ILCD Handbook: General guide for Life Cycle Assessment - Detailed guidance First edition 5 Goal definition – identifying purpose and target audience - 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) - Development of specific, average or generic unit process or LCI results data sets for use in Situation A Situation A refers to decision support directly or indirectly related to inform the purchase of products that are already offered in the market. Or to inform the design / development of products that are foreseen to entering the market. Accordingly, the product can be assumed to be produced only as consequence of the decision to be supported by the LCI/LCA study, i.e. in addition


Accordingly, the product can be assumed to be produced only as consequence of the decision to be supported by the LCI/LCA study, i.e. in addition. Note that these "products" can be any good or service (including materials, energy carriers, machines, complex consumer products, events, personal services, cleaning, etc.) both being direct subject of the study or indirectly affected by the analysed decision (e.g. choice of a material for a product that is produced in the background system).17 Given the limited share the total production of any single product18 has in an industrial sector, its production, use and end-of-life can be reasonably expected to cause none or only small changes in the background system or other systems of the economy that would not directly or indirectly structurally change it. Structural changes means e.g. the installation of new production plants or even technologies

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


Structural changes means e.g. the installation of new production plants or even technologies. Hence the term "micro-level" referring to changes that are caused via market mechanisms but only with small-scale consequences beyond the foreground system. These small-scale consequences may change the extent to which existing equipment / capacity is used, but without resulting in additionally installed or decommissioned equipment / capacity, beyond the independently ongoing installation and decommissioning. Small-scale marginal consequences alone are not strong enough to overcome thresholds and trigger large-scale consequences in the market. Typical keywords of such Situation A LCI/LCA studies are “decision support” related to “product comparison”, “comparative assertion”, “product advance development”, “product development”, “product design”, "weak point analysis", "product benchmarking" “face-lift”, etc


Situation A hence covers all studies that are intended to support any kind of product / micro level comparisons and comparative assertions. A typical example for a Situation A study is the purchase decision support: “Which of the preselected five technically suitable photocopier models is environmentally best performing over its life cycle?” 17 Typically, but not necessarily, these cases refer to products being made in the short-term (up to 5 years from present) or mid-term (5 to 10 years from present) future. (The policy usage of "short-term" and "mid-term" is adopted here.) Note that the use and end-of-life stages of long-living products may continue well beyond this time-frame. 18 There are a few cases where the relevance of a single product may be higher, e.g. in highly monopolised markets. Also, if a product group (e.g. "diesel fuel") is understood to be one product, while more accurate the product would be the diesel fuel of brand X


in highly monopolised markets. Also, if a product group (e.g. "diesel fuel") is understood to be one product, while more accurate the product would be the diesel fuel of brand X. In this general form the "product" that can have a high share in the sector. In such cases where a clear classification of a study as Situation A or B is not possible, see the explanation and procedure given after the box for Situation B.


ILCD Handbook: General guide for Life Cycle Assessment - Detailed guidance First edition 5 Goal definition – identifying purpose and target audience An in-house decision support example would be an ecodesign study modelling a new type of computer mouse comparing different polymers for the casing. Equally, developing a product's Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) or its Carbon footprint data for informing potential customers are examples of Situation A studies. Situation A also covers the development of LCI and LCIA data that are meant to be used in LCA-based decision support (e.g. producer specific LCI data sets, LCIA results data sets, generic and average LCI data sets for background use, etc.). 5.3.5 Situation B Terms and concepts: Situation B ("Meso/macro-level decision support") Decision support on a meso or macro-level, such as for strategies (e.g. raw materials strategies, technology scenarios, policy options, etc.)


raw materials strategies, technology scenarios, policy options, etc.). The most relevant applications of this goal situation are: - Policy development: Forecasting & analysis of the environmental impact of pervasive technologies, raw material strategies, etc. and related policy development - Policy information: Identifying product groups with the largest environmental improvement potential - Development of specific, average or generic unit process or LCI results data sets for use in Situation B Situation B refers to life cycle based decision support with consequences that are so extensive that they overcome thresholds and result in additionally installed or additionally decommissioned equipment / capacity (e.g. production infrastructure) outside the foreground system of the analysed system. I.e


production infrastructure) outside the foreground system of the analysed system. I.e. the analysed decision and related changes in production, use and end-of-life activities somewhere in the life cycle will via market mechanisms change parts of the rest of the economy by having large-scale structural effects19. Small-scale marginal consequences alone shall not be considered resulting in large-scale consequences, as they are too small to overcome thresholds. As a purely illustrative example, against the base-line scenario of autonomous development, the environmental implication of incinerating all Russian post-consumer waste might be analysed, recovering the energy and utilising it for electricity production. This would have consequences for the overall electricity production and investments into other electricityproducing technologies in Russia at a large scale. And it would affect the alternative uses of the waste (e.g


And it would affect the alternative uses of the waste (e.g. recycling of paper and plastic from packaging and other products, as being part of the base-line scenario). This would lead to changes of installed recycling capacity at a sector level. Note however that most background processes will be affected by small-scale consequences only. 19 These cases refer typically to the mid-term (5 to 10 years from present) or long-term (beyond 10 years from present) future.


ILCD Handbook: General guide for Life Cycle Assessment - Detailed guidance First edition 5 Goal definition – identifying purpose and target audience Another example would be a study analysing e.g. the mandatory replacement by 2025 of 50 % of diesel fuel in the U.S. by crop-based bio-diesel, what would have substantial effects on the U.S. and even global agriculture, petro-refineries, and other sectors20. We are thus looking at changes with structural market implications beyond the foregroundsystem. This situation covers scenarios addressing questions like “Which pervasive technology system, raw material base, etc. is environmentally preferable over its life cycle?” Such studies are typically strategic political studies or LCA-supported strategic research studies, which due to the extent of consequences have a high relevance for society and - next to appropriate LCI modelling - also require special attention regarding review


It is important to note that also for such studies not all processes throughout the analysed system's life cycle show these large-scale effects. For example, consumables that are required only in small amounts are only affected with small-scale consequences. In fact, under Situation B, the majority of processes by number often will have only small-scale effects and the respective processes would be modelled according to Situation A. The key difference between Situation A and B is that under Situation B at least one process of the background system or other systems show these large-scale, structural consequences. And only these processes need the different modelling. Typical keywords of Situation B are among others "strategy analysis", "policy development", “concept development”, “pervasive technologies”, and similar and often in combination with “raw material / energy / XY basis / technology” etc


5.3.6 Guidance for clearly differentiating between Situation A and B There can be cases, where a study cannot easily be clearly assigned to either Situation A or B. This is on the one hand the case when a meso-level study of strategic character is affecting a too small part of the market to trigger any large-scale structural consequences in the background system or other systems. 20 For an introduction of 50% bio-fuels in the U.S. diesel fuel, the installed capacity for production of petro-based diesel could reasonably be expected to experience a similar decrease of about 50% (while corrected for economy-wide consumption level changes), as consequence of this potential decision. This could be expected to happen e.g. via changing the product profile of existing crude oil refineries, by closing the least marketcompetitive refineries, and other measures. Therefore, the LCI modelling also of the petro-based diesel production would need to be changed


Therefore, the LCI modelling also of the petro-based diesel production would need to be changed. In fact, the consequences would also affect the inventory of other refinery products. As however counteracting consequences, an increased export of diesel from the US to other markets could be assumed. Another direct consequence in the above example would be the need of identifying the agricultural land to produce this big amount of additionally required bio-fuel (e.g. by cropping canola in Canada, soybeans in the US, or planting oil palms in Malaysia). Under the assumption that the global demand and hence production for food and other crops would also still to be met, the additionally required land has to come from somewhere else. Also if existing agricultural land would be used for producing bio-fuels, it could be expected that the replaced crops, e.g. wheat for bread baking in the US, would be produced elsewhere


Also if existing agricultural land would be used for producing bio-fuels, it could be expected that the replaced crops, e.g. wheat for bread baking in the US, would be produced elsewhere. While also intensified production could be assumed to contribute its share to meet the increased demand of agricultural output, an absolute additional need for agricultural land might be identified that would need to be met by converting a certain amount of nature to fields or plantations. This could be both nature land in the U.S. but also in other countries, including the e.g. Brazilian or Malaysian rainforest. This example also illustrates that both e.g. palm oil from Malaysia and e.g. soybean oil from the U.S. could cause - directly of indirectly and to different degrees - the conversion of natural forest into fields or plantations


palm oil from Malaysia and e.g. soybean oil from the U.S. could cause - directly of indirectly and to different degrees - the conversion of natural forest into fields or plantations. Note that the above examples and potential consequences are purely illustrative and that a deeper analysis would be required to identify the most likely consequences and scenarios of such a "50% bio fuels in the U.S. diesel fuel" study.


