situation B that are affected by large-scale consequences and for assumption scenarios under Situation B, if these include full consequential modelling elements. Chapter 7.2.4 gives the provisions for this specific purpose. For identifying the to-be-included processes, it is recommended to draw on existing experience only of detailed, high quality studies on sufficiently similar study objects, or ILCD-compliant product-group specific guides or Product category Rules (PCRs).  Perform a screening LCA: If the to-be-included processes have been identified, initially it is recommended to perform a screening LCA: A first, rough life cycle inventory system model, its impact assessment calculation, and analysis helps in identifying these "key" processes, parameters, elementary flows, assumptions, LCIA characterisation factors, etc


that largely contribute to or influence the environmental impacts of the analysed process or system. This will then help in an iterative way to achieve the minimum required data quality with minimum necessary effort. In more detail, a screening LCA comprises the following steps: - Compile initially available LCI data: Supplement any initially available specific foreground data with secondary data, preferably from the suppliers and/or downstream users, as applicable. These can be raw data, unit processes, LCI results, and similar. The provisions for developing new unit processes see chapter 7.4.2. Alternative sources for foreground data for a first screening model can be third-party data provider with sufficiently representative, methodologically consistent, generic or average background data sets. For initially missing data use expert judgement to estimate reasonably worst-case data (see chapters 7.6 and 7.8)


For initially missing data use expert judgement to estimate reasonably worst-case data (see chapters 7.6 and 7.8). A number of specific requirements on data, inventorying, nomenclature, etc., are provided in the various subchapters of 7.4.3 and in chapter 7.4.5. Specific provisions for the cases of agricultural systems and waste management are supplied in chapter 7.4.4. It is recommended to accompany all the LCI steps with an interim quality control that generally draws on the elements of the interpretation phase while without going into the same level of detail (chapter 7.4.2.11). - Develop initial life cycle model: Next, model the life cycle of the analysed system (chapter 7.8). Specific and detailed provisions on the modelling of specific kinds of systems, how to solve multifunctionality, etc., are given in the subchapters of 7.9, but note the simplified requirements for solving multifunctionality given in chapter 6.5.4


Details for modelling reuse, recycling and recovery are given in annex 14; also for these simplifications apply. Note that this step is also required if the deliverable of the LCI study is a unit process, as its achieved quality (i.e. completeness, accuracy, and precision) needs to be judged from the system's perspective. The focus and principal effort should of course be placed on the analysed unit process. - Calculate initial LCI results: Next, perform a first calculation of the LCI results (see chapter 7.10) of this initial, rough life cycle model. - Calculate initial LCIA results: Then, calculate the initial LCIA results (potentially including normalisation and weighting) (chapter 8). - Significant issues: As a first step of the interpretation phase, identify the significant issues, i.e. the key processes, parameters, elementary flows, assumptions, etc


- Significant issues: As a first step of the interpretation phase, identify the significant issues, i.e. the key processes, parameters, elementary flows, assumptions, etc. with the largest contributions / relevance for the overall environmental impacts, or individually for each impact category (chapter 9.2).


ILCD Handbook: General guide for Life Cycle Assessment - Detailed guidance First edition 2 How to use this document - Sensitivity, completeness, consistency check: Finally, perform an initial sensitivity check (chapter 9.3.3), completeness check (chapter 9.3.2) and consistency check (chapter 9.3.4).  Go to the second iteration: Use the insights of the interpretation / quality checks to increase the overall quality of the LCI model. This is done in iterative loops of scope, inventory, impact assessment, and interpretation / quality control until the accuracy, precision, and completeness of the LCI / LCA study meet the requirements posed by the intended application of the results. Note that the insights gained in an iteration may also lead to a necessary revision of the goal of a study, if for example data limitations cannot be overcome. Especially: - Goal and scope revision needed?: Check whether the goal requirements can still be met and whether the scope settings still fully apply


Especially: - Goal and scope revision needed?: Check whether the goal requirements can still be met and whether the scope settings still fully apply. If necessary, refine or revise them (see chapter 6). A key step is to adjust the initial system boundary (see chapter 6.6), identifying which co-functions have been excluded from or have later been added within the system boundary via system expansion / substitution or allocation (see chapters 7.2.4.6 or 7.9, respectively)2. Also other scope items may need revision, as indicated above. - Improve key LCI data: For the key processes, parameters and elementary flows introduce or improve the foreground system typically with directly collected or calculated product- and producer-specific primary and secondary LCI data (see chapter 7.4). Use more accurate, precise and complete generic or average data sets for the background system (see chapters 7.5, 7.6, and 7.7)3


Use more accurate, precise and complete generic or average data sets for the background system (see chapters 7.5, 7.6, and 7.7)3. Be prepared that it may be necessary to collect study-specific LCI data also for key processes in the background system, if existing third-party data is not of sufficient quality or consistency. - Improve other LCI data: Improve the quality of the LCI data for those life cycle stages, activity types, processes or elementary flows, which in the initial system boundary setting were assumed to be of little significance, but which the sensitivity analysis has revealed to be relevant. Use sufficiently consistent LCI data of sufficient quality in accordance with the cut-off criteria established in the scope definition and – in the case of comparisons - the extent of the differences between the compared systems. Where sufficiently good data are not available, leave out the respective processes and flows entirely and document the gap (see 7.4.2.11)


Where sufficiently good data are not available, leave out the respective processes and flows entirely and document the gap (see 7.4.2.11). - Improve method and assumption related data and information: Improve the quality of the data and information used for method settings and assumptions, such as allocation criteria, type and amount of superseded processes from recycling, identified long-term marginal processes for Situation B, etc. - Improve LCIA factors: Improve the quality of key LCIA characterisation factors, if feasible. The need may arise to use non-generic LCIA factors or to consider the reduced accuracy if the former would be required but be unavailable. 2 Ensure that any scope revision is still in line with the goal. Note that for comparative studies, limitations due to scope or goal items are to be explicitly considered in the interpretation phase, especially when drawing conclusions and giving recommendations (see chapter 6.10.4)


3 Note that sometimes generic or average data can be more appropriate for specific foreground processes (see chapter 7.3.2).


ILCD Handbook: General guide for Life Cycle Assessment - Detailed guidance First edition 2 How to use this document - Calculate LCIA results and perform again a completeness, sensitivity and consistency check: Calculate the improved LCIA results, check whether the significant issues have relevantly changed and perform again a completeness, sensitivity and consistency check as the basis for the third iteration.  More iterations needed?: Typically, expect in total two to four iterations towards completing the study. This number will mainly depend on the quality needs or ambition, the complexity of the analysed process(es) or system(s), on the specifically analysed question(s), as well as on data availability and quality. If another iteration is needed, start again with checking whether goal requirements can still be met, whether the scope settings need to be revised or fine-tuned, etc


If another iteration is needed, start again with checking whether goal requirements can still be met, whether the scope settings need to be revised or fine-tuned, etc.  Results interpretation: If the LCI data and model have reached the intended or required quality, formal results interpretation is the next step (chapter 9). At this stage and only for LCA studies, it also includes the steps of conclusions and potentially recommendations, highlighting any limitations that apply. Parts of it - namely identifying significant issues and performing / reporting on the sensitivity check, completeness check, and consistency check - can also be applied to LCI data sets and studies.  Reporting: As a final step prior to a potential critical review, the study report is prepared (chapter 10). It can be part of a data set and/or be a classical report. Both will base on the extensive notes that were taken and revised / adjusted along the iterations of the LCA work


It can be part of a data set and/or be a classical report. Both will base on the extensive notes that were taken and revised / adjusted along the iterations of the LCA work. The principles of reporting are reproducibility and transparency. Confidential and proprietary data and information should be documented in separate confidential reports that are made accessible only to the critical reviewer(s). For LCA studies, a third-party study report is required if the target audience is external (see chapter 10.3.2). For LCI data sets, an LCI study report is recommended. If the data are intended to be usable in support of comparisons (e.g. as background data sets), the documentation of the LCI data set should to meet the requirements for reporting of comparative assertions; otherwise the data has to be revisited to complete the documentation when the data is used in the comparison, what often will not be possible (for details see 10.3.3)


 Review: A critical review - if required for your type of LCI / LCA study and target audience, or for general quality-assurance reasons - is the last formal step of an LCI or LCA study (chapter 11). The review type and reviewer(s) now have to be fixed, unless this has been done in the related scope chapter.  Need for corrections / improvements based on the review outcome?: The review itself will often lead to certain corrections in the LCI model or other aspects as well as the related reporting. It might even result in a more fundamental revision of the scope or even goal of the study. A review that is performed at the end of a study can hence result in considerable delays and extra work. An accompanying review can help avoiding such problems or at least identify them earlier


A review that is performed at the end of a study can hence result in considerable delays and extra work. An accompanying review can help avoiding such problems or at least identify them earlier.  Mission completed: The revised final deliverable of the LCI or LCA study, potentially together with the study report and review report, is finally available to be distributed to the target audience and in support of the intended applications.


