Table 36.2 (continued) Reference Technologies included Contaminants Impacts included Functional unit Time boundary for LCI Result or conclusion Pri Sec Ter constituents are compared (G) caisson-based method due to less construction material consumption by the funnel” 22. Sparrevik et al. (2011) In situ Natural recovery Capping using clay (SED) Capping using crushed limestone (SED) Capping using fossil anthracite coal-based active carbon (SED) Capping using biomass-based active carbon (SED) Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and —furans (PCDD/Fs) X x Remediation of an area of sediments the same size as to the whole inner fjord (23.4 km2), conservatively assessed for a 90-year time period 90 years “Use of biomass-derived activated carbon, where carbon dioxide is sequestered during the production process, reduces the overall environmental impact to that of natural recovery” 23


Suer and Andersson-Sköld (2011) Ex situ Excavation, landfilling and refilling with pristine material (S) Mineral oil x Not specified 20 years and 40 days “The biofuel remediation had great environmental advantages compared to the ex situ excavation remediation. With the ReCiPe impact assessment method, which included biodiversity, the net environmental effect was even positive, in spite of the fact that the wood harvest was not utilised for biofuel production, but left on the contaminated site” In situ Phytoremediation using willow (Salix viminalis) (S) (continued) LCA of Soil and Groundwater Remediation

36 LCA of Soil and Groundwater Remediation

Hauschild et al., LCA: Theory and Practice


Table 36.2 (continued) Reference Technologies included Contaminants Impacts included Functional unit Time boundary for LCI Result or conclusion Pri Sec Ter 24. Busset et al. (2012) Ex situ Bioremediation with mechanical aeration (S) Bioremediation with electric aeration (S) Incineration with natural gas (S) Polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) x Treating 600 t of PCB contaminated moist soil (20% moisture) to reduce its PCB concentration from 200 to 50 mg/kg of soil Not specified “In most compared categories, the bioremediation processes are favourable. Of the bioremediation options, the lowest environmental footprint was observed for electric aeration. Irrespective of the aeration option, bioremediation was better than incineration” 25


Of the bioremediation options, the lowest environmental footprint was observed for electric aeration. Irrespective of the aeration option, bioremediation was better than incineration” 25. Hong and Li (2012) Lab-scale Biodechlorination under methanogenic conditions using acetate as electron donor (SLUDGE) Biodechlorination under methanogenic conditions using lactate as electron donor (SLUDGE) Biodechlorination under acidogenic/methanogenic conditions using Pentachloroaniline (PCA) x Dechlorination of 1 lM PCA in sludge Not specified “Optimizing the concentration of amended electron donors and increasing the population size of dechlorinating microorganisms are highly important in reducing the environmental burden by PCA bioremediation” “Results showed that the methanol scenario was the (continued) G.L. Søndergaard and M. Owsianiak


Table 36.2 (continued) Reference Technologies included Contaminants Impacts included Functional unit Time boundary for LCI Result or conclusion Pri Sec Ter methanol as electron donor (SLUDGE) Biodechlorination under acidogenic/methanogenic conditions using methanol + glucose as electron donor (SLUDGE) most suitable option determined in this research” 26. Lubrecht (2012) In situ Horizontal directional drilling (HDD) crossing a groundwater plume (G) Auger drilling (wells spread across a plume) (G) Not specified groundwater contaminant x Not specified. The basis for comparison is target depth of the plume. No remediation targets specified Not specified “Although both auger and horizontal drilling are considered to be high-emissions activities, comparing the two operations with the SiteWise application confirms that air emissions can be reduced during well construction by using HDD” 27. Witters et al


Witters et al. (2012) In situ Phytoremediation using willow (Salix spp.) combined with digestion and combustion (S) Cadmium x Not clearly defined, but the study focuses on “energy production and CO2 abatement per hectare per year 1 year “Taking into account the marginal impact of the metals in the biomass on the energy conversion efficiency and on the potential use of (continued) LCA of Soil and Groundwater Remediation