ILCD Handbook: General guide for Life Cycle Assessment - Detailed guidance First edition 5 Goal definition – identifying purpose and target audience On the other hand, there can be studies on a "product" that are in fact more related to a broader technology, a range of products, or a product group that all further develop and implement this technology and thereby cause large-scale changes on a meso-level (e.g. sector). This can especially happen with rather "narrow" sectors, e.g. of basic materials or energy carriers, where the number of different products (i.e. brands) is far lower than e.g. for most consumer products. For deciding whether such a study belongs to Situation A or B, the guiding criteria shall be whether the analysed decision implies large-scale consequences in the installed equipment / capacity outside the foreground system of the analysed system that occur via market mechanisms of demand and supply. In that case Situation B applies


In that case Situation B applies. In the case of exclusively small-scale consequences on the extent to which existing capacity is used, Situation A applies. Large-scale ("big") consequences shall generally be assumed if the annual additional demand or supply that is triggered by the analysed decision exceeds the capacity of the annually replaced installed capacity that provides the additionally demanded process, product, or broader function, as applicable; if that percentage is over 5 %, 5 %21 should be assumed instead. An example: the installed capacity for production of the globally22 traded material X, that might be required in consequence of the analysed decision to produce product Y, might be e.g. 10 Mio tonnes. The plants for producing material X might have a lifetime of 25 years (i.e. 4 % of this are replaced annually and on average)


10 Mio tonnes. The plants for producing material X might have a lifetime of 25 years (i.e. 4 % of this are replaced annually and on average). In that case, an annual demand of more than 0.04*10*10^6 t = 400,000 t of material X shall be assumed to have the large-scale consequence of triggering additional installation of capacity beyond the replacement of old plants. This applies analogously to strongly falling markets, as the speed with which equipment is naturally phased out is equally determined by its lifetime. Next to additional demand, also additional supply (e.g. as co-product from a process of the analysed system) can have large-scale consequences. The above explanations and provisions also applies to cases of multifunctionality and provision of e.g


as co-product from a process of the analysed system) can have large-scale consequences. The above explanations and provisions also applies to cases of multifunctionality and provision of e.g. additional goods or services to a market: if the annually provided amount is larger than the average replacement rate of the installed capacity of the superseded alternative good or service, this falls under Situation B and requires a different modelling. Situation A would not be appropriate, as such big amounts would result in other consequences in the market than merely replacing alternative production; the market could not absorb them without structural changes. An example is the production of rapeseed based biodiesel that results in large amounts of glycerine as co-product that additionally enters the market. This might cause large-scale consequences in other systems, e.g


This might cause large-scale consequences in other systems, e.g. in this case that existing glycerine production capacity is reduced beyond the age-dependent decommissioning of glycerine plants23. In slight difference to additional demand, this relates only to the alternative routes/processes that provide the superseded function. In the case the additional demand or supply does not relate to a specific process or product (e.g. straw as co-product of rice production) but to a broader function (e.g. dry 21 This acknowledges that the market signal is related to both the equipment replacement rate and the share of market supply that is related to the analysed decision. 22 For goods almost exclusively traded within one country, the production amount of that country is relevant. For goods traded across countries or in bigger markets, the approximate production amount in the relevant market is the relevant production amount to be considered


For goods traded across countries or in bigger markets, the approximate production amount in the relevant market is the relevant production amount to be considered. 23 In fact, basically all glycerine plants worldwide have been shut down by now, in response to the large amount of the biodiesel co-produced glycerine.


ILCD Handbook: General guide for Life Cycle Assessment - Detailed guidance First edition 5 Goal definition – identifying purpose and target audience lignocellulosic biomass), the above applies analogously, covering however all relevant alternative processes / products that provide that function. Note again that all the above refers to additional demand in the background system and in other systems. Any newly installed capacity in the foreground system does not result in the need of a different LCI model as the foreground system is to be modelled explicitly (via measurement or as explicit scenarios; this is the same for all Situations). Market mechanisms can only act on processes in the background system. 5.3.7 Situation C Terms and concepts: Situation C ("Accounting") Purely descriptive accounting / documentation of the analysed system (e.g


5.3.7 Situation C Terms and concepts: Situation C ("Accounting") Purely descriptive accounting / documentation of the analysed system (e.g. a product, need fulfilment, sector, country, etc.) of the past, present or forecasted future, and without implying a decision-context that would account for potential additional consequences on other systems. Two sub-cases need to be differentiated: In Situation C1 ("Accounting, with system-external interactions"), existing interactions with other systems are included in the LCI model (e.g. considering recycling benefits or avoided production for co-products). Note that these "interactions" refer to existing interactions with other systems only. This is in contrast to the additional consequences24 that are assumed to occur under Situation A and B, and that are assumed to be caused by the analysed decision. Situation C2 accounts for the analysed system in isolation, i.e


Situation C2 accounts for the analysed system in isolation, i.e. interactions with other systems are not accounted for, but cases of recycling and co-production are solved inside the system model (by allocation)25


The most relevant applications of this goal situation are, for the two sub-types C1 and C2: Situation C1: - Monitoring environmental impacts of a nation, industry sector, product group, or product - Policy information: Basket-of-products (or -product groups) type of studies - Policy information: Identifying product groups with the largest environmental impact - Corporate or site environmental reporting including indirect effects under Environmental Management Systems (EMS) - Certified supply type studies or parts of the analysed system with fixed guarantees along the supply-chain - Development of specific, average or generic unit process or LCI results data sets for use in Situation C1 Situation C2: 24 Existing / past interactions between systems as depicted in Situation C1 can also be understood as "existing / past consequences" on the background system. This is in contrast to the "additional / future consequences" of Situation A and B


This is in contrast to the "additional / future consequences" of Situation A and B. System expansion and substitution could hence also be classified as a third modelling principle "interactional" that has applications in both consequential and attributional modelling. This also explains why system expansion / substitution fits into both the theoretically attributional framework of Situation C1 and the consequential framework of Situations A and B. 25 In economic modelling, C1 is equivalent to calculating the production cost of the analysed good by subtracting from the total production value the obtainable market prices of all co-products. Situation C2 is equivalent to allocating the production cost among the co-products using other criteria.


ILCD Handbook: General guide for Life Cycle Assessment - Detailed guidance First edition 5 Goal definition – identifying purpose and target audience - 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 Situation C2 In Situation C, no direct decision is to be made based on the results of the LCA, as the whole life cycle has already been decided before the analysis takes place. I.e. the LCI model is only documenting what has happened (or is going to happen in future during e.g. during the use of long-living products that have already been produced)26. From a decision-perspective, the LCI/LCA study is purely retrospective and the results are intended exclusively for accountingtype purposes. Such studies can hence not be used to directly inform e.g. purchase decisions or answer political "what if" scenarios


Such studies can hence not be used to directly inform e.g. purchase decisions or answer political "what if" scenarios. An example would be the analysis of how various post consumer plastic packaging waste treatment technologies have performed in the past; this can be analysed under Situation C1 or C2. The future performance of these technologies - even if the same technologies are used - depends however also on e.g. how much secondary plastics a technology would produce and which uses exist for these. Hence, for this kind of decision support Situation A or B would apply. Among accounting / monitoring type studies of Situation C, two cases C1 and C2 need to be differentiated that require a different LCI modelling: C1: For life cycle based monitoring of e.g. all products of a certain product group that are produced in a certain time-frame (e.g. a given year), the “normal” full life cycle of the products produced in that time-frame is accounted for, i.e


all products of a certain product group that are produced in a certain time-frame (e.g. a given year), the “normal” full life cycle of the products produced in that time-frame is accounted for, i.e. including the measured or forecasted life cycle inventory of the later use and end-of-life stage of the respective amount of these products. An example is the monitoring time-series of the life cycle inventory of e.g. all cars (or: the average car) produced annually in France. This kind of studies belongs to Situation C1. Situation C1 studies can be used to compare the past performance of alternative systems and pointing out the most beneficial alternatives. This however without implying that the result would be the same for the future if a comparative decision was to be made between the alternatives, i.e. one alternative would be purchased or politically promoted and the other not27. C2: For monitoring e.g


one alternative would be purchased or politically promoted and the other not27. C2: For monitoring e.g. of product groups with a system boundary that is strictly referring to a certain time-frame (e.g. a given year), only the interventions that take place in that timeframe are accounted for. An example is the monitoring time-series of all car-related activities (e.g. car production, car use, car recycling, etc.) for the total amount of cars operated in a given year in France. That necessarily leads to a distortion in the life cycle of long-living goods (here: cars), as the goods that are produced in the reference year are inventoried, 26 One can also model future-related accounting data (e.g. by extrapolating the life cycle data and model basis that has been used for calculating past accounting data). This is however more an extrapolation of past data than an originally future-related accounting model. Much more typical is in any case a backward looking use


This is however more an extrapolation of past data than an originally future-related accounting model. Much more typical is in any case a backward looking use. 27 This can be illustrated with a C1-type analysis of rapeseed based biodiesel production in the year 1990, crediting the co-product glycerine with the avoided alternative petro-based glycerine production. In that year 1990, the co-product gylcerine was entirely absorbed by the market and thereby has avoided petro-based glycerine production. This is however not necessarily the case when now promoting rapeseed based biodiesel e.g. by setting the political goal in the U.S. of e.g. 20% of the national diesel production to be biodiesel: the huge amounts of additional glycerine that would result cannot be absorbed by the market in the same way as a small amount could be - the demand is not big enough. The glycerine might even potentially be waste instead of a co-product


The glycerine might even potentially be waste instead of a co-product. The results of the study performed as Situation C1 would hence misinform the policy. If hence the aim of the study would be to analyse the environmental impact of additional biodiesel production, that study would have to be performed as Situation A or B study, depending on the scale of production and related consequences.