ILCD Handbook: General guide for Life Cycle Assessment - Detailed guidance First edition 2 How to use this document 2.3 ILCD compliance and the "Provisions" within this document Overview The actual provisions and recommendations of this guide are given in the "Provisions" of this document, with some provisions being outlined in separate, referenced documents of the ILCD Handbook (e.g. on review). Relevant concepts, explanations and illustrative examples are also provided in the main text; they may be required for a clear understanding of terms and concepts used in the respective Provision. Compliance statements Life Cycle Inventory and Assessment studies as well as direct applications that have been developed in line with the provisions of this document can be published as "ILCD Handbook compliant" studies / documents. Specific LCI / LCA guidance documents (e.g


Specific LCI / LCA guidance documents (e.g. product-group specific guides) and Product Category Rules (PCR) can claim ILCD compliance if their provisions are in line with the provisions of the ILCD Handbook and they have undergone an ILCD compliant review as specified in the separate document "Review schemes for LCA". The compliance statement shall refer to the applicable Situation A, B, C1, and/or C2. ILCD compliance is structured into five compliance aspects that all shall be met for full compliance: Data quality, Method, Nomenclature, Review, and Documentation (chapter 12.4 gives the details). Partial compliance can be claimed in a structured way by referring to any of the above five aspects, but it shall be clearly communicated in such cases that full compliance has not been achieved. Purely methodological LCA studies may not be able to comply with the ILCD Handbook and the ISO 14040 and 14044, as the analysed methodological options may deviate from the provisions


Purely methodological LCA studies may not be able to comply with the ILCD Handbook and the ISO 14040 and 14044, as the analysed methodological options may deviate from the provisions. Such studies may draw on the ILCD provisions, but compliance with the ILCD Handbook cannot be claimed in such cases, and giving any false impression that such would exist shall be avoided that such would exist. However, partial compliance (see above) can be reported. In addition, for LCI data sets, the achieved overall data quality level should be documented in the data set (see chapter 12.3 for details) as well as the performed review type and reviewer(s). When claiming compliance, the applied version or edition of the ILCD "General guide for LCA" shall be identified in connection to the claim. When a new version of an ILCD Handbook component has been published, the provisions of that new version shall be applied, overruling the ones of the former version


When a new version of an ILCD Handbook component has been published, the provisions of that new version shall be applied, overruling the ones of the former version. The provisions of the preceding version can per default still be applied for ongoing studies up to a maximum of 6 months after publication of the new version. These 6 months can be modified and overruled by different provisions of ILCD system operators. If a new version of any applicable ILCD component has been published but an older version is used, the name of the component and the publication date of the new version shall be clearly identified in the study or other deliverable that claims compliance. Provisions To ease developing ILCD compliant studies, all "Provisions" are marked as either "shall", "should" or "may" to identify the provision‟s requirement status:


ILCD Handbook: General guide for Life Cycle Assessment - Detailed guidance First edition 2 How to use this document "SHALL": the provision is a mandatory requirement and must always be followed, unless for specifically named exceptions, if any.  "SHOULD": the provision must be followed but deviations are permissible only if, for the given case, they are clearly justified in writing, giving appropriate details. Reasons for deviations can be that the respective provision or parts of it are not applicable, or if another solution is clearly more appropriate. If the permissible deviations and justifications are restricted, then these are identified in the context of the provision.  "MAY": the provision is only a methodological or procedural recommendation. The provision can be ignored or the issue can be addressed in another way without the need for any justification or explanation. NOTE: Instead of "may" the term "recommended" is sometimes used and equivalent


NOTE: Instead of "may" the term "recommended" is sometimes used and equivalent. The requirement status also applies to all subsequent sub-provisions on a lower hierarchy-level. However, when a provision is differentiated by weakening the requirement stats (e.g. a "should" or "may" under a "shall" provision), this is explicitly formulated in the provision text. In that case the less strict requirement status applies for that level / specific sub-provision. Conformity with ISO 1404 and 14044 This document has been developed with the aim of being in line with (i.e. not contradicting) ISO 14040 and 14044:2006. This is in the sense that an ILCD compliant studies will also conform with ISO 14040 and 14044:2006 (while not vice versa, as this present document is more specific). If conformity with ISO 14040 and 14044:2006 is aimed at for an LCI or LCA study, it is nevertheless recommended to have this confirmed as part of a critical review


If conformity with ISO 14040 and 14044:2006 is aimed at for an LCI or LCA study, it is nevertheless recommended to have this confirmed as part of a critical review. To ease identification, the provisions of this document that are marked "[ISO!]" are stricter than ISO 14040 and 14044:2006; in addition the right side of the frame next to that provision is a solid red line (instead of the default dotted-dashed green line). Where additional provisions are made that are not explicitly addressed in ISO 14040 and 14044:2006, the provision is marked "[ISO+]"; the right side of the frame is a dashed orange line, in that case. These marks serve for orientation only, since for some provisions it is a matter of interpretation whether they are an additional or stricter requirement, or whether they are in addition or already implicitly covered in the ISO standards. Also, some provisions combine one aspect that is in addition with another aspect that is stricter


Also, some provisions combine one aspect that is in addition with another aspect that is stricter. 2.4 Dealing with potential omissions and contradictions in the ILCD Handbook Given the complexity of Life Cycle Assessment, the broad range of specific questions that can be addressed with LCA, and the degree of detail in this document, omissions and contradictions cannot be entirely ruled out. To avoid problems in application, in such cases the following overarching provision applies: In the case of contradictions among provisions or inapplicability of any provision in the ILCD Handbook (i.e. in this document and in other ILCD Handbook documents), an LCI or LCA study can claim compliance with the ILCD Handbook if the following three requirements are met by the study: a) All other, unaffected provisions of the ILCD Handbook documents have been applied.


ILCD Handbook: General guide for Life Cycle Assessment - Detailed guidance First edition 2 How to use this document b) The general or case-specific contradiction or inapplicability is clearly identified and demonstrated. In such cases, the provision shall be used that best meets the ISO 14040 and 14044:2006 requirements. c) If a critical review is required: The reviewer is confirming the compliance of the study or other deliverable to the above two requirements a) and b). Provisions: 2 How to use this document I) SHALL4 - ILCD Handbook compliance: An LCI or LCA study or data set and direct LCA applications can claim compliance with the ILCD Handbook. For this they shall have been developed in line with the provisions of this document as specified in the "Provisions", including the provisions made in referenced documents and complementing information that may be given in the main part of the document, e.g. in supporting tables or in the "terms and concepts" boxes


in supporting tables or in the "terms and concepts" boxes. Also specific LCI / LCA guidance documents (e.g. product-group, sector or process-type specific guides) and Product Category Rules (PCR) can claim ILCD compliance. This applies, if their provisions are compliant with the broader provisions of the ILCD Handbook and if they have undergone an ILCD compliant review as specified in the separate document "Review schemes for LCA". The following applies to compliance statements (2.35): [ISO+]6 I.a) The compliance statement shall refer to the applicable Situation A, B, C1, and/or C2. I.b) ILCD compliance is structured into five compliance aspects that shall all be met for full compliance: Data quality, Method, Nomenclature, Review, and Documentation (chapter 12.4 gives the details). I.c) Partial compliance can be claimed in a structured way by referring to any of the above five aspects, but it shall be clearly communicated in such cases that full compliance has not been achieved