Table 36.2 (continued) Reference Technologies included Contaminants Impacts included Functional unit Time boundary for LCI Result or conclusion Pri Sec Ter Phytoremediation using silage maize (Zea mays L.) combined with digestion and combustion (S) Phytoremediation using rapeseed (Brassica napus L.) combined with digestion and combustion (S) the biomass and its rest products after conversion, digestion of silage maize with combustion of the contaminated digestate shows the best energetic and CO2 abating perspectives” 28. Lemming et al


Lemming et al. (2012) In situ Enhanced reductive dechlorination (ERD) In situ chemical oxidation (ISCO) Long-term monitoring Long-term monitoring with activated carbon treatment at waterworks Trichloroethene (TCE) X x The management of the target treatment zone leading to a 99% removal of the contaminant mass 830 years “The aggregated environmental impact generated on the global, regional and local scales was greater than the local environmental impact removed in all the assessed scenarios. Overall, long-term monitoring and ERD were found to be the preferable management options as they resulted in the lowest secondary environmental impacts” [...] “ISCO generates especially high levels of secondary impacts due to the applied permanganate” (continued) G.L. Søndergaard and M. Owsianiak


Table 36.2 (continued) Reference Technologies included Contaminants Impacts included Functional unit Time boundary for LCI Result or conclusion Pri Sec Ter 29. Hou et al. (2014a) In situ Enhanced in situ bioremediation (EIB), permeable reactive barrier (PRB), and in situ chemical reduction (ISCR) Chlorinated ethylene x To to reduce the levels of PCE and its daughter products (i.e. TCE, DCE and vinyl chloride) within the treatment zone of the GSCM to levels below the California Maximum Contaminant Level (Cal-MCL) for drinking water with a 30-year timeframe. The Cal-MCL is 5 mg/L for PCE, 5 mg/L for TCE, 6 mg/L for 1.1-DCE and cis-1.2-DCE, and 0.5 mg/L for vinyl chloride 30 years “In general source zone treatment technologies (i.e. EIB and ISCR) tend to have less life cycle impact than containment technologies (i.e. P&T and PRB)” “Site-specific parameters can have profound effects on the secondary life cycle impact of remediation alternatives at chlorinated solvent sites


P&T and PRB)” “Site-specific parameters can have profound effects on the secondary life cycle impact of remediation alternatives at chlorinated solvent sites. In evaluating four remediation methods, P&T, PRB, EIB and ISCR, plume dimension parameters and hydrogeological parameters were found to have the most extensive and significant effects” Ex situ Pump–and-treat (P&T) 30. Hou et al


Hou et al. (2014b) In situ No action Contaminated sediment containing heavy metals x x x For the studied case, when evaluating the different planning options, the functional unit was managing approximately 2500 m of waterways adjacent to the London Olympic Park for 100 years; when evaluating the different treatment methods, the functional unit was dredging approximately 30,000 m3 of sediment and disposing the sediment in accordance with all applicable regulations 100 years “The hybrid LCA offers a more complete system boundary than traditional process-based LCA” “In comparing soil washing with landfilling, the present study found that soil washing was superior to landfilling, in most social, economic, and environmental impact categories” Ex situ Soil washing Landfilling (continued) LCA of Soil and Groundwater Remediation


Table 36.2 (continued) Reference Technologies included Contaminants Impacts included Functional unit Time boundary for LCI Result or conclusion Pri Sec Ter 31. Beames et al. (2015) In situ In situ Multiphase Extraction (MPE) Mix of benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene, mineral oil, chlorinated volatile organic compounds, polychlorinated biphenyls, chlorophenols, phenols and cresol x The functional unit in this study is the removal of approximately 80% of the estimated 500 metric tons of contaminant mass from a subsurface soil volume of approximately 40,000 m3 6 years/15 years “The results show that there is a trade-off between greenhouse gas emissions and land availability [...]. Excavation leads to greater impacts in all the standard ReCiPe impact categories. The proposed impact assessment amendments show that Excavation yields the benefit of the site itself as a resource being available sooner” Ex situ Excavation and ex situ treatment of soil 32. Vigil et al