ILCD Handbook: General guide for Life Cycle Assessment - Detailed guidance First edition 5 Goal definition – identifying purpose and target audience while the inventoried use-stage emissions are those of the e.g. cars used in that year, i.e. including all those still operated older cars with potentially lower emission standards. At the same time does this kind of inventorying not account for the past production of the cars that are operated in the given time-frame and not for the future use and recyclability of the cars produced in that year. Apart from difficulties in interpreting the results of such indicators, this kind of studies belongs to Situation C2. Another example are studies that aim at providing accounting type of information, where a change in demand does not affect the background system in a consequential manner, but via established supply-chain agreements, requiring to model the supply-chain as Situation C1


Certification of wood products is an example where the supply-chain steps of using XY certified wood would be fixed / guaranteed28, including in the background system29. At the same time, accounting data, especially under Situation C1, informs decision and policy makers about developments e.g. related to a region as a whole or e.g. for specific service / activity groups (such as e.g. housing, individual mobility, food, etc.). This can be also in a comparative manner (e.g. when comparing the environmental impact potential of an average citizen across countries). Such data can for example also show which share different e.g. housing types (e.g. flats in high-rise buildings, single family houses, etc.) have in the overall national housing impact, per m2, or per citizen. Accounting studies hence identify unwanted developments or show the achievements made based on implemented decisions or policies


Accounting studies hence identify unwanted developments or show the achievements made based on implemented decisions or policies. However, to develop policy measures or support other decisions, other LCI modelling methods are to be employed: those used under Situation A or B. Typical keywords of Situation C LCI/LCA studies are "accounting", "monitoring", “retrospective”, “documentation”, etc. in relation to "product", "basket-of-products", "needs fulfilment", "sector", "country", "average citizen", etc. 5.3.8 Guidance for clearly differentiating between Situation C and A / B It is important to clearly differentiate whether a comparative decision support is to be supported by the study, i.e. whether the study and data shall inform which of compared alternatives is to be preferred because of better environmental performance


whether the study and data shall inform which of compared alternatives is to be preferred because of better environmental performance. Often studies are labelled "Monitoring" while they nevertheless involve decision support questions and directly imply recommendations and/or policy measures and belong hence under Situation A or B. Other studies aim at describing systems including their external benefits but without intending to make recommendations, support purchase decisions, or directly derive policy measures from them: E.g. "Monitoring of waste management systems in different Eastern Europe countries" may aim at identifying which waste management systems have been most or least environmentally advantageous. This question implies that e.g. credits for recovered energy and recycled materials should be given to the analysed systems to capture their 28 See however chapter 6.8.2 on the restriction on non-scalable processes, e.g


credits for recovered energy and recycled materials should be given to the analysed systems to capture their 28 See however chapter 6.8.2 on the restriction on non-scalable processes, e.g. hydropower in some countries, where the specific supply cannot be extended and the market mix is to be used. This would also apply here, if the potential of XY certified wood would be relevantly restructured and not scalable to a relevant degree to meet an additional demand. 29 A certification example where this does not work is a certification system that only relates to the direct supplier, but not all the way into the background system.


ILCD Handbook: General guide for Life Cycle Assessment - Detailed guidance First edition 5 Goal definition – identifying purpose and target audience comparative performance. This study is however not automatically implying direct e.g. policy measures and hence belongs to Situation C1. Situation C1 lies hence between A/B and C2, being retrospective but accounting for benefits on other systems e.g. via co-products and recycling. In practice, a larger number of accounting-type studies can be found that belong to Situation C1. In other cases it might be the explicit interest to provide accounting type life cycle information (e.g. for a product, site, etc.) without including existing interactions with other systems. In that case Situation C1 applies. The accounting character of these studies shall be stated explicitly in the goal of the study and the restrictions for decision support and comparisons the study has are to be clarified in the reporting


Provisions: 5.3 Classifying the decision-context Applicable to Situation A, B, and C, differentiated. I) SHALL - Identify applicable goal situation: Identify the type of decision-context of the LCI/LCA study, i.e. to which of the archetypal goal situations A, B, C1, or C2 the study belongs. Draw on the goal aspects "intended applications" (chapter 5.2.1) and "specific decisions to be supported" (chapter 5.2.3)), as follows: [ISO!] I.a) Situation A - "Micro-level decision support": Decision support, typically at the level of products, but also single process steps, sites/companies and other systems, with no or exclusively small-scale consequences in the background system or on other systems. I.e. the consequences of the analysed decision alone are too small to overcome thresholds and trigger structural changes of installed capacity elsewhere via market mechanisms 30


Situation A covers among others the LCA applications listed below; any deviating assignment to another goal situation than A shall be justified and be in line with the above provisions (see also the specific provisions below for differentiating between Situation A and B, and between Situation C and A/B):  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


30 Note that these small-scale consequences shall not be interpreted, as per se resulting in large-scale consequences on installed capacity, i.e. shall be covered under Situation A.


ILCD Handbook: General guide for Life Cycle Assessment - Detailed guidance First edition 5 Goal definition – identifying purpose and target audience 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)  Development of specific, average or generic unit process or LCI results data sets for use in Situation A I.b) Situation B - "Meso/macro-level decision support": Decision support for strategies with large-scale consequences in the background system or other systems


The analysed decision alone is large enough to result via market mechanisms in structural changes of installed capacity in at least one process outside the foreground system of the analysed system


Situation B covers among others the LCA applications listed below; any deviating assignment to a goal situation other than B shall be justified and be in line with the above provisions (see also the specific provisions below for differentiating between Situation A and B and between Situation C and A/B):  Policy development: Forecasting & analysis of the environmental impact of pervasive technologies, raw material strategies, and related policy development  Policy information: Identifying product groups with the largest environmental improvement potential  Development of specific, average or generic unit process or LCI results data sets for use in Situation B It is important to note that the LCI modelling provisions for Situation B (see chapter 6.5.4.3) refer exclusively to those processes that are affected by these large-scale consequences. The other parts of the background system of the life cycle model will later be modelled as "Situation A", i.e


The other parts of the background system of the life cycle model will later be modelled as "Situation A", i.e. typically all the processes with a smaller contribution to the overall results. I.c) Situation C - "Accounting": From a decision-making point of view, a retrospective accounting / documentation of what has happened (or will happen based on extrapolating forecasting), with no interest in any additional consequences that the analysed system may have in the background system or on other systems. Situation C has two sub-types: C1 and C2. C1 describes an existing system but accounts for interactions it has with other systems (e.g. crediting existing avoided burdens from recycling). C2 describes an existing system in isolation without accounting for the interaction with other systems. This may cover the LCA applications listed below; any deviating assignment to a goal situation other than C1 or C2 shall be justified and be in line with the above provisions


This may cover the LCA applications listed below; any deviating assignment to a goal situation other than C1 or C2 shall be justified and be in line with the above provisions. See also the specific provision below for differentiating between Situation C and A/B: I.c.i) Situation C1 - "Accounting with interactions":  Monitoring environmental impacts of a nation, industry sector, product group, or product  Policy information: Basket-of-products (or -product groups) type studies


ILCD Handbook: General guide for Life Cycle Assessment - Detailed guidance First edition 5 Goal definition – identifying purpose and target audience Policy information: Identifying product groups with the largest environmental impact  Corporate or site environmental reporting including indirect effects under Environmental Management Systems (EMS)  Certified supply type studies or parts of the analysed system with fixed guarantees along the supply-chain  Development of specific, average or generic unit process or LCI results data sets for use in Situation C1 I.c.ii) Situation C2 - "Accounting without interactions":  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 Situation C2 Note that any decision support that would be derived needs to employ the methods under Situation A or B, with Situation C having a preparatory role only


Note however that due to the simplified provisions of this document, the modelling of Situation A studies (micro-level decision support) is identical to that of Situation C1 studies, but not vice versa. II) SHALL - Situation A or B: Where a study cannot initially be clearly assigned to either Situation A or B, for example when analysing major strategies of market-dominating companies or product-related questions of market-dominating products. In this situation, the guiding criteria shall be whether the consequences of the analysed decision alone are big enough to overcome related thresholds and/or other constraints and result in large-scale consequences in the installed production capacity outside the foreground system. Then: Situation B. If not: Situation A


Then: Situation B. If not: Situation A. Large-scale consequences shall generally be assumed if the annual additional demand or supply, triggered by the analysed decision, exceeds the capacity of the annually replaced installed capacity of the additionally demanded or supplied process, product, or broader function, as applicable. If that percentage is bigger than 5 %, 5 % should be used instead. [ISO!] III) SHALL - Situation C1 or A/B: In the case a study cannot initially be clearly assigned to either Situation C1 or A/B, for example when it is a monitoring study but involves a comparative decision support. In this situation the guiding criteria shall be whether a comparative decision support is to be given by the LCI/LCA study, i.e. whether the study shall be used to support decisions on alternatives with better or worse environmental performance. Then Situation A or B applies, depending on small-scale or large-scale consequences; see related provisions. If not, i.e


Then Situation A or B applies, depending on small-scale or large-scale consequences; see related provisions. If not, i.e. the study is only retrospectively informing about better performance in the past, then Situation C applies. [ISO!] Table 3 maps widely used LCA applications to the required study deliverables and the corresponding goal situation A, B, or C. Chapter 6.5.4 provides the overview of the LCI modelling provisions for Situation, A, B, and C. Figure 3 provides an overview on which chapters of this document identify the detailed modelling differences for Situations A, B, and C.