I.d) Purely methodological LCA studies may not be able to comply with the ILCD Handbook and the ISO 14040 and 14044, as the analysed methodological options may necessarily deviate from the provisions. Such studies may draw on the ILCD provisions, but compliance with the ILCD Handbook cannot be claimed in such cases and the impression shall be avoided as far as possible that they are compliant. Partial compliance can be reported, as detailed above. I.e) Additionally, for LCI data sets, the overall data quality level attained should be documented in the data set as "High quality", "Basic quality", or "Data estimate" (see chapter 12.3 and tables of that chapter for details and definitions). The performed review type and reviewer(s), if any, shall also be identified in the data set


The performed review type and reviewer(s), if any, shall also be identified in the data set. I.f) When claiming compliance, the applied version or edition of the ILCD "General 4 The meaning of the SHALL, SHOULD and MAY settings is explained in Provision II) in this set of "Provisions: 2 How to use this document". 5 The sub-chapter of the main text that has more details on a specific provision is given in brackets at the end of the main provision. 6 The meaning of the (ISO!) and [ISO+] settings is explained in Provision III) in this set of "Provisions: 2 How to use this document".


ILCD Handbook: General guide for Life Cycle Assessment - Detailed guidance First edition 2 How to use this document guide for LCA" shall be identified in connection to the claim. I.g) When a new version of an ILCD Handbook component has been published, the provisions of that new version shall be applied, overruling the ones of the former version. The provisions of the preceding version can per default still be applied for ongoing studies up to a maximum of 9 months after publication of the new version. These 9 months can be modified and overruled by different provisions of ILCD system operators. If a new version of any applicable ILCD component has been published but an older version is used, the name of the component and the publication date of the new version shall be clearly and in a prominent place be identified in the study report or other deliverable that claims compliance


II) SHALL - Shall, should, may: The expression "SHALL", "SHOULD" and "MAY" in front of a (main) provision identifies its requirement status (2.3): (ISO!) II.a) "SHALL": the provision is a mandatory requirement and must always be followed, unless for specifically named exceptions, if any. II.b) "SHOULD": the provision must be followed; deviations are permissible if they are clearly justified in writing for the given case, giving appropriate details. Reasons for deviations can be that the respective provision or parts of it are not applicable, or if another solution is clearly more appropriate. If the permissible deviations and justifications are restricted, these are identified in the context of the provision. II.c) "MAY": the provision is only a methodological or procedural recommendation. The provision can be ignored or the issue addressed in another way without the need for any justification or explanation. NOTE: Instead of "may" the equivalent term "recommended" is sometimes used


The provision can be ignored or the issue addressed in another way without the need for any justification or explanation. NOTE: Instead of "may" the equivalent term "recommended" is sometimes used. II.d) The requirement status also applies to all subsequent provisions on a lower hierarchy-level (e.g. under a provision "II" also all sub-provisions "II.a", "II.b", etc.). If a provision is differentiated (e.g. a "should" or "may" under a "shall" provision), this is explicitly formulated in the provisions text. III) For information/orientation only - ISO specifications and additions: Single provisions on items that are not covered by ISO 14044:2006 are generally marked as "[ISO+]"; additionally the right border of the frame next to that provision is a dashed orange line (instead of the default dotted-dashed green line)


Provisions where the ILCD provisions are more strict or specific than that which follows from applying ISO 14044:2006 are generally marked as "[ISO!]"; furthermore, the right border of the frame next to that provision is a solid red line. [ISO+] IV) MAY - ISO conformity: The document has been developed with the aim of being in line with ISO 14040 and 14044:2006, in the sense that an ILCD compliant study will also conform with ISO 14040 and 14044:2006. If conformity with ISO 14040 and 14044:2006 is aimed at for an LCI or LCA study, it is nevertheless recommended to have this confirmed as part of a critical review. V) SHALL - Contradictions or inapplicabilities: In the case of contradictions among provisions, or inapplicability of any provision in the ILCD Handbook (i.e


V) SHALL - Contradictions or inapplicabilities: In the case of contradictions among provisions, or inapplicability of any provision in the ILCD Handbook (i.e. in this document and other ILCD Handbook documents), an LCI or LCA study can claim compliance with the ILCD Handbook if the following three requirements are met by the study (2.4): V.a) a) All other, unaffected provisions of the ILCD Handbook documents have been


ILCD Handbook: General guide for Life Cycle Assessment - Detailed guidance First edition 2 How to use this document applied. V.b) b) The general or case-specific contradiction or inapplicability is clearly identified and demonstrated. In such cases, the provision shall be used that best meets the ISO 14040 and 14044:2006 requirements. V.c) c) If a critical review is required: The reviewer is confirming the compliance of the study or other deliverable to the above two requirements a) and b). VI) MAY - How to work with this document: Stepwise recommendations are made on how to efficiently perform an LCI or LCA study with the help of this document and the general frame of ISO 14044 (2.2.4). [ISO+] VII) MAY - Differences A, B, C1, C2: A condensed, indicative overview is given on the main LCI modelling differences among the Goal Situations A, B, C1, and C2 (2.2.3). [ISO+]


ILCD Handbook: General guide for Life Cycle Assessment - Detailed guidance First edition 3 Key definitions 3 Key definitions The following key definitions are newly introduced terms or ISO terms that are used by different LCA practitioners with different meanings. These definitions should be read first for a clearer understanding of this document. Table 1 Key terms and definitions Term Definition Allocation [or: Partitioning] Partitioning the input or output flows of a process or a product system between the product system under study and one or more other product systems. [Source: ISO 14044:2006] Analysed decision Decision that is subject to an LCA study. In contrast to LCI studies and most non-comparative LCA studies stand comparative LCA studies with a direct decision context. For these the LCA study analysis a decision rather than a single process or system


For these the LCA study analysis a decision rather than a single process or system. Such can be for example the decision on alternative materials that are evaluated to be used for a product, the purchase of alternatives products that are compared, the decision on a policy option that is analysed regarding its environmental impact implications, and the like. Assumption scenario Scenario for the analysed process or system that varies data and method assumptions with the purpose of evaluating the robustness of the study results and conclusions. If more than one alternative system or option are compared, each of them would have its own assumption scenarios. Attributional modelling [or: descriptive, bookkeeping] LCI modelling frame that inventories the inputs and output flows of all processes of a system as they occur. Modelling process along an existing supply-chain is of this type


Modelling process along an existing supply-chain is of this type. Best attainable consensus Partial or full agreement of the involved parties, steered by a chair or coordinator towards the broadest possible agreement on the issue at stake. In contrast to an entirely result-open process, here a solution that fits preset requirements (e.g. "define a reasonably worst case scenario") is to be found, i.e. the 'zero-option' is not an option. Co-function Any of two or more functions provided by the same unit process or system. Co-product Any of two or more products coming from the same unit process or system. [Source: ISO 14044:2006] Comparative assertion Environmental claim regarding the superiority or equivalence of one product versus a competing product that performs the same function. [ISO 14040:2006, ISO 14025:2006] Comparative life cycle assessment Comparison of LCA results for different products, systems or services that usually perform the same or similar function


[ISO 14040:2006, ISO 14025:2006] Comparative life cycle assessment Comparison of LCA results for different products, systems or services that usually perform the same or similar function. Consequential modelling LCI modelling principle that identifies and models all processes in the background system of a system in consequence of decisions made in the foreground system Disclosed to the public The audience is not specifically limited and hence includes non-technical and external audience, e.g. consumers.