Vigil et al. (2015) In situ Phytoremediation and biogas production Phytoremediation and landfill Heavy metals (lead) x One hectare of decontaminated land 40 days/32 years “Phytoremediation can provide a net sustainable benefit when used to recover soils polluted with heavy metals. The production of SNG (synthetic natural gas) is a key factor to the sustainability of a phytoremediation project because while contaminated land is being remediated, Ex situ Excavation and landfill (continued) G.L. Søndergaard and M. Owsianiak


Table 36.2 (continued) Reference Technologies included Contaminants Impacts included Functional unit Time boundary for LCI Result or conclusion Pri Sec Ter fossil fuel depletion is avoided and the metal-rich biomass is efficiently managed. A comparison of the same scheme, but with the biomass going to landfill, emphasises that phytoremediation sustainability is compromised when the biomass produced is not valorized in some way” Pri Primary impacts, Sec Secondary impacts and Ter Tertiary impacts. S soil, G groundwater, SED sediment, SLUDGE sludge, W = wetland aAttributional LCA bConsequential LCA LCA of Soil and Groundwater Remediation


Bayer, P., Finkel, M.: Life cycle assessment of active and passive groundwater remediation technologies. J. Contam. Hydrol. 83, 171–199 (2006). doi:10.1016/j.jconhyd.2005.11.005 Beames, A., Broekx, S., Heijungs, R., Lookman, R., Boonen, K., Van Geert, Y., Dendoncker, K., Seuntjens, P.: Accounting for land-use efficiency and temporal variations between brownfield remediation alternatives in life-cycle assessment. J. Clean. Prod. 101, 109–117 (2015). doi:10. 1016/j.jclepro.2015.03.073 Beinat, E., van Drunen, M.A., Janssen, R., Nijboer, M.H., Koolenbrander, J.G.M., Okx, J.P., Schütte, A.R.: REC: a methodology for comparing soil remedial alternatives based on the criteria of risk reduction, environmental merit and costs. CUR/Nobis report 95-10-3, Gouda, The Netherlands (1997) Blanc, A., Metivier-Pignon, H., Gourdon, R., Rousseaux, P.: Life cycle assessment as a tool for controlling the development of technical activities: application to the remediation of a site contaminated by sulfur


Adv. Environ. Res. 8, 613–627 (2004). doi:10.1016/s1093-0191(03) 00034-0 Busset, G., Sangely, M., Montrejaud-Vignoles, M., et al.: Life cycle assessment of polychlorinated biphenyl contaminated soil remediation processes. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 17, 325–336 (2012). doi:10.1007/s11367-011-0366-7 Cappuyns, V., Bouckenooghe, D., van Breuseghem, L., van Herreweghe, S.: Can thermal soil remediation be sustainable? A case study of the environmental merit of the remediation of a site contaminated by a light non-aqueous phase liquid (LNAPL). J. Integr. Environ. Sci. 8, 103–121 (2011). doi:10.1080/1943815x.2011.564187 Cadotte, M., Deschenes, L., Samson, R.: Selection of a remediation scenario for a diesel-contaminated site using LCA. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 12, 239–251 (2007). doi:10. 1065/lca2007.05.328 Caliman, F.A., Robu, B.M., Smaranda, C., et al.: Soil and groundwater cleanup: benefits and limits of emerging technologies. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 13, 241–268 (2011)


1065/lca2007.05.328 Caliman, F.A., Robu, B.M., Smaranda, C., et al.: Soil and groundwater cleanup: benefits and limits of emerging technologies. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 13, 241–268 (2011). doi:10.1007/ s10098-010-0319-z Collaran, E. (Ed.).: Methods in Biotechnology, Vol. 2: Bioremediation Protocols. Human Press, Totowa (1997) Diamond, M.L., Page, C.A., Campbell, M., McKenna, S., Lall, R.: Life-cycle framework for assessment of site remediation options: method and generic survey. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 18, 788–800 (1999). doi:10.1002/etc.5620180427 Dreyer, L.C., Niemann, A.L., Hauschild, M.Z.: Comparison of three different LCIA methods: EDIP97, CML2001 and Eco-indicator 99—does it matter which one you choose? Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 8, 191–200 (2003). doi:10.1065/lca2003.06.115 EEA: Progress in management of contaminated sites. Report CSI 015