ILCD Handbook: General guide for Life Cycle Assessment - Detailed guidance First edition 5 Goal definition – identifying purpose and target audience 5.4 Need for flexibility versus strictness Independently from the specific goal situation, other aspects of the intended applications determine whether more methodological flexibility is required or whether strictness / reproducibility is key: as one extreme, in Situation A, the development of an Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) or of a Carbon footprint indicator require a very high degree of strictness to enable a high degree of reproducibility and thereby sufficient comparability of the results for competing products. As the other extreme, in Situation B, comparative assertions of policy options for different future raw materials strategies (e.g. biofuels vs


As the other extreme, in Situation B, comparative assertions of policy options for different future raw materials strategies (e.g. biofuels vs. fossil fuels) need to work with extensive scenario analysis including of the LCI method principles and approaches to ensure the robustness of the conclusions and recommendations. That means that especially for Situation A, a further narrowed down and specified guidance would be beneficial. Such would need to interpret the general guidance as laid down in this document from the perspective of the types of processes and products to be modelled. It would convert the generic Provisions into more specific Provisions. Such product-group or process-type specific guidance documents, e.g. in form of Product Category Rules (PCRs) are hence seen as beneficial for further improving the reproducibility of studies done under Situation A


in form of Product Category Rules (PCRs) are hence seen as beneficial for further improving the reproducibility of studies done under Situation A. The development of such PCR-type guidance documents is a subsequent step and potentially to be lead by the respective industry sectors. To ensure consistency with the provisions of this present guidance and the other ILCD guidance documents, the critical review of such PCR-type documents is covered in the separate document "Review schemes for LCA". Provisions: 5.4 Need for flexibility versus strictness I) SHALL - Product-group and process-type specific guides and PCRs: [ISO+] I.a) Need for specific guides and PCRs: To further the reproducibility of LCI/LCA studies, the development of ILCD-compliant sector, product-group or processtype specific guidance documents and/or Product Category Rules (PCR) is recommended. A specific guide or PCR is ILCD-compliant in its provisions, if these are in line (i.e


A specific guide or PCR is ILCD-compliant in its provisions, if these are in line (i.e. not contradicting) with the provisions of this document and other referenced ILCD Handbook documents. They can therefore be stricter or more specific, but not less. I.b) Specific guides and PCRs overrule ILCD Handbook: If such guides or PCRs have been developed and approved in an ILCD-compliant review process, the provisions in these guides or PCRs shall be applied for the product-groups and process-types they cover. Therefore, they overrule the broader provisions of the ILCD Handbook. See also chapter 2.3. The document "Review schemes for LCA" provides information on the applicable review type. The forthcoming specific documents on "Reviewer qualification" and "Review scope, methods and documentation" for product-group and process-type specific guides and PCRs give the complementary requirements.


ILCD Handbook: General guide for Life Cycle Assessment - Detailed guidance First edition 5 Goal definition – identifying purpose and target audience 5.5 Optionally extending the goal (No corresponding ISO 14044:2006 chapter) The foreseen goal of the LCI/LCA study may be extended to include additional applications of secondary interest, e.g. development of an Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) for business customers using the same life cycle model that will be developed for in-house benchmarking, weak point analysis, and/or use in product improvement / ecodesign, etc. or vice versa. This extension of the goal should be done initially, as it then typically means little additional effort, while a later expansion might require substantial additional resources for collection of missing or too coarse data or the need to remodel the system differently (e.g. with parameters)


with parameters). Provisions: 5.5 Optionally extending the goal I) MAY - Extending the goal?: Consider extending the goal to further uses / applications of the LCI/LCA study in order to benefit from synergies. [ISO+]


ILCD Handbook: General guide for Life Cycle Assessment - Detailed guidance First edition 6 Scope definition - what to analyse and how 6 Scope definition - what to analyse and how (Refers to ISO 14044:2006 chapter 4.2.3) 6.1 Introduction and overview (Refers to ISO 14044:2006 chapter 4.2.3.1) During the scope definition phase the object of the LCI/LCA study (i.e. the exact product or other system(s) to be analysed) is identified and defined in detail. This shall be done in line with the goal definition. Next and main part of the scope definition is to derive the requirements on methodology, quality, reporting, and review in accordance with the goal of the study, i.e. based on the reasons for the study, the decision-context, the intended applications, and the addressees of the results


When deriving the scope of an LCI/LCA study from the goal, the following scope items shall be clearly described and/or defined:  The type(s) of the deliverable(s) of the LCI/LCA study, in line with the intend application(s) (chapter 6.3)  The system or process that is studied and its function(s), functional unit, and reference flow(s) (chapter 6.4, which names case-specific provisions)  LCI modelling framework and handling of multifunctional processes and products (chapter 6.5)  System boundaries, completeness requirements, and related cut-off rules (chapter 6.6)  LCIA impact categories to be covered and selection of specific LCIA methods to be applied as well as - if included - normalisation data and weighting set (chapter 6.7)  Other LCI data quality requirements regarding technological, geographical and timerelated representativeness and appropriateness (chapter 6.8)  Types, quality and sources of required data and information (chapter 6.9), and here especially the required


geographical and timerelated representativeness and appropriateness (chapter 6.8)  Types, quality and sources of required data and information (chapter 6.9), and here especially the required precision and maximum permitted uncertainties (chapter 6.9.2)  Special requirements for comparisons between systems (chapter 6.10)  Identifying critical review needs (chapter 6.11)  Planning reporting of the results (chapter 6.12) The procedure is described in more detail in the further subchapters


The order of the subchapters follows the main LCA workflow logic. At the same time the interrelatedness of some items and the iterative nature of LCA limits this somewhat. In the subsequent iterations the initial scope definition of the LCI/LCA study (and in some cases even the goal) often is to be fine-tuned or even revised due to unforeseen limitations or constraints or as a result of other additional information. The final documentation of the LCI/LCA study shall reflect this, including the consequence for the achieved levels of completeness, precision, accuracy, etc. and intended applications. Before addressing the different aspects of the scope definition in more detail, two crosscutting requirements on LCA will be briefly addressed. Note that these require being explicitly checked and referred to in the sub-sequent work and be documented:  Consistency of methods, assumptions, and data (chapter 6.2.1)  Reproducibility (chapter 6.2.2)


ILCD Handbook: General guide for Life Cycle Assessment - Detailed guidance First edition 6 Scope definition - what to analyse and how 6.2 Overview and basic requirements (Refers to ISO 14044:2006 chapter 4.2.3.1) 6.2.1 Consistency of methods, assumptions, and data (Refers to aspect covered under ISO 14044:2006 chapter 4.2.3.6.2) An important underlying requirement in LCA is to ensure sufficient consistency of methods and assumptions as well as data throughout the LCI/LCA study. This relates to all phases and aspects of LCA work and is a prerequisite for validity of results and appropriateness of any comparison. The following is to be kept in mind throughout all steps of the scope phase:  In order to ensure the quality of the results, all assumptions shall be made in a consistent way for the different parts of the analysed system (e.g. whether energy calculations use the upper or lower calorific value)


whether energy calculations use the upper or lower calorific value). The used LCI data shall also be consistent across the system to the extent required to meet the overall necessary accuracy, completeness and precision of the study (as to be identified in chapter 6.9.2). For comparisons e.g. of products this means among others that the same product use patterns are assumed, that the same life cycle stages are included, that the inventory data has approximately the same degree of accuracy and precision, etc.  Likewise, the application of all methods (e.g. for estimating emissions from unit processes or for calculating impacts from these emissions in the impact assessment) shall be foreseen to be done in a uniform way throughout the study and in accordance with the goal and scope definition. In particular it shall be ensured that the life cycle is modelled applying the same methodological provisions (e.g


In particular it shall be ensured that the life cycle is modelled applying the same methodological provisions (e.g. as defined for Situation A) and uses the same elementary flow nomenclature throughout the whole system model and also across all compared systems in case of comparative studies. This applies to both all the background data set and the specific foreground data that will be collected (see chapter 6.9). This equally implies that the same LCIA methods (e.g. impact indicators, spatial and/or time differentiation, etc.) shall be applied for all systems in comparative studies (see chapter 6.7).  Foresee that any inconsistencies of the above shall be documented and should be demonstrated / justified as being insignificant for the environmental impact results of the system(s)


 Foresee that any inconsistencies of the above shall be documented and should be demonstrated / justified as being insignificant for the environmental impact results of the system(s). If this insignificance cannot be shown, this shall be explicitly considered when stating the achieved quality (in case of an LCI or LCIA data set or study) or drawing the conclusions and recommendations (in case of an LCA study). In summary: during scope definition and in the later inventory and impact assessment phases, efforts must be made to ensure a high degree of consistency regarding all important methodological and data aspects of the LCA and for all relevantly contributing processes of the system. The actually achieved consistency is to be checked as part of the evaluation step in the interpretation phase (see chapter 9.3) and is to be considered in drawing conclusions and recommendations and in communication