ILCD Handbook: General guide for Life Cycle Assessment - Detailed guidance First edition 3 Key definitions End-of-life product Product at the end of its useful life that will potentially undergo reuse, recycling, or recovery. Environmental impact Potential impact on the natural environment, human health or the depletion of natural resources, caused by the interventions between the technosphere and the ecosphere as covered by LCA (e.g. emissions, resource extraction, land use). Functional flow One of the (co-)product flow(s) in the inventory of a process or system that fulfils the process' / system's function See also: Non-functional flow Monofunctional process Process or system that performs only one function. Non-functional flow Any of the inventory items that are not (co-)product flows. E.g. all emissions, waste, resources but also input flows of processed goods and of services. Multifunctional process Process or system that performs more than one function


E.g. all emissions, waste, resources but also input flows of processed goods and of services. Multifunctional process Process or system that performs more than one function. Examples: Processes with more than one product as output (e.g. NaOH, Cl2 and H2 from Chloralkali electrolysis) or more than one waste treated jointly (e.g. mixed household waste incineration with energy recovery). See also: "Allocation" and "System expansion" Life cycle inventory (LCI) data set Data set with the inventory of a process or system. Can be both unit process and LCI results and variants of these. Life cycle inventory (LCI) study Life cycle study that provides the life cycle inventory data of a process or system. Life cycle inventory analysis results (LCI results) Outcome of a life cycle inventory analysis that catalogues the flows crossing the system boundary and provides the starting point for life cycle impact assessment


(Source: ISO 14040) Overall environmental impact Total of impacts on human health, natural environment and resource depletion for the considered impact categories. It can be calculated either as normalised and weighted overall LCIA results of the analysed process / system, or assuming an even weighting across impacts, i.e. for each and any of the impact categories. Product Any good or service; see "System". Recycling, reuse, recovery Note: In lack of a common parent term, these three terms are used in this document to identify these and similar activities, such as refurbishing, further use and the like. Casewise also the term "recycling" alone is used and meant to cover the entirety of these activities. See also "Secondary good". Relevant For LCI data sets: Having a significant influence on or contribution to the overall environmental impact of the analysed process or system, resulting in a different quality level


Relevant For LCI data sets: Having a significant influence on or contribution to the overall environmental impact of the analysed process or system, resulting in a different quality level. For LCA studies: Having a significant influence on or contribution to the overall environmental impact of the analysed process or system, resulting


ILCD Handbook: General guide for Life Cycle Assessment - Detailed guidance First edition 3 Key definitions in different conclusions or recommendations. Secondary good Secondary material, recovered energy, reused part or similar as the product of a reuse, recycling, recovery, refurbishing or similar process. Substitution Solving multifunctionality of processes and products by expanding the system boundaries and substituting the not required function with an alternative way of providing it, i.e. the process(es) or product(s) that the not required function supersedes. Effectively the life cycle inventory of the superseded process(es) or product(s) is subtracted from that of the analysed system, i.e. it is "credited". Substitution is a special (subtractive) case of applying the system expansion principle. System Any good, service, event, basket-of-products, average consumption of a citizen, or similar object that is analysed in the context of the LCA study


System Any good, service, event, basket-of-products, average consumption of a citizen, or similar object that is analysed in the context of the LCA study. Note that ISO 14044:2006 generally refers to "product system", while broader systems than single products can be analysed in an LCA study; hence here the term "system" is used. In many but not all cases the term will hence refer to products, depending on the specific study object. Moreover, as LCI studies can be restricted to a single unit process as part of a system, in this document the study object is also identified in a general way as "process / system" System expansion Adding specific processes or products and the related life cycle inventories to the analysed system. Used to make several multifunctional systems with an only partly equivalent set of functions comparable within LCA


Used to make several multifunctional systems with an only partly equivalent set of functions comparable within LCA. System perspective In contrast to a unit process or a part of a life cycle, the system perspective relates to the entire life cycle of an analysed system or process. For processes that implies that the life cycle is completed. This term is used mainly in context of identifying significant issues and quantifying inventory completeness / cut-off. Unit process Smallest element considered in the life cycle inventory analysis for which input and output data are quantified. (Source: ISO 14040) In practice of LCA, both physically not further separable processes (such as unit operations in production plants) and also whole production sites are covered under "unit process". See also "Unit process, black box", "Unit process, single operation", and "System". Unit process, black box A unit process that includes more than one single-operation unit processes


See also "Unit process, black box", "Unit process, single operation", and "System". Unit process, black box A unit process that includes more than one single-operation unit processes. Unit process, single operation A unit process that cannot be further sub-divided into included processes. Some, more complex terms and concepts are explained in more detail in boxes throughout the document. See the contents of these "Terms and concepts" after the "Contents" of this document.


ILCD Handbook: General guide for Life Cycle Assessment - Detailed guidance First edition 3 Key definitions


ILCD Handbook: General guide for Life Cycle Assessment - Detailed guidance First edition 4 The iterative approach to LCA 4 The iterative approach to LCA (No specific corresponding ISO 14044:2006 chapter, but mentioned in several chapters) Overview Before starting with the guidance on goal definition as first phase of performing an LCI or LCA study, in this chapter the iterative approach to LCA is explained. LCAs are iterative To carry out an LCI or LCA study is almost always an iterative process: once the goal of the work is defined, the initial scope settings are derived that define the requirements on the subsequent work. However, as during the life cycle inventory phase of data collection and during the subsequent impact assessment and interpretation more information becomes available, the initial scope settings will typically need to be refined and sometimes also revised (see Figure 4). Figure 5 gives a more detailed overview of the iterations


Figure 5 gives a more detailed overview of the iterations. Figure 4 Iterative nature of LCA (schematic). LCAs are performed in iterative loops of goal and scope definition, inventory data collection and modelling (LCI), impact assessment (LCIA), and with completeness, sensitivity and consistency checks (Evaluation) as a steering instrument. This is done - with a possible, limited revision of the goal and scope - until the required accuracy of the system’s model and processes and the required completeness and precision of the inventory results has been attained. In order to achieve the required precision with the minimum necessary effort, it is recommended to collect data and select external data sources in an iterative manner


In order to achieve the required precision with the minimum necessary effort, it is recommended to collect data and select external data sources in an iterative manner. Especially for fully new technologies and complex product systems on which little previous experience exists, the first iteration may use generic or average data for the background and also many parts of the foreground system (see Terms and concepts box "Foreground system and background system" in chapter 6.6.1). This can be combined with expert judgement to identify the key processes and elementary flows of the product system. The main effort of data collection and acquisition can thereby be focussed on the relevant parts of the system


The main effort of data collection and acquisition can thereby be focussed on the relevant parts of the system. 2nd iteration • revision of scope definition? • better data for key processes (background and foreground) • more specific data for foreground processes 1st Iteration • full product system • specific data as available • easily available secondary data 3rd iteration • better data for key processes and flows (background and foreground) Overall data quality (accuracy, precision, completeness) Time and effort Goal and Scope LCI LCIA Evaluation Goal and Scope LCI LCIA Evaluation Goal and Scope LCI LCIA Evaluation Goal and Scope LCI LCIA Evaluation Goal and Scope LCI LCIA Evaluation


ILCD Handbook: General guide for Life Cycle Assessment - Detailed guidance First edition 4 The iterative approach to LCA Documentation in parallel to work It is recommended to document the details of the initial goal and scope definition, key LCI and LCIA items, and the key initial results of the sensitivity, consistency and completeness checks along the provisions of reporting required for the deliverable. Keep track of data sources and initial calculations, on paper and/or digitally. Use this preliminary report as a living reference during the subsequent work and repeatedly revise and fine-tune it in course of the iterations towards the final report (being a data set and/or study report). The iterations The inventory phase is building on the decisions made during goal and scope definition. It is preparing the input for the impact assessment and interpretation phases, be it directly as a step within an LCA study or in other studies that use the resulting inventory data


It is preparing the input for the impact assessment and interpretation phases, be it directly as a step within an LCA study or in other studies that use the resulting inventory data. Findings in the impact assessment and the sensitivity and contribution analysis, which are performed as part of the interpretation, help identifying the most relevantly contributing (“key”) processes and elementary flows of the system. A completeness and consistency check complements this. After the initial LCI screening modelling the achieved completeness, accuracy and precision of the data for some of the key processes, parameters and elementary flows may be insufficient to meet the overall requirements to the LCI/LCA study (as derived from the goal definition and intended applications)