J. Life Cycle Assess. 8, 191–200 (2003). doi:10.1065/lca2003.06.115 EEA: Progress in management of contaminated sites. Report CSI 015. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen (2007) Evans, J.M., Wilkie, A.C.: Life cycle assessment of nutrient remediation and bioenergy production potential from the harvest of hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata). J. Environ. Manag. 91, 2626–2631 (2010). doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.07.040 Frischknecht, R., Jungbluth, N., Althaus, H.J., Doka, G., Heck, T., Hellweg, S., Hischier, R., Nemecek, T., Rebitzer, G., Spielmann, M., Wernet, G.: Overview and methodology. Ecoinvent Report No. 1. Swiss Centre for Life-Cycle Inventories, Dübendorf (2007) Godin, J., Menard, J.F., Hains, S., et al.: Combined use of life cycle assessment and groundwater transport modeling to support contaminated site management. Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. 10, 1099–1116 (2004)


Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. 10, 1099–1116 (2004). doi:10.1080/10807030490887159 Hauschild, M.Z., Goedkoop, M., Guinee, J., et al.: Identifying best existing practice for characterization modeling in life cycle impact assessment. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 18, 683– 697 (2013). doi:10.1007/s11367-012-0489-5 G.L. Søndergaard and M. Owsianiak


Higgins, M.R., Olson, T.M.: Life-cycle case study comparison of permeable reactive barrier versus pump-and-treat remediation. Environ. Sci. Technol. 43, 9432–9438 (2009). doi:10.1021/ es9015537 Holland, K.S.: A framework for sustainable remediation. Environ. Sci. Technol. 45, 7116–7117 (2011). doi:10.1021/es202595w Holland, K.S., Favara, P.: The sustainable remediation forum. Remediat J 19, 115–119 (2009). doi:10.1002/rem.20211 Holland, K.S., Lewis, R.E., Tipton, K., et al.: Framework for integrating sustainability into remediation projects. Remediat. J. 21, 7–38 (2011). doi:10.1002/rem.20288 Hong, J.L., Li, X.Z.: Life cycle assessment comparison of substrates for the bioremediation of pentachloroaniline under acidogenic/methanogenic conditions. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 17, 79–88 (2012). doi:10.1007/s11367-011-0338-y Hou, D., Al-Tabbaa, A., Luo, J.: Assessing effects of site characteristics on remediation secondary life cycle impact with a generalised framework. J. Environ. Plan


doi:10.1007/s11367-011-0338-y Hou, D., Al-Tabbaa, A., Luo, J.: Assessing effects of site characteristics on remediation secondary life cycle impact with a generalised framework. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 1–18 (2014a). doi:10. 1080/09640568.2013.863754 Hou, D., Al-Tabbaa, A., Guthrie, P., Hellings, J., Gu, Q.: Using a hybrid LCA method to evaluate the sustainability of sediment remediation at the London Olympic Park. J. Clean. Prod. 83, 87– 95 (2014b). doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.07.062 Hu, X.T., Zhu, J.X., Ding, Q.O.: Application of life cycle assessment on technology selection for POPs contaminated sites management and remediation. In: Selected Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Waste Management and Technology (ICWMT 5), pp. 509–513 (2010) Inoue, Y., Katayama, A.: Two-scale evaluation of remediation technologies for a contaminated site by applying economic input–output life cycle assessment: risk-cost, risk–energy consumption and risk–CO2 emission. J. Hazard. Mater