Provisions: 6.2.1 Consistency of methods, assumptions and data Applicable to all types of deliverables, implicitly differentiated. I) SHALL - Methods and assumptions consistency: All methods and assumptions shall be applied in a sufficiently consistent way to all life cycle stages, processes,


ILCD Handbook: General guide for Life Cycle Assessment - Detailed guidance First edition 6 Scope definition - what to analyse and how parameters, and flows of the analysed system(s), including across foreground and background system(s) as required in line with the goal of the study. This also applies to LCIA methods and factors and normalisation and weighting, if included. II) SHALL - Data consistency: All LCI data shall be sufficiently consistent regarding accuracy, precision, and completeness, in line with the goal of the study. III) SHALL - Dealing with inconsistencies: Any inconsistencies of the above shall be documented. The inconsistencies should be insignificant for the environmental impact results of the analysed system or, for LCA studies, for the conclusions and recommendations drawn


The inconsistencies should be insignificant for the environmental impact results of the analysed system or, for LCA studies, for the conclusions and recommendations drawn. Otherwise, this should result in revising the goal settings or the inconsistencies shall be explicitly considered when later reporting the achieved quality (in case of an LCI or LCIA data set or study31) or drawing the conclusions and recommendations (in case of an LCA study). 6.2.2 Reproducibility (Refers to aspect covered under ISO 14044:2006 chapter 4.2.3.6.2) Reproducibility is another important requirement for LCA that shall be met: the achieved reproducibility of an LCI/LCA study is a qualitative assessment in how far the documented methods, assumptions, and data / data sources would allow an independent practitioner to sufficiently reproduce the results of the LCI/LCA study and any conclusions or recommendations drawn


This is important for the credibility of the LCI/LCA study and an important item for review. A good reproducibility of LC/LCA studies is supported by a clear guidance for the LCA work (e.g. the one defined in the ILCD Handbook), by applying it in a consistent and transparent way, and by documenting this appropriately in the report of the study and/or data set. The ILCD LCA report template and LCI reference data set format support an appropriate and efficient technical documentation for informing expert users and reviewers and for being a starting point and reference to develop communication means for non-technical audience. In many cases of published LCI/LCA studies, there is a need to balance the reproducibility and confidentiality


In many cases of published LCI/LCA studies, there is a need to balance the reproducibility and confidentiality. An independent and external critical review of the data is the suitable means to guarantee data quality of LCI data sets and the robustness / reproducibility of the results of comparative LCA studies, while equally meeting confidentiality needs: Public transparency on all data and parameters should be provided as far as confidentiality allows for it. If public transparency is not possible, the evaluation of the reproducibility shall be supported via giving confidential access to the confidential information (typically unit process and/or raw data, as well as related assumptions and parameters) exclusively to the critical reviewer(s). Public access shall be given in any case to the appropriate meta-documentation of the modelled system(s) including on applied LCI and LCIA methods, the main data sources used, relevant assumptions and limitations made, etc


For comparative LCA studies, the LCI results and LCIA results shall always be public, i.e. cannot be exclusively put into the confidential report. 31 See 6.3 for different types of deliverables of an LCI/LCA study.


ILCD Handbook: General guide for Life Cycle Assessment - Detailed guidance First edition 6 Scope definition - what to analyse and how Provisions: 6.2.2 Reproducibility I) SHALL - Documentation for reproducibility: Documentation of the methods, assumptions and data / data sources used in the LCI/LCA study (see chapter 10) shall be appropriate and transparent to the extent that would enable another LCA practitioner to sufficiently reproduce the results. I.a) In the case of an LCI or LCIA data set or study31, this refers to the LCIA results. I.b) In the case of an LCA study, this refers to any conclusions or recommendations drawn. II) MAY - Accompanying documentation process: It is recommended to begin the documentation from the beginning of the project, electronically or on paper, and guided by the final need for reporting, and to revise / fine-tune the initial documentation over the course of the study


[ISO+] III) SHALL - Confidential information: For underlying confidential or proprietary data and information that cannot be published, a separate confidential report may be foreseen. This report shall be made available to the critical reviewer(s) under confidentiality (in case a critical review is required or anticipated). See also chapter 10.3.4. Note: The separately available LCA report template and LCI data set format support an appropriate and efficient technical documentation for informing expert users and reviewers. It is a starting point and reference to develop communication for a non-technical audience. [ISO+] 6.3 Types of LCI and LCA deliverables and intended applications (No corresponding ISO 14044:2006 chapter) The appropriate type of deliverable is derived from the goal of the LCI/LCA study, especially the intended applications. This is unless the type is already directly specified in the goal


This is unless the type is already directly specified in the goal. This step is typically done very early in the scope definition, as the necessary depth and the width of LCI/LCA study can differ considerably among the types. In ISO 14044:2006 this issue is addressed only implicitly throughout the standard; there is hence no clear corresponding chapter in ISO 14044:2006


In ISO 14044:2006 this issue is addressed only implicitly throughout the standard; there is hence no clear corresponding chapter in ISO 14044:2006. The most commonly used possible types of deliverables are as follows from the basic to the more comprehensive ones:  Life Cycle Inventory ("LCI") study and/or data set, in the following variants: - Unit process study and/or data set, with two sub-types (concept see Figure 7): ° Single operation unit process (variants: fixed or parameterised) ° Black box unit process (variants: fixed or parameterised) - Partly terminated system data set (variants: fixed or parameterised) - Life Cycle Inventory results ("LCI results") study and/or data set  Life Cycle Impact Assessment results ("LCIA results") study and/or data set - Non-comparative Life Cycle Assessment study ("LCA study"), i.e. including impact assessment and interpretation


ILCD Handbook: General guide for Life Cycle Assessment - Detailed guidance First edition 6 Scope definition - what to analyse and how - Comparative Life Cycle Assessment study ("Comparative LCA study"), in the following variants: ° Non-assertive comparative Life Cycle Assessment study ("Non-assertive comparative LCA study") ° Comparative assertion Life Cycle Assessment study ("Comparative assertion LCA study"), with superiority, inferiority or equality of any compared alternatives are explicitly concluded  Detailed LCI model of the analysed system (if more detailed scenario analysis is intended (e.g. in detailed ecodesign). Note: For studies that develop LCIA models, methods and factors see the separate guidance document "Framework and requirements for Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) models and indicators". Table 3 gives an overview, which type(s) of deliverables of the LCI/LCA study are required as input for each of the intended application32


Table 3 gives an overview, which type(s) of deliverables of the LCI/LCA study are required as input for each of the intended application32. It also shows to which of the three archetypal goal situations each intended application typically belongs and which specific ISO standard relates to that type of deliverable, if any. The required form of reporting depends on several factors; next to the type of deliverable and the intended applications also e.g. the addressees influence this; the related detailed provisions are found in chapter 10. 32 All LCA studies ultimately go back to unit processes and beyond that to the original measurements or modelling of the process emissions etc. However, the kind of LCI/LCA deliverable that is to be developed as direct starting point for the named LCA application can be e.g. an LCA study, an LCI results data sets, a product-groups specific KEPI-based tool, etc


an LCA study, an LCI results data sets, a product-groups specific KEPI-based tool, etc. LCI results and unit process data sets are also always interim steps of any specific LCA study. Note that typically a range of other information and data, specific software tools, as well as specific expertise and experience is required, of course. This is not further detailed here as out of the scope of this document.


ILCD Handbook: General guide for Life Cycle Assessment - Detailed guidance First edition 6 Scope definition - what to analyse and how Table 3 Most common types of LCI/LCA study deliverables required for specific LCA applications (indicative overview). The most suitable ones are to be decided upon depending on the specific case


Application areas / Purposes LCA applications (from perspective of life cycle information user or provider) LCI / LCA type of deliverable and / or application required as direct input for the "LCA application"33, 34, 35 Applicable goal situation Related ISO standard (next to 14040 and 14044:2006) Product improvement Identification of Key Environmental Performance Indicators (KEPI) of a product group for Ecodesign / simplified LCA d or e or iii; and f A Weak point analysis of a specific product f and d A ISO/TR 14062 Detailed Ecodesign / Design-for-recycling f A ISO/TR 14062 Perform simplified KEPI-type LCA / Ecodesign study i A Product comparisons and procurement Comparison of specific goods or services e, ii, or iv A Benchmarking of specific products against the product group's average e A Green Public or Private Procurement (GPP) e, ii, or iv A ISO 14015 Communication Development of life cycle based Type I Ecolabel criteria d, e, i, or iii A ISO 14024 33 Basic type as input for LCA


A Green Public or Private Procurement (GPP) e, ii, or iv A ISO 14015 Communication Development of life cycle based Type I Ecolabel criteria d, e, i, or iii A ISO 14024 33 Basic type as input for LCA application: a = Unit process data set; b = LCI results data set; c = LCIA results data set; d = LCA study, non-comparative; e = Comparative LCA study; f = Detailed LCI model of system


Application as input for other LCA applications: i = KEPIs-based tool; ii = EPD; iii = Criteria set for life cycle based Type I Ecolabel; iv = Life cycle based Type I Ecolabel of the system. 34 Several LCA applications typically use at least alternatively the outcome of other LCA applications as input, e.g. Green Procurement often works with KEPI or Type I Ecolabel criteria. This is additionally indicated in the table. 35 Note that LCA studies (d and e) as basic form of application can already directly provide the required LCA application, e.g. a weak point analysis of the specific product or the comparison of products in support of procurement. In that case the letters d and e are underlined.