These key processes, parameters and elementary flows become the focus of the next iteration: the inventory is improved by further foreground data collection or by using better and more appropriate generic or average data, to achieve the required completeness, accuracy, and precision of the overall data and results. The inventory that results from this second iteration of data collection is again subjected to impact assessment and to sensitivity and contribution analysis as well as completeness and consistency check, providing feedback to possible additional iterations of the inventory data collection until the required overall accuracy, precision and completeness has been reached. For data that were initially assumed to be of little significance but for which the sensitivity analysis has revealed relevance, improve the quality of these data. Use sufficiently good data estimates for these life cycle stages, activity types, processes or specific elementary flows


Use sufficiently good data estimates for these life cycle stages, activity types, processes or specific elementary flows. In the case sufficiently good data estimates are not available, entirely leave out the respective processes and flows and document the gap. This iterative improvement of the inventory is accompanied by a preceding fine-tuning of the scope definition at the beginning of each iteration. To name some of the relevant scope aspects often affected:  The previously included and excluded activities, processes and elementary flows may need to be adjusted.  Also the initial specific provisions for solving multifunctionality may need to be further detailed or revised.  In comparative studies the initially defined scenarios may need revision or expansion by additional ones based on new insights during data collection and modelling e.g. of product use patterns


 In comparative studies the initially defined scenarios may need revision or expansion by additional ones based on new insights during data collection and modelling e.g. of product use patterns.  In few cases newly identified and potentially relevant elementary flows may require to develop additional impact characterisation factors.  In rare cases newly identified kinds of relevant environmental impacts may even require to add new impact categories and models.


ILCD Handbook: General guide for Life Cycle Assessment - Detailed guidance First edition 4 The iterative approach to LCA Figure 5 gives a more detailed overview. Figure 5 Details of the iterative approach to LCA, with focus on inventory data collection and modelling (from ISO 14044:2006, modified). Critical review It is recommended to identify and involve critical reviewer(s) from the beginning of the study, including when defining goal and scope. Review requirements are addressed in chapter 6.11. Limitations of reaching the required overall accuracy, precision and completeness Depending on the specific study, it can happen that also after three or even four iterations the required precision cannot be achieved. In comparative studies this can be e.g. if the compared alternatives have a so similar environmental performance that an environmentally significant "better" alternative cannot be singled out, because the basic uncertainty does not permit this


As the additional relative effort per improvement increases with each iteration and as the uncertainty cannot be reduced to zero, in such cases it is practically not possible to conclude a relevant difference. This however also means that the real difference of the overall environmental impact is not that big and there is no relevant environmental advantage of the only slightly better alternative over the less good one


Calculated LCIA results Scope settings Goal settings Reviewed data set or report/study LCI/LCA report and/or data set Critical review Data, results, interpretation, conclusions and recommendations Secondary data Additional or better primary or secondary data required? Calculated LCI results Validated data per unit process Collected data Validated data Validated data per functional unit(s) / reference flow(s) Data collection sheet Scope definition Planning data collection Data collection Basic validation of data Relating data to unit process Relating data set to functional unit(s) / reference flow(s) Data aggregation (possibly averaging) LCIA results calculation (may include normalisation, weighting) Substitution / allocation provisions Obtain secondary data (specific, generic or average) Goal definition Interpretation (significant issues, completeness check, sensitivity check, consistency check conclusions, recommendations) Reporting Application / publication Additional or better


Goal definition Interpretation (significant issues, completeness check, sensitivity check, consistency check conclusions, recommendations) Reporting Application / publication Additional or better primary or secondary data required ? Scope or goal revision? Scope or goal revision? Revision of aggregation, LCIA results calculation, Interpretation, and/or reporting?


ILCD Handbook: General guide for Life Cycle Assessment - Detailed guidance First edition 4 The iterative approach to LCA Especially for studies on systems that have main parts in the further away future or where the key processes are new technologies, the high uncertainty may make it impossible to clearly differentiate even between options that potentially have relevant differenced in their environmental impact. In other cases a limited access to required key data or lack of resources or funds may hinder to further improve the overall data quality. Especially this case shall not be used to conclude that significant differences do not exist (see also annex 15.3 on preventing misleading result interpretation). Sometimes the iterations lead to identification of issues that cannot be resolved and which require more substantial revisions of the goal or scope definition of the LCI/LCA study. This is to be documented in the reporting


This is to be documented in the reporting. Provisions: 4 The iterative approach to LCA I) MAY - Overview of iterative approach: It is recommended taking an iterative approach to the LCI/LCA study (for more detail see chapter 2.2.4): I.a) Define the goal aspects as precisely as possible in the beginning of the study (see chapter 5.2). I.b) Derive an initial scope definition from the goal definition as far as initial knowledge permits (see chapter 6). I.c) Compile easily available Life Cycle Inventory data for the foreground and background system. Model the process or system (e.g. product) as far as the initial information and data permits (see chapter 7). I.d) Calculate the LCIA results (see chapter 8). I.e) Identify significant issues and perform first sensitivity, consistency and completeness checks on this initial model (see chapter 9)


I.d) Calculate the LCIA results (see chapter 8). I.e) Identify significant issues and perform first sensitivity, consistency and completeness checks on this initial model (see chapter 9). I.f) Based on this go to the next iteration: Start with fine-tuning or revising the scope (in some cases even the goal), improve the life cycle model accordingly, etc. I.g) Expect two to four iterations towards completing the study. This will mainly depend on the quality needs or ambition, the complexity of the analysed process(es) or system(s), on the specifically analysed question(s), and data availability and its quality. [ISO+] I.h) Starting from the beginning of the study, document the details of the initial goal and scope definition, key LCI and LCIA items, and the key initial results of the sensitivity, consistency and completeness checks. Let this be guided by the main provisions of reporting required for the deliverable


Let this be guided by the main provisions of reporting required for the deliverable. During subsequent iterations, use this preliminary core report as work in progress and constantly revise, finetune and complete it towards the final report (be it a data set and/or a study report). [ISO+] II) MAY - Early identification of reviewers: From the beginning of the study, it is recommended to identify and involve critical reviewer(s) and - if required or desired - interested parties, including when defining goal and scope. [ISO+] All these provisions refer especially to the system(s) modelled under Situation B (i.e. for meso / macro-level decision support studies) .


ILCD Handbook: General guide for Life Cycle Assessment - Detailed guidance First edition 5 Goal definition – identifying purpose and target audience 5 Goal definition – identifying purpose and target audience (Refers to ISO 14044:2006 chapter 4.2.2) 5.1 Introduction and overview (Refers to aspects of ISO 14044:2006 chapter 4.2.2) Introduction The goal definition is the first phase of any life cycle assessment, independently whether the LCI/LCA study7 is limited to the development of a single unit process data set or it is a complete LCA study of a comparative assertion to be published. During the goal definition among others the decision-context(s) and intended application(s) of the study are identified and the targeted audience(s) are to be named. The goal definition is decisive for all the other phases of the LCA:  The goal definition guides all the detailed aspects of the scope definition, which in turn sets the frame for the LCI work and LCIA work


 The quality control of the work is performed in view of the requirements that were derived from the goal of the work.  If the work goes beyond an LCI study, the final results of the LCA are evaluated and interpreted. Also this is to be done in close relation to the goal of the work. A clear, initial goal definition is hence essential for a correct later interpretation of the results. This includes ensuring as far as possible that the deliverables of the LCI/LCA study cannot unintentionally and erroneously be used or interpreted beyond the initial goal and scope for which it was carried out. Annex 15 exemplarily identifies and illustrates issues that must be avoided for a nonmisleading goal and scope definition and results interpretation


Annex 15 exemplarily identifies and illustrates issues that must be avoided for a nonmisleading goal and scope definition and results interpretation. Overview Six aspects shall be addressed and documented during the goal definition:  Intended application(s) of the deliverables / results (chapter 5.2.1)  Limitations due to the method, assumptions, and impact coverage (5.2.2)  Reasons for carrying out the study and decision-context (5.2.3)  Target audience of the deliverables / results (5.2.4)  Comparative studies to be disclosed to the public (5.2.5)  Commissioner of the study and other influential actors (5.2.6) The various detailed implications on method, documentation, review etc. that these specific aspects have, are addressed throughout this document. 7 The term "LCI/LCA study" is used wherever the text applies to both LCI studies (i.e. with a life cycle inventory as deliverable, e.g


7 The term "LCI/LCA study" is used wherever the text applies to both LCI studies (i.e. with a life cycle inventory as deliverable, e.g. a LCI data set) and LCA studies (which is often comparative and always includes an interpretation and potentially conclusions and recommendations).