J. Hazard. Mater. 192, 1234–1242 (2011). doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2011. 06.029 ISO.: Environmental management—life cycle assessment—principles and framework (ISO 14040). ISO, the International Organization for Standardization, Geneva (2006a) ISO.: Environmental management—life cycle assessment—requirements and guidelines (ISO 14044). ISO, the International Organization for Standardization, Geneva (2006b) JRC.: ILCD Handbook: General Guide for Life Cycle Assessment—Provisions and Action Steps, 1st edn. European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Environment and Sustainability, Ispra, Italy (2010) Lemming, G., Hauschild, M.Z., Bjerg, P.L.: Life cycle assessment of soil and groundwater remediation technologies: literature review. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 15, 115–127 (2010a). doi:10.1007/s11367-009-0129-x Lemming, G., Friis-Hansen, P., Bjerg, P.L.: Risk-based economic decision analysis of remediation options at a PCE-contaminated site. J. Environ. Manag


doi:10.1007/s11367-009-0129-x Lemming, G., Friis-Hansen, P., Bjerg, P.L.: Risk-based economic decision analysis of remediation options at a PCE-contaminated site. J. Environ. Manag. 91, 1169–1182 (2010b) Lemming, G., Hauschild, M.Z., Chambon, J., et al.: Environmental impacts of remediation of a trichloroethene-contaminated site: life cycle assessment of remediation alternatives. Environ. Sci. Technol. 44, 9163–9169 (2010c). doi:10.1021/es102007s Lemming, G., Chambon, J.C., Binning, P.J., Bjerg, P.L.: Is there an environmental benefit from remediation of a contaminated site? Combined assessments of the risk reduction and life cycle impact of remediation. J. Environ. Manage. 112, 392–403 (2012). doi:10.1016/j.jenvman. 2012.08.002 Lesage, P., Ekvall, T., Deschenes, L., Samson, R.: Environmental assessment of Brownfield rehabilitation using two different life cycle inventory models. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 12, 391–398 (2007a)


Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 12, 391–398 (2007a). doi:10.1065/lca2006.10.279.1 Lesage, P., Ekvall, T., Deschenes, L., Samson, R.: Environmental assessment of Brownfield rehabilitation using two different life cycle inventory models—part 2: case study. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 12, 497–513 (2007b). doi:10.1065/lca2006.10.279.2 Lubrecht, M.D.: Horizontal directional drilling: a green and sustainable technology for site remediation. Environ. Sci. Technol. 46, 2484–2489 (2012). doi:10.1021/es203765q LCA of Soil and Groundwater Remediation


Mak, M.S.H., Lo, I.M.C.: Environmental life cycle assessment of permeable reactive barriers: effects of construction methods, reactive materials and groundwater constituents. Environ. Sci. Technol. 45, 10148–10154 (2011). doi:10.1021/es202016d Morais, S.A., Delerue-Matos, C.: A perspective on LCA application in site remediation services: critical review of challenges. J. Hazard. Mater. 175, 12–22 (2010). doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2009. 10.041 NAVFAC, USACE, Batelle: SiteWiseTM version 2. User guide. UG-2092-ENV. Developed by US Navy—Naval Facilities Engineering command (NAVFAC), United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and Battelle (2011) NREL, Athena Institute, Franklin Associates, Sylvatica: U.S. LCI Database Project—user’s guide


LCI Database Project—user’s guide. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, USA, Athena Sustainable Materials Institute, Canada, Franklin Associates, Ltd., USA, Sylvatica, USA, NREL/BK-35854 (2004) Owsianiak, M., Lemming, G., Hauschild, M.Z., Bjerg, P.L.: Assessing environmental sustainability of remediation technologies in a life cycle perspective is not so easy. Environ. Sci. Technol. 47, 1182–1183 (2013). doi:10.1021/es305279t Page, C.A., Diamond, M.L., Campbell, M., McKenna, S.: Life-cycle framework for assessment of site remediation options: case study. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 18, 801–810 (1999). doi:10. 1897/1551-5028(1999)018<0801:lcffao>2.3.co;2 Ribbenhed, M., Wolf-Watz, C., Almemark, M., Palm, A., Sternbeck, J.: Livscykelanalys av marksaneringstekniker fàr fàrorenad jord och sediment [Life cycle assessment of remediation technologies for contaminated soil and sediment]. IVL Rapport/report B1476