ILCD Handbook: General guide for Life Cycle Assessment - Detailed guidance First edition 6 Scope definition - what to analyse and how Application areas / Purposes LCA applications (from perspective of life cycle information user or provider) LCI / LCA type of deliverable and / or application required as direct input for the "LCA application"33, 34, 35 Applicable goal situation Related ISO standard (next to 14040 and 14044:2006) Development of Product Category Rules (PCR) or a similar specific guide for a product group e or d; and f A ISO 14025 Development of a life cycle based Type III environmental declaration (e.g


Environmental Product Declaration (EPD)) for a specific good or service d or i; and f A ISO 14025 Development of the 'Carbon footprint', 'Primary energy consumption' or similar indicator for a specific product d, i, or f A ISO 14025 Calculation of indirect effects in Environmental Management Systems (EMS) b or d C1 ISO 14001 Greening the supply chain ii, iv, or e A ISO 14015 Providing quantitative life cycle data as annex to an Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) for comparative use ii, d, or i A Across several areas Development of specific, average or generic unit process or LCI results data sets for use in different applications a or b A, B, C1, or C2 Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and Joint Implementation (JI) d, ii, i, or f A Strategic decision support Policy development: Forecasting & analysis of the environmental impact of pervasive technologies, raw material strategies, etc


and related policy development e B Policy information: Identifying product groups with the largest environmental improvement potential e B


ILCD Handbook: General guide for Life Cycle Assessment - Detailed guidance First edition 6 Scope definition - what to analyse and how Application areas / Purposes LCA applications (from perspective of life cycle information user or provider) LCI / LCA type of deliverable and / or application required as direct input for the "LCA application"33, 34, 35 Applicable goal situation Related ISO standard (next to 14040 and 14044:2006) Accounting Monitoring environmental impacts of a nation, industry sector, product group, or product d or b C1 Policy information: Basket-of-products (or -product groups) type of studies e C1 Policy information: Identifying product groups with the largest environmental impact e C1 Certified supply type studies or parts of the analysed system with fixed guarantees along the supply-chain b, d, e, or ii C1 Corporate or site environmental reporting d C1 ISO 14015, ISO 14031 Accounting studies that according to their goal definition do not include any interaction


along the supply-chain b, d, e, or ii C1 Corporate or site environmental reporting d C1 ISO 14015, ISO 14031 Accounting studies that according to their goal definition do not include any interaction with other systems d C2


ILCD Handbook: General guide for Life Cycle Assessment - Detailed guidance First edition 6 Scope definition - what to analyse and how Provisions: 6.3 Types of LCA deliverables and intended applications Applicable to Situation A, B, and C, differentiated. I) SHOULD - Types of deliverables: Derive from the intended application(s) identified in the goal definition (see chapter 5.2.1) and any potential pre-settings, the appropriate type(s) of deliverable(s) that the LCI/LCA study should provide. Table 3 gives an overview


Table 3 gives an overview. The following types are most common, listed in order of increasing comprehensiveness and/or complexity: [ISO!] I.a) Life Cycle Inventory ("LCI") study and/or data set, in the following variants: I.a.i) Unit process study and/or data set, with two sub-types: I.a.i.1) Single operation unit process (variants: fixed or parameterised) I.a.i.2) Black box unit process (variants: fixed or parameterised) I.a.ii) Partly terminated system data set (variants: fixed or parameterised) I.a.iii) Life Cycle Inventory results ("LCI results") study and/or data set I.b) Life Cycle Impact Assessment results ("LCIA results") study and/or data set I.c) Non-comparative Life Cycle Assessment study ("LCA study"), i.e


including impact assessment and interpretation I.d) Comparative Life Cycle Assessment study ("Comparative LCA study"), in the following variants: I.d.i) Non-assertive comparative Life Cycle Assessment study ("Non-assertive comparative LCA study") I.d.ii) Comparative assertion Life Cycle Assessment study ("Comparative assertion LCA study"), with superiority, inferiority or equality of any compared alternatives are explicitly concluded I.e) Detailed LCI model of the analysed system Note that the different types of deliverables imply different requirements e.g. regarding reporting and review. Note: For development of LCIA models, methods and factors as a special kind of LCA deliverable see the separate guidance document "Framework and requirements for Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) models and indicators"


[ISO+] 6.4 Function, functional unit, and reference flow36 (Refers to ISO 14044:2006 chapter 4.2.3.2 and aspects of 4.2.3.3.1) 6.4.1 Detailed identification of the process(es) or system(s) to be analysed (Refers to aspects of ISO 14044:2006 chapters 4.2.3.2 and 4.2.3.3.1) Based on the initial information on the process(es) or system(s) to be analysed given in the goal definition, details often need to be added in the scope definition. Especially when the goal of the LCI/LCA study is of a less specified nature (e.g. "Comparative assertion on 36 A detailed example of function, functional unit, reference flow etc. is found in chapter 6.4.4.


ILCD Handbook: General guide for Life Cycle Assessment - Detailed guidance First edition 6 Scope definition - what to analyse and how market prevailing packaging options for fresh vegetables in the UK"), the to-be-analysed and compared systems (here: the specific packaging options) still need to be identified and specified in detail. This shall be done in the scope phase of the LCI/LCA study. The need for such a better specification in the scope definition is always found when the goal relates to e.g. “generic”, “average”, “concept” or other insufficiently defined characteristics that need interpretation. This system specification closely interrelates with the system(s)‟s function(s), its functional unit(s), and its reference flow(s): Terms and concepts: Function, functional unit, and reference flow The system's function and functional unit are central elements of an LCA


Without them, a meaningful and valid comparison especially of products is not possible: An LCA is always anchored in a precise, quantitative description of the function(s) provided by the analysed system (e.g. "covering an outdoor wall against the weather, etc."). Note that also study objects such as analysed policy option or a strategy, or whole countries that are monitored with LCA-based indicators have a 'function'; in the sense of an LCA function means to quantitatively and qualitatively specify the analysed object: This is generally done by using the functional unit that names and quantifies the qualitative and quantitative aspects of the function(s) along the questions “what”, “how much”, “how well”, and “for how long”. For a product this could be e.g. "Complete coverage of 1 m2 primed outdoor wall for 10 years at 99.9 % opacity"). For a policy option this applies analogously. To make it clearer, the following examples splits the four aspects: it could be e.g


For a policy option this applies analogously. To make it clearer, the following examples splits the four aspects: it could be e.g. a product policy setting minimum requirements (i.e. "how much and "how well") on all products of product group X that are sold in the U.S. market (i.e. "what"), from 2012 onwards until policy revision in 5 years (i.e. "how long"). For a country indicator this would be e.g. all goods and services that contribute to mobility (i.e. "what") in South Korea (i.e. "how much"), for one year for the baseline year 2006 (i.e. "how long"). The "how well" would be part of the definition of mobility (e.g. is walking included). Key is that the functional unit allows to make comparisons that are valid, as the compared objects (or time series data on the same object) are comparable. These definitions and quantification of the functional unit often draw on technical measurement standards


These definitions and quantification of the functional unit often draw on technical measurement standards. The reference flow, finally, is the flow (or flows in case of multifunctional processes) to which all other input and output flows (i.e. all elementary flows and non-reference product and waste flows) quantitatively relate. It is realising the functional unit: The reference flow can be expressed in direct relation to the functional unit (e.g. “Complete coverage of 1 m2 primed outdoor wall for 10 years at 99.9 % opacity with paint A") or in a more product-oriented way (e.g. "0.67 l paint A"). The choice of the preferred type of reference flow depends firstly on the kind of product: for products with only one relevant function both options are possible. For products with several alternative functions (e.g. "1 kg steel-sheet; type XY...") it is more useful to use a measured amount (e.g


For products with several alternative functions (e.g. "1 kg steel-sheet; type XY...") it is more useful to use a measured amount (e.g. mass in kg) of the product with its technical specification as reference flow instead of a reference flow related to a specific functional unit measured e.g. in m2, as that can complicate other uses of the data set. Note that also the modelling logic of the used LCA software can require or prefer using one of the two, depending on their flexibility to connect processes with differently named reference flows. Note that one aspect of both the functional unit and the reference flow is the location (and type of location) where a product is available. E.g. the location "in Germany" / "DE" and “1 l beverage carton packed fresh milk at point of sale” or “... to consumer”, i.e. identifying as location type which transport and/or storage steps are included in the inventory. This is to be


ILCD Handbook: General guide for Life Cycle Assessment - Detailed guidance First edition 6 Scope definition - what to analyse and how identified as part of the reference flow name, unless the data set refers to a location unspecific process step (e.g. "High pressure injection moulding machine for HD-PE, etc."). For more on the quantitative and qualitative aspects of the functional unit see chapters 6.4.2 and 6.4.3 and the example in chapter 6.4.4. It is recommended to also provide a detailed description of the analysed system plus photos (especially in case of consumer products). Often the goal of the LCI/LCA study determines which of its single functions will be in focus and what will be the analysed object, or whether the whole system is object of the analysis: e.g. can a waste incineration plant be looked at from waste management perspective, making just one of the individual household waste components (e.g


can a waste incineration plant be looked at from waste management perspective, making just one of the individual household waste components (e.g. polymer fraction, inert materials, organic biomass fraction, etc.) to its reference flow and functional unit37. If a data set “electricity from household waste incineration” would be required, the produced electricity would be set as reference flow. If, in a third perspective, a detailed analysis of the incineration plant is goal of the LCI/LCA study, the plant as a whole would be targeted and technically specified and potentially also parameterised instead of defining any specific functional unit. 6.4.2 Quantitative aspects of the functional unit (Refers to aspects of ISO 14044:2006 chapter 4.2.3.2) First step of defining the functional unit is to identify and quantify the relevant quantifiable properties and the technical / functional performance of the system