ILCD Handbook: General guide for Life Cycle Assessment - Detailed guidance First edition 5 Goal definition – identifying purpose and target audience Finally, in order to help in the subsequent scope definition, especially regarding identifying the appropriate LCI modelling frameworks and method approaches:  Classification of the decision-context of the LCI/LCA study (5.3). The methodological provisions for the different decision-contexts and the to-be-derived archetypal goal situations are addressed in chapter 6.5.4. 5.2 Six aspects of the goal definition (Refers to ISO 14044:2006 chapter 4.2.2) 5.2.1 Intended application(s) (Refers to aspect of ISO 14044:2006 chapter 4.2.2) Studies in relationship to decision support and accounting/monitoring The goal definition shall firstly state the intended application(s) of the LCA results in a precise and unambiguous way (e.g


“Comparative assertion of the overall environmental impacts associated with nation-wide recycling (Option I) or incineration (Option II) of all used office paper in Australia”)8. The following LCA applications are the most frequently used ones, but others may be identified and used as well:  Identification of Key Environmental Performance Indicators (KEPI) of a product group for Ecodesign / simplified LCA  Weak point analysis of a specific product  Detailed Ecodesign / Design-for-recycling  Perform simplified KEPI-type LCA / Ecodesign study  Comparison of specific goods or services  Benchmarking of specific products against the product group's average  Green Public or Private Procurement (GPP)  Development of life cycle based Type I Ecolabel criteria  Development of Product Category Rules (PCR) or a similar specific guide for a product group  Development of a life cycle based Type III environmental declaration (e.g


Environmental Product Declaration (EPD)) for a specific good or service  Development of the “Carbon footprint”, “Primary energy consumption” or similar indicator for a specific product  Greening the supply chain  Providing quantitative life cycle data as annex to an Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) for comparative use  Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and Joint Implementation (JI) 8 To improve the reading flow, longer illustrative in-line examples are formatted in grey.


ILCD Handbook: General guide for Life Cycle Assessment - Detailed guidance First edition 5 Goal definition – identifying purpose and target audience Policy development: Forecasting & analysis of the environmental impact of pervasive technologies, raw material strategies, etc


and related policy development  Policy information: Basket-of-products (or -product groups) type of studies  Policy information: Identifying product groups with the largest environmental impact  Policy information: Identifying product groups with the largest environmental improvement potential  Monitoring environmental impacts of a nation, industry sector, product group, or product  Corporate or site environmental reporting including calculation of indirect effects in Environmental Management Systems (EMS)  Certified supply type studies or parts of the analysed system with fixed guarantees along the supply-chain  Accounting studies that according to their goal definition do not include any interaction with other systems  Development of specific, average or generic unit process or LCI results data sets for use in specified types of LCA applications9 Note that often several, separate applications are intended by a study (e.g


developing an EPD and performing an internal benchmark). Or the application is combined with cost, social, or other complementary environmental information (e.g. combining a product comparison based on environmental LCA results with life cycle cost information when performing an ecoefficiency type analysis). Note that certain applications have specific requirements under ISO 14040 and 14044:2006, e.g. regarding review and reporting for comparative assertions disclosed to the public. Also LCI and LCIA data sets for intended use for EPDs and in comparative contexts imply additional requirements. Table 3 in scope chapter 6.3 gives more information. Note also that the different applications require different methodological approaches for the LCI modelling; details on the directly related three archetypal goal situations that are differentiated here are given in chapter 5.3


This means that also different background data might be required for applications of substantially different decision-contexts. Note finally that the subject of the study is often named during the goal definition for clarity reasons while it is formally a scoping issue. If however the goal is defined on a more general level, the specific subject(s) can only be identified during the scope phase. Purely methodological studies without relationship to decision support and accounting / monitoring on the studies object Studies that do not have the goal to provide information in support of any decisions on the analysed object or accounting / monitoring information, but are LCA studies to analyse methodological issues need to have the liberty to vary all methodological issues freely. Such studies may therefore not be able to meet the ILCD requirements or ISO 14040 and 14044 requirements


Such studies may therefore not be able to meet the ILCD requirements or ISO 14040 and 14044 requirements. 9 It is important to note that specific types of LCA applications require LCI background data sets that are modelled in a suitable way. In the ILCD guidance three main types of decision-contexts / goal situations are differentiated. This will be addressed in chapter 5.3.


ILCD Handbook: General guide for Life Cycle Assessment - Detailed guidance First edition 5 Goal definition – identifying purpose and target audience At the same time it is recommended that such studies implement the provisions of ISO 14040 and 14044 and of the ILCD handbook, to ease uptake of the study's methodological findings in the further development of ISO and the ILCD. However, accordingly such studies can not claim to be ILCD or ISO compliant. When the audience of such studies is informed that parts of the ILCD Handbook provisions have been used, the impression shall be avoided that such studies would be ILCD compliant by explicitly stating that fact. It should equally be made clear to the audience that such studies do explicitly not aim at decision support or providing monitoring information on the analysed objects and must not be used for such purposes or applications


When such studies contain comparative elements, care should be taken to not give the impression to the audience that the results of the study imply any comparative message on the analysed objects. This should be stated explicitly and clearly visible. The intended application of such studies would hence be to gain purely methodological insights. 5.2.2 Method, assumption and impact limitations (e.g. Carbon footprint) (No corresponding ISO 14044:2006 chapter; implicitly covered in various chapters) Introduction If the goal definition implies specific limitations of the usability of the LCA results due to the applied methodology, assumptions made or limited impact-coverage, such shall equally be clearly identified and later be prominently reported (see chapter 10). The identification and appreciation of such limitations needs a relevant degree of expertise and experience. Often the limitations need to be adjusted or expanded during the course of the study


The identification and appreciation of such limitations needs a relevant degree of expertise and experience. Often the limitations need to be adjusted or expanded during the course of the study. Carbon footprint and other studies with limited impact coverage A prominent example of impact-coverage related limitations is the case of Carbon footprint calculations where exclusively climate change related greenhouse gas emissions are considered. Such an initial limitation can be fully justified, if the overall environmental impacts of the analysed product (and its competing products) are by far dominated by climate change impacts or if all other individually relevant impacts such as Eutrophication and Acidification are very closely and positively correlated with Climate change. Otherwise such limitations in the initial settings can result in inadequacy for comparisons (e.g. if two compared products clearly differ in their environmental impacts in other impact categories)


Otherwise such limitations in the initial settings can result in inadequacy for comparisons (e.g. if two compared products clearly differ in their environmental impacts in other impact categories). The same applies analogously for primary energy consumption studies where only energy consumption related resource flows are included, or other such kinds of limitations. Method-related limitations Also methodological limitations can limit the possibility for drawing general conclusions or for using the resulting LCI data in other studies. Methodological limitations refer for example to limitations that are inherent to the conventional, site-unspecific LCIA: if the results of such a study are intended to inform a decision on a specific site with uncommon characteristics (e.g. being located on an island) they are unsuitable. Other method-related limitations can be caused by the specific LCI method approach chosen


being located on an island) they are unsuitable. Other method-related limitations can be caused by the specific LCI method approach chosen. For example may the use of market price based allocation partly or entirely prevent the use of the results in eco-efficiency studies since the environmental results are correlated with the market price.