IVL Rapport/report B1476. IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute Ltd., Stockholm, Sweden (2002) Sanscartier, D., Margni, M., Reimer, K., Zeeb, B.: Comparison of the secondary environmental impacts of three remediation alternatives for a diesel-contaminated site in Northern Canada. Soil Sediment Contam. 19, 338–355 (2010). doi:10.1080/15320381003695256 ScanRail Consult, HOH Water Technology A/S, NIRAS Consulting Engineers and Planners A/S, Revisorsamvirket/Pannell Kerr Forster: Environmental/economic evaluation and optimising of contaminated sites remediation. EU LIFE Project No. 96ENV/DK/0016. Copenhagen, Denmark (2000) Sparrevik, M., Saloranta, T., Cornelissen, G., et al.: Use of life cycle assessments to evaluate the environmental footprint of contaminated sediment remediation. Environ. Sci. Technol. 45, 4235–4241 (2011)


Environ. Sci. Technol. 45, 4235–4241 (2011). doi:10.1021/es103925u Sparrevik, M., Barton, D.N., Bates, M.E., Linkov, I.: Use of stochastic multi-criteria decision analysis to support sustainable management of contaminated sediments. Environ. Sci. Technol. 46, 1326–1334 (2012). doi:10.1021/es202225x Suer, P., Andersson-Skold, Y.: Biofuel or excavation? Life cycle assessment (LCA) of soil remediation options. Biomass Bioenergy 35, 969–981 (2011). doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2010. 11.022 Toffoletto, L., Deschenes, L., Samson, R.: LCA of ex situ bioremediation of diesel-contaminated soil. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 10, 406–416 (2005). doi:10.1065/lca2004.09.180.12 US EPA.: Abstracts of remediation case studies, Vol. 4, Federal remediation technologies roundtable, EPA 542-R-00-006 (2000) US EPA.: Cleanup of the nation’s waste sites: markets and technology trends. EPA 542-R-04-015. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. U. S


EPA 542-R-04-015. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington (2004) US EPA: Superfund Remedy Report, Thirteenth edn. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington (2010) Vigil, M., Marey-Pérez, M.F., Martinez Huerta, G., Álvarez Cabal, V.: Is phytoremediation without biomass valorization sustainable? Comparative LCA of landfilling vs. anaerobic co-digestion. Sci. Total Environ. 505, 844–850 (2015). doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.10.047 Vignes, R.P.: Use limited life-cycle analysis for environmental decision-making. Chem. Eng. Prog. 97, 40–54 (2001) Volkwein, S., Hurtig, H.-W., Klöpffer, W.: Life cycle assessment of contaminated sites remediation. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 4, 263–274 (1999). doi:10.1007/bf02979178 G.L. Søndergaard and M. Owsianiak


Witters, N., Mendelsohn, R.O., Van Slycken, S., et al.: Phytoremediation, a sustainable remediation technology? Conclusions from a case study. I: energy production and carbon dioxide abatement. Biomass Bioenergy 39, 454–469 (2012). doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2011.08. Author Biographies Gitte Lemming Søndergaard LCA expert with a focus on remediation of contaminated sites. Main LCA interests are combining LCA of contaminated site remediation with remediation performance modelling, and integrating LCA into multi-criteria decision support models for contaminated site management. Mikołaj Owsianiak involved in development and application of life cycle impact assessment methods in sustainability assessment of technologies. Has worked on issues associated with: soils (remediation), metals (toxic impact assessment), biodiesel (fate in the environment), and carbonaceous materials (biochar and hydrochar). LCA of Soil and Groundwater Remediation


Part IV


Chapter 37 Michael Z. Hauschild and Anders Bjørn Abstract The LCA cookbook presents the provisions and actions from the ILCD Handbook that are central in the performance of an LCA. The selection is intended to