An example for a good is a shopping bag of which the strength, volume, and other properties would be relevant quantitative aspects. But also how often the bag can be used (or is used based on surveys) is important. For services the example of cleaning services would give the floor type and area cleaned (to a given specification of cleanliness). Note that although here the quantitative properties are addressed these always necessarily also relate to a certain quality; however they are and can be quantified. For quantifying the functional unit of many products, two aspects of the extent of the provided function are to be differentiated: the duration of use (in time) and the extent/quantity of actual function provided. An example: a car may have an average lifetime of 12 years. However, for the comparison with other car models, the lifetime in terms of driven km are the more suitable, i.e. functional information. For products with continued function (such as e.g


However, for the comparison with other car models, the lifetime in terms of driven km are the more suitable, i.e. functional information. For products with continued function (such as e.g. housing, fridges) this case does not apply typical, but wherever the use intensity plays a dominant role, the choice of the appropriate functional unit becomes crucial. The same applies for e.g. clothes, mobile phones, TV sets, etc. where the duration that the product is kept in possession before discarding it is not suitable for comparisons. While this information might be important for issues such as carbon storage or for identifying the time horizon when recycling takes place (e.g. mobile phones are often kept for many years in possession after end of use, as waste management requirements are unclear and the product does not need much space). 37 It is equivalent to use an e.g. „organic waste fraction“ waste flow as reference flow or the „organic waste fraction treatment“ product flow


37 It is equivalent to use an e.g. „organic waste fraction“ waste flow as reference flow or the „organic waste fraction treatment“ product flow. The choice has however influence on how the product system will be modelled, as in the first option (that follows a “process flow” logic) the waste flow would be an input flow to the waste treatment process, while in the second option (that follows a “services are always inputs” logic) the waste treatment product flow would be an output flow of the waste treatment process.


ILCD Handbook: General guide for Life Cycle Assessment - Detailed guidance First edition 6 Scope definition - what to analyse and how It is also to be highlighted that for many services, but also for complex multifunctional goods (e.g. Personal Computers) the identification and quantification of the functional unit is not straightforward but it depends among others on a combination of specific use profiles. Additional quality aspects are addressed in chapter 6.9.2. Frequent errors: Comparisons not based on the relevant functional unit Comparisons shall not be performed on basis of any other reference than equivalent functional units. Comparisons between different materials on a mass basis (e.g. “1 kg glass” vs. “1 kg PET”) are thus meaningless and misleading. A comparison of materials can only be done in context of the products in which they are used. This is to consider their function by specifying and quantifying them in the functional unit (e.g. “1 l one-way glass bottle” vs


This is to consider their function by specifying and quantifying them in the functional unit (e.g. “1 l one-way glass bottle” vs. “1 l one-way PET bottle”, and: “... both for still water delivery to final consumer”)38. Regarding limited substitutability of products in niche markets see chapter 5.2.2. A comparison on the level of materials can only be done in a meaningful way if this is done for the same material by comparing different technologies or production routes (e.g. “1 kg polyamide 6.6 from crude oil via classical chemical route” vs. “1 kg polyamide 6.6 from corn stalks via combined biotechnological / chemical route”). In this example the comparison is in fact between technologies/routes (with the same functional unit of “output of 1 kg polyamide 6.6”) and NOT between materials. Note that also for such comparisons the same quantitative and qualitative properties of the two polyamide 6.6 variants must be ensured, e.g. in terms of molar weight, colour etc


Note that also for such comparisons the same quantitative and qualitative properties of the two polyamide 6.6 variants must be ensured, e.g. in terms of molar weight, colour etc. to allow for a valid and fair comparison. 6.4.3 Qualitative aspects of the functional unit (Refers to aspects of ISO 14044:2006 chapter 4.2.3.2) Difference between quantitative and qualitative aspects The qualitative definition of the system‟s function(s) is a description of the way in which the function(s) are provided and of other qualities of the product. These qualitative aspects are to include those aspects that are not easily quantifiable. Examples are e.g. the resistance to humidity (e.g. of a shopping bag) or aspects that relate to the user‟s perception of equivalence and substitutability if the compared product and that are therefore important to ensure a fair comparison. Perception aspects can be e.g


Perception aspects can be e.g. the perception of the product as being fashionable or of possessing specific design-features such as shape, touch, etc. Using qualitative aspects for better informed comparisons The relevant qualitative aspects shall be documented, as they can be decisive for the user‟s acceptance of the product. This is necessary to ensure that the compared products are indeed comparable – for the user. In the end the central stakeholders of the study (e.g. the customer, competitors, etc.) determine, which qualitative aspects need to be documented in support of a fair comparison. The definition of a functional unit must hence include both the quantitative and the key qualitative aspects to avoid subjectivity when subsequently defining equivalence. Especially for complex products, that may differ in a number of qualitative aspects (e.g


Especially for complex products, that may differ in a number of qualitative aspects (e.g. two cars of different levels of comfort), it is important that the equivalence of the “functional unit” is carefully ensured to ensure valid and defendable comparisons and even more so for comparative assertions disclosed to the public. It shall be highlighted in the 38 In this specific case, the functional unit is to be complemented by other quantitative/qualitative information such as migration, taste preservation, gas permeability or shelf life that needs to be addressed at least qualitatively to ensure the comparability in view of the consumer.


ILCD Handbook: General guide for Life Cycle Assessment - Detailed guidance First edition 6 Scope definition - what to analyse and how interpretation in which qualitative aspects the alternatives differ and clarify that the acceptance of equivalence exclusively lies with the user, i.e. the alternatives are technically equivalent and can technically be compared. The use of Quality Function Deployment (QFD) approaches can help to improve comparability of alternatives; for more see chapter 7.9.3.3. Comparison of systems that are not fully comparable The above can be expanded on studies that compare alternatives where the equivalence and comparability is even predominantly a matter of customer perception. For these comparability cannot be measured objectively. This is the case e.g


For these comparability cannot be measured objectively. This is the case e.g. for many services: for one customer two four-star hotels may not be comparable, while for others a four-star hotel might be comparable with a three-star hotel (or actually prefer a private pension), given the specific characteristics, location, etc. For one individual watching TV for one hour is equivalent to reading a book for one hour, for another not at all (see also chapter 6.4.6 under "Non-technical functions and functional units"). The results of such comparative studies shall hence be presented with the explicit statement that comparability is not assumed per se, but lies with the individual preference and judgement. Separation of impacts within the technosphere that are related to product properties In the special case of products that have relevant impacts on humans directly within the technosphere (e.g


Separation of impacts within the technosphere that are related to product properties In the special case of products that have relevant impacts on humans directly within the technosphere (e.g. food, drink, tobacco products etc.) and not via emissions to the environment, such impacts should be generally identified and documented in the description of the product or can be inventoried in separate inventory lists and undergo a specific, separate impact assessment. These impacts shall not be combined with interventions with the ecosphere in the life cycle inventory (see chapter 7.1). Such complementary information is to be explicitly considered in the LCA results interpretation, to avoid misleading interpretation. Other tools, such as e.g. risk assessment, may be used to appropriately capture and assess these properties in a modular way together with those covered by the LCA, i.e. interventions with the ecosphere


risk assessment, may be used to appropriately capture and assess these properties in a modular way together with those covered by the LCA, i.e. interventions with the ecosphere. 6.4.4 Working with obligatory and positioning properties (No corresponding ISO 14044:2006 chapter) In product development the concepts of 'obligatory properties' and 'positioning properties' are sometimes used. Wherever available, these may be used in LCA when determining the functional unit of a product. The obligatory properties are features that the product must possess for the user to perceive it as a functionally useful product (e.g. for exterior wall paint this would be among others the ability to cover and protect the wall against the weather). Also all legal requirements belong to the obligatory properties (e.g. limits / ban of toxic compounds in the paint)


Also all legal requirements belong to the obligatory properties (e.g. limits / ban of toxic compounds in the paint). The positioning properties, on the other hand, are optional features which can be used to position the product in the market as more attractive to the customer than other, similar products (e.g. for the above paint example: drip-free application, large selection of different colour tones, guarantee to be available for order for next 10 years, etc.). Examples include comfort, image, and aesthetic aspects of the product. A complete example with the "paint" as case see Table 4. Regarding limited substitutability of products in niche markets see chapter 5.2.2.


ILCD Handbook: General guide for Life Cycle Assessment - Detailed guidance First edition 6 Scope definition - what to analyse and how The quantitative definition of the function of the product and some key qualitative aspects will typically be based on the obligatory properties of the product, while other qualitative aspects that typically relate to the user perception may be identified among the positioning properties. Table 4 Example for function, functional unit and reference flows in a comparative case: Outdoor wall paints comparison ( 2 alternatives) Obligatory properties  quantify in functional unit Positioning properties  document  Cover wall with uniform colour  Protect wall against the destructive agents rain, sun, and microalgae  Provide surface which is easy to clean  Meet health requirements during application  ..


 Drip-free application  Many different colour tones to select from  Water-based system  Fast application (needs only one application as well covering or very viscous)  ... Functional unit Coat and cover 1 m2 outdoor wall according to standard XYZ (under defined (e.g. perhumid tropical) weather conditions) with a red colour (colour code XYZ) for 10 years. Reference flow  Paint A: 6.5 l solvent-based paint A (needs two applications and a re-paint39 after 5 years, i.e. twice 3.25 l)  Paint B: 3.8 l water-based paint B (drip-free, needs only one application and lasts 10 years) 6.4.5 Using technical standards for defining function and functional unit (No corresponding ISO 14044:2006 chapter) The quantitative definition of a product‟s functional unit should refer to technical standards wherever possible and appropriate (e.g


standards on the thermal conductivity for determining the insulation capacity of insulation materials for exterior house walls; or standards on opacity measurement for determining the opacity of a wall paint). Whether a standard is appropriate depends on whether it captures the functional unit in the way the LCA requires it, i.e. in a comparable, differentiated way, capturing the different process operation cycles in a averaging way and so on. 39 Note that in this example the need for re-painting may result in the need for additional processes to be included in the system boundaries, e.g. for removing loose paint layers of the first application when applying the second one etc. Note also that for the repainting - as occurring in the future - a potentially further developed paint would be used, i.e. this is not equivalent to twice painting the same, "old" paint.


ILCD Handbook: General guide for Life Cycle Assessment - Detailed guidance First edition 6 Scope definition - what to analyse and how Frequent errors: Using inappropriate technical standards to quantify the functional unit Standardised measurement protocols are an indispensible means to improve the comparability of products. However, not all technical standards are directly or at all suitable for LCA. Such negative examples are e.g. - the direct use of 5 minutes average peak-measurements of emissions instead of mass-flow averaged data, - the use of base-load measurements excluding start/shut-down cycles instead of covering the entire cycle (see also chapter 7.4.2.7), - the direct use of maximum electricity uptake information on energy-using devices instead of the actual consumption (e.g. "2 kW" for a cooling fan, which may however run usually only on e.g


"2 kW" for a cooling fan, which may however run usually only on e.g. 80 % of its capacity and only for parts of the time), - the reported "driving cycle mix" fuel consumption of vehicles that may not necessarily reflect the average consumption in normal use but serve for general comparability / legal purposes only), - the initial capacity of a starter battery that will be reduced with ageing; even more this ageing might differ between different battery concepts, or - the initial light-intensity of a halogen light bulb that does not account for specifically reduced values after ageing during use stage, etc. The key question is whether the measurement method is appropriate for a comparison of the life cycle performance of the analysed systems. The technical understanding of the analysed technologies or service operations combined with LCA expertise is the indispensible pairing that is needed to appropriately quantify the functional unit of products for the comparative use in LCA


Harmonised standards under ISO should be preferred for this purpose wherever available. In the case of lack of applicable and appropriate technical standards, and only then, it is permissible and required as part of the LCI/LCA study to specify in an appropriate and reproducible way and clearly document how the functional unit has been measured. If qualitative properties play a relevant role in the market for a product group, also they should be documented using technical standards, if available and appropriate. 6.4.6 Functional unit and/or reference flow? (Refers to aspects of ISO 14044:2006 chapter 4.2.3.2) Application-unspecific products: Reference flow as 'declared unit' and product specification instead of functional unit It is important to note that not all systems have clear or unique functional units: For application-unspecific materials such as steel, gypsum, etc. but also for multiple use machines such as trucks, waste incinerators, etc


but also for multiple use machines such as trucks, waste incinerators, etc. the number of possible applications and hence functional units is often extremely large to virtually indefinite. In such cases where one or few, relevant functional units cannot be given, it is crucial to clearly and both quantitatively and qualitatively identify the reference flow as the detailed name of the product plus further information that identifies its relevant characteristics and the location-type. This supports a correct subsequent selection and use of the data in other systems. For example would a cradle-to-gate steel data set obtain the detailed reference flow of 1 kg of “Stainless Steel Hot Rolled Coil, Annealed and Pickled; Electric Arc Furnace route;


ILCD Handbook: General guide for Life Cycle Assessment - Detailed guidance First edition 6 Scope definition - what to analyse and how production mix, at plant; grade 304 (Austenitic, 18 % chromium, 10 % nickel)”. This is also called 'declared unit', as a general functional unit cannot be given and a simpler mass, volume, area, pieces, or similar unit is used instead. Additional information about technical applicability of this steel further guides the correct use of the data set. In the subsequent uses of the data set in another (product) system, the exactly required amount would be specified (e.g. 0.753 kg of the “Stainless Steel Hot Rolled ...”), ensuring proper identification of the process and its quantification via the reference flow. In the example of a truck, a specific transport scenario would be defined in the study that uses the data set for the specific truck used, ensuring again a clear identification and quantification. E.g


E.g. the transport scenario “150 km overland transport of bulk sand transport at 90 % load factor” with the quantity and unit of e.g. 1 t*km and the data set “Truck bulk transport; Euro 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 transport mix; 22 t total weight, 17.3 t max payload”. Multifunctional processes: Functional units and reference flows If a process has more than one product as output (co-production e.g. of different chemicals in a synthesis process with valuable by-products), or is treating more than one waste on the input side (co-services), it is called a multifunctional process (see also Figure 6). In consequence, it has more than one reference flow and all of them shall be well defined and specified. Whether all of the reference flows also have one (or even more) corresponding functional units depends on the kind of functions or products (see the provisions above and below in this subchapter)


Whether all of the reference flows also have one (or even more) corresponding functional units depends on the kind of functions or products (see the provisions above and below in this subchapter). Multifunctional products with additive/parallel functions: one reference flow (or one per function, depending on model needs), detailed technical specifications, additive/parallel functional units as for the given case appropriate Methodologically equivalent to multifunctional processes but typically in need of a different way of specification are multifunctional products: a product can have several functional units with functions that may be used subsequently or even in parallel (e.g. a mobile phone that can be used for phoning, storing and playing music, receiving SMS, as alarm clock, etc.). The actually used functions and the extent of use depends however on the individual user


a mobile phone that can be used for phoning, storing and playing music, receiving SMS, as alarm clock, etc.). The actually used functions and the extent of use depends however on the individual user. However, a set of functional units that represent a typical or average use profile and that accounts for the technical lifetime can and should be provided as a minimum. Additionally or alternatively the technical product specification serves the purpose to inform the data set user and should be documented. In product comparisons, the typical or average use case or specific use scenarios would then be defined and compared, combining the various aspects of the quantitative product specification. The reference flow of such LCI data sets would identify the type of product and its brand name, model, etc. while the technical specification would overload the reference flow name and may hence be provided in the data set documentation


while the technical specification would overload the reference flow name and may hence be provided in the data set documentation. Systems with alternative functions: one reference flow, detailed technical specifications, alternative functional units as for the given case appropriate Next to multifunctional products or processes that provide more than one function (e.g. mobile phones) or produce more than one product (e.g. co-production of wheat grain and straw), some systems can have several, alternative functional units depending on the context in which they are used in (e.g. a specific paint for both indoor and outdoor use with different life-time/resistance).


ILCD Handbook: General guide for Life Cycle Assessment - Detailed guidance First edition 6 Scope definition - what to analyse and how These products are not multifunctional in the sense of an LCA, as they can only perform one of the alternative functions. In such cases and if comparisons are among the intended applications, the main or application-unspecific functional unit should be documented as default. It is recommended to additionally document and define the main other functional units to ease subsequent comparisons and the technical product specifications should be provided. Highly variable functions of processes and products: parameterised data sets The use of parameterised data sets or even system models can provide quantitatively usable information on functions that are highly variable. This is the case when different e.g


This is the case when different e.g. use patterns result in strongly changed LCI data, such as for many flexible machines and processes, such as waste processing (with varying waste composition), transport (with different load factors and road types used). Such supports a much better and accurate subsequent use. Regarding the functional unit, reference flows, etc., see the other recommendations in this subchapter. Non-technical functions and functional units Next to the specific, often technical functions that goods and services have, they have often other, non-technical functions that can be of interest in life-style type studies. As an example, the function of personal entertainment is illustrated: A number of products and personal services (e.g. watching TV, receiving a massage, riding a bicycle, etc.) that we use in our leisure time, have the special property of also relating to the duration of our personal time that we spend with them


watching TV, receiving a massage, riding a bicycle, etc.) that we use in our leisure time, have the special property of also relating to the duration of our personal time that we spend with them. Hence, products with technically entirely different functions may usefully be compared from the perspective of how much of our personal time they fill with 'entertainment'. This can be used e.g. in life-style analysis or to position and improve leisure-oriented goods and services environmentally. “The duration of filling one‟s (leisure) time with entertainment” is hence a special and additional property that can be used as functional unit. Restrictions as to the interpretation of the results and the equivalence of the compared activities are to be carefully observed when doing so