ILCD Handbook: General guide for Life Cycle Assessment - Detailed guidance First edition 5 Goal definition – identifying purpose and target audience Assumption-related limitations Assumptions on the characteristics of the analysed system10 or on specific scenarios equally can limit the usability and transferability of the results. This can be, for example, if an analysed product scenario is very specific regarding time representativeness (e.g. "peak power supply"), location (e.g. in a country of climate zone for which the product was not designed), use-pattern (e.g. outside the product's main purpose), etc., i.e. in a way that is atypical for the analysed system. Niche markets A special case in this context are restrictions due to analysing a "niche market": A market niche is a sub-category of a market segment, where a part of the customers consider only products with specific properties substitutable (i.e. those properties that characterise the specific niche (e.g


those properties that characterise the specific niche (e.g. "refillable packaging" in the market "packaging"), although the majority of the consumers perceives comparability between products from the niche and other products in the segment (i.e. in this example including "non-refillable packaging"). Aspects that separate a niche market from the main market are among others:  price (i.e. investment cost of a good or life cycle cost / total-cost-of-ownership),  life-style and value-system related issues (e.g. "green" image in general or more specific such as "locally produced", "bio-based", "recycled", "recyclable", "ecolabelled", etc., or "social" image in general or more specific such as "fair-traded", "free-of-childwork", etc. or aspects such as "fashionable", "modern", "prestige", "young", etc.)  high quality, durability / longevity,  practicality and/or time-saving


or aspects such as "fashionable", "modern", "prestige", "young", etc.)  high quality, durability / longevity,  practicality and/or time-saving. Studies on niche markets hence initially limit the to-be-included types of products, although from a purely technical perspective also products outside the specific niche would need to be included to avoid a potentially misleading comparison. In the interpretation phase of such studies the limited conclusions shall be explicitly and well visibly highlighted. 5.2.3 Reasons for carrying out the study, and decision-context (Refers to aspect of ISO 14044:2006 chapter 4.2.2) The goal definition shall explain the reasons for carrying out the LCI/LCA study, name the drivers and motivations, and especially identify the decision-context (e.g. for the above example: “Support decision on governmental non-binding11 recommendations for environmentally preferred future handling of paper waste from commercial and governmental offices in Australia”)


The decision-context is one key criterion for determining the most appropriate methods for the LCI model, i.e. the LCI modelling framework (i.e. “attributional” or “consequential”) and the related LCI method approaches (i.e. “allocation” or “substitution”) to be applied. Chapter 10 The term "system" is used throughout the text instead of the more classical term "product system" because many other systems are analysed with LCA (e.g. sites, raw material strategies, needs fulfilment (e.g. mobility solutions) that go beyond a single product system. 11 In the case the context was to inform the establishment of a legally binding policy, this would imply a different setting: in that case the future scenarios would assume that the paper waste would be handled almost entirely according to the assumed legislation. For the here used example of a non-binding recommendation, the future scenarios would arguably need to model a clearly lower share of implementation, what may effect the LCI model


For the here used example of a non-binding recommendation, the future scenarios would arguably need to model a clearly lower share of implementation, what may effect the LCI model. This example illustrates the importance of a very clear and well specified goal definition in all its aspects, before continuing with the scope definition or even LCI data collection.


ILCD Handbook: General guide for Life Cycle Assessment - Detailed guidance First edition 5 Goal definition – identifying purpose and target audience 5.3 provides the details on the formal approach to derive the applicable goal situation from the intended application and general decision-context. The decision-context also directly determines other key aspects of the scope definition, of decisions to be made during inventory data collection and modelling, the calculation of impact assessment results, and finally for LCA studies also the LCA results interpretation. The stated reasons for a study indicate the quality ambitions and are a basis to judge among others data quality needs but also potential special review needs beyond the minimum requirements. The latter can be given for example if for a planned national legislation an involvement of trade partners in the review process would be wanted for improving international acceptance


The latter can be given for example if for a planned national legislation an involvement of trade partners in the review process would be wanted for improving international acceptance. 5.2.4 Target audience (Refers to aspect of ISO 14044:2006 chapter 4.2.2) The goal definition shall identify the target audience of the study, i.e. to whom the results of the study are intended to be communicated. This serves among others to help identifying the critical review needs and the appropriate form and technical level of reporting. For the above example this could be “The target audience are governmental political decision makers and main stakeholders of the paper production and waste management sectors in Australia, as well as operators of offices in the private sectors and in government”. Different types of target audiences (i.e. “internal” vs. “external” and “technical” vs


Different types of target audiences (i.e. “internal” vs. “external” and “technical” vs. “nontechnical”) typically imply different scoping requirements on documentation, review, confidentiality and other issues that are derived from the audiences‟ needs. The target audience(s) are hence to be identified already during the goal definition. 5.2.5 Comparisons intended to be disclosed to the public (Refers to aspect of ISO 14044:2006 chapter 4.2.2) The goal definition shall furthermore explicitly state whether the LCA study includes a comparative assertion intended to be disclosed to the public12. In the above end-of-life paper management example it should hence be stated: “The study includes a comparative assertion and is planned to be disclosed to the public”. This aspect entails a number of additional mandatory requirements under ISO 14040 and 14044:2006 on the execution, documentation, review and reporting of the LCA study due to the potential consequences the results may have for e.g


external companies, institutions, consumers, etc. To avoid a by-passing of this ISO requirement by publishing product comparisons that show e.g. along the numbers or graphics the environmental performance of the compared products but without explicitly making an assertion as to superiority or equality, also comparative but not assertive LCA studies shall meet these requirements, as far as 12 All provisions of the entire ILCD Handbook refer to external use only. In-house decision support by LCA may draw on them but is outside any ruling, of course. "Disclosed to the public" refers here to the accessibility of the study or any of its results, conclusions, or recommendations to an audience outside the commissioner of the study, the involved experts, and any explicitly and individually named limited audience (e.g. an identified list of suppliers, customers, etc.)


ILCD Handbook: General guide for Life Cycle Assessment - Detailed guidance First edition 5 Goal definition – identifying purpose and target audience applicable13. Note that "comparison" here refers to a comparison between systems (e.g. products), but not within a single system (i.e. not to a contribution or weak point analysis). Note that, also according to ISO 14044:2006, an LCI study alone shall not be used for comparative assertions intended to be disclosed to the public, i.e. a life cycle impact assessment and evaluation / interpretation shall be performed as well. Finally, LCI data sets that are foreseen to be used by other actors as background or foreground data for comparisons or comparative assertions shall also fulfil those of these requirements that are applicable13. In this case the data set developer ensures that these requirements - including the review - are met. This yields “pre-verified data for comparative assertions”


In this case the data set developer ensures that these requirements - including the review - are met. This yields “pre-verified data for comparative assertions”. Otherwise, any steps to meet missing or stricter requirements (e.g. having a panel review done instead of a single independent external review) have to be taken by the other actor who uses these data in its comparative study / assertion. 5.2.6 Commissioner of the study and other influential actors (No corresponding ISO 14044:2006 chapter; implicitly covered in various chapters) Finally, the goal definition shall identify who commissioned the LCI/LCA study (e.g. for the above example: “The study is commissioned by the Australian Agency for Protection of the Environment14, co-financed by the Australian Association of Paper Producers”)


for the above example: “The study is commissioned by the Australian Agency for Protection of the Environment14, co-financed by the Australian Association of Paper Producers”). Also all (co- )financing or other organisations that have any relevant influence on the study shall be named; this includes especially the LCA experts that perform the LCI/LCA study (respectively their organisation(s)). Provisions: 5.2 Six aspects of goal definition I) SHALL - Intended applications: Unambiguously identify the intended applications of the deliverable of the LCI or LCA study (5.2.1). II) SHALL - Limitations of study: Unambiguously identify and detail any initially set limitations for the use of the LCI/LCA study


II) SHALL - Limitations of study: Unambiguously identify and detail any initially set limitations for the use of the LCI/LCA study. These can be caused by the following (5.2.2): II.a) Impact coverage limitations such as in Carbon footprint calculations II.b) Methodological limitations of LCA in general or of specific method approaches applied II.c) Assumption limitations: Specific or uncommon assumptions / scenarios modelled for the analysed system [ISO+] Note that the initially identified limitations may need to be adjusted during the later LCA phases when all the related details are clear. Other possible limitations due to lack of achieved LCI data quality may also restrict the applicability; these are identified in the later interpretation phase of the study. 13 "applicable" means all requirements except for those that relate to the not covered parts: For product comparisons without conclusions and recommendations, the assertion-related provisions do not apply / cannot be applied


For LCI data sets all provisions that relate to the comparison do not apply / cannot be applied, as the comparison is done in the subsequent, external use of the LCI data set. 14 This and all other organisation names, product types / materials, brands and the like are purely illustrative and/or fictional.


ILCD Handbook: General guide for Life Cycle Assessment - Detailed guidance First edition 5 Goal definition – identifying purpose and target audience III) SHALL - Reasons for study: Unambiguously identify the internal or external reason(s) for carrying out the study and the specific decisions to be supported by its outcome, if applicable (5.2.3). IV) SHALL - Target audience of study: Unambiguously identify the audience(s) to whom the results of the study are foreseen to be communicated (5.2.4). V) SHALL - Type of audience: Classify the targeted audience(s) as being “internal”, “restricted external” (e.g. specific business-to-business customers), or “public”. Differentiate also between “technical” and ”non-technical” audience (5.2.4). [ISO+] VI) SHALL - Comparisons involved?: Unambiguously state whether the study involves comparisons or comparative assertions across systems (e.g. products) and whether these are foreseen to be disclosed to the public (5.2.5)


products) and whether these are foreseen to be disclosed to the public (5.2.5). [ISO!] VII) SHALL - Commissioner: Identify the commissioner of the study and all other influential actors such as co-financiers, LCA experts involved, etc. (5.2.6). 5.3 Classifying the decision-context as Situation A, B, or C (No corresponding ISO 14044:2006 chapter) 5.3.1 Possible decision-context situations During the goal definition, the decision-context shall be identified. Three different decisioncontext situations of practical relevance in LCA can be differentiated. They differ in two15 aspects:  regarding the question whether the LCI/LCA study is to be used to support a decision on the analysed system (e.g. product or strategy), - and, if so: by the extent of changes that the decision implies in the background system and in other systems and that are caused via market mechanisms. These can be "small" (small-scale, non-structural) or "big" (large-scale, structural)


These can be "small" (small-scale, non-structural) or "big" (large-scale, structural). - and, if not so: whether the study is interested in interactions of the depicted system with other systems (e.g. recycling credits) or not The LCI modelling logic behind this differentiation is necessarily explained in the later chapters after the related concepts of attributional and consequential modelling and of shortterm and long-term marginal processes have been introduced. The principle considerations 15 The "time" a study refers to (e.g. past / retrospective for 1990 or future / prospective for 2025) does not affect the LCI modelling principles and method approaches but only the required time-representativeness of the used LCI data. Note that the life cycles of long-living products (e.g. houses) may stretch from the past well into the future. Hence also the use of e.g. forecasting and other scenario techniques, learning curves etc


houses) may stretch from the past well into the future. Hence also the use of e.g. forecasting and other scenario techniques, learning curves etc. are not a specific characteristic of any single goal situation but go across all of them. It is sometimes argued that the timehorizon "future" would be associated with "consequential modelling", while the "past" with "attributional modelling". However also future attributional data can be of interest (e.g. when extrapolating national, annual accounting data) as well as retrospective consequential modelling (i.e. “How would the inventory of product X have been if in the past the decision Y would have been made...?”), while this latter case is of only theoretical interest. In conclusion however "time" is not a discriminating aspect for LCI methodological questions.


ILCD Handbook: General guide for Life Cycle Assessment - Detailed guidance First edition 5 Goal definition – identifying purpose and target audience are however briefly sketched here to ease understanding of the implications of this classification: 5.3.2 Studies on decisions The first of these two aspects - whether a decision is to be supported - implies whether the study is interested in the potential consequences of this decision (e.g. whether the analysed decision on the choice of material X or Y for a product results in an additional amount of material X or Y to be produced). If this is the case, the LCI model should as good as possible reflect these consequences, e.g


If this is the case, the LCI model should as good as possible reflect these consequences, e.g. how is the additionally required material produced? Does it even mean that new production facilities, employing distinct technologies need to be built? In contrast, if no decision support is involved, the LCI model should describe the analysed system as it is, without including any market consequences in the model (as no decision consequences are related to it). The second aspect - the extent of changes - further differentiates the decision support cases: Firstly, there are cases with only small-scale, non-structural consequences in the background system and potentially on other systems of the economy. These cases imply that only the extent is changed to which already installed equipment e.g. of a production facility is used (e.g. the existing technologies that produce material X)


These cases imply that only the extent is changed to which already installed equipment e.g. of a production facility is used (e.g. the existing technologies that produce material X). In the LCI model, the additional demand16 would then be modelled with the processes of the existing equipment / technologies. Secondly, there are cases that have large-scale, structural effects. These cases imply that the analysed decision results in additionally installed equipment or in its decommissioning beyond its normal phasing out (e.g. new production plants/technologies for material X need to be installed or old ones taken out of operation in direct market consequence of the analysed decision). I.e. at least parts of the technologies / equipment in the background system and/or other systems in the economy change as consequence of the analysed decision


I.e. at least parts of the technologies / equipment in the background system and/or other systems in the economy change as consequence of the analysed decision. Often only a few processes actually have these large-scale effects and only those need the respective modelling; most of the background system will only have small-scale effects. However, for those processes affected, the difference between the "big" and "small" cases can be substantial, as newly installed technologies (e.g. second generation biofuel production plants) may differ fundamentally from the currently installed technologies that are modelled in case of small-scale consequences. It is important to stress that the above refers to changes in the background system or other systems that are caused via market-mechanisms, i.e. in reaction to changed demand and supply resulting from the analysed decision. Direct changes in the foreground system, (e.g


in reaction to changed demand and supply resulting from the analysed decision. Direct changes in the foreground system, (e.g. the installation of a new technology that is analysed or is required to be installed at the producer's site as part of the analysed question) are to be modelled as explicit scenarios in both cases. 5.3.3 Studies of descriptive character Coming back to the case of a study that does not imply a direct decision-support in the way as defined above, i.e. not resulting in additional production, but being of an accounting / monitoring character: in that case, the LCI model will describe the system as it can be measured. However, for this case, two subtypes of studies can be differentiated: these are firstly studies that are interested in including any existing benefits the analysed system may have outside this system (e.g. benefits of recycling or of co-products that avoid producing 16 This applies analogously to additional supply and substitution, of course


benefits of recycling or of co-products that avoid producing 16 This applies analogously to additional supply and substitution, of course. This will be detailed later when the LCI modelling is explained.


ILCD Handbook: General guide for Life Cycle Assessment - Detailed guidance First edition 5 Goal definition – identifying purpose and target audience them in other ways). And secondly studies that aim at analysing the system in isolation without considering such interactions. Table 2 gives an overview of the resulting, practically relevant three archetypal goal situations that will be referred to throughout this document to provide the required, differentiated methodological guidance: Table 2 Combination of two main aspects of the decision-context: decision orientation and kind of consequences in background system or other systems


Decision support? Yes Kind of process-changes in background system / other systems None or small-scale Large-scale Situation A "Micro-level decision support" Situation B "Meso/macro-level decision support" No Situation C "Accounting" (with C1: including interactions with other systems, C2: excluding interactions with other systems) The decision-context of the LCI/LCA study to be performed shall be classified as belonging to any of these three archetypal goal situations that are further characterised and illustrated as follows (see also Table 3 that maps widely used LCA applications with the corresponding Situation A, B, or C): 5.3.4 Situation A Terms and concepts: Situation A ("Micro-level decision support") Decision support on micro-level (e.g. for product-related questions)


for product-related questions). The most relevant applications of this goal situation are: - Identification of Key Environmental Performance Indicators (KEPI) of a product group for Ecodesign / simplified LCA - Weak point analysis of a specific product - Detailed Ecodesign / Design-for-recycling - Perform simplified KEPI-type LCA / Ecodesign study - Comparison of specific goods or services - Benchmarking of specific products against the product group's average - Green Public or Private Procurement (GPP) - Development of life cycle based Type I Ecolabel criteria - Development of Product Category Rules (PCR) or a similar specific guide for a product group - Development of a life cycle based Type III environmental declaration (e.g. Environmental Product Declaration (EPD)) for a specific good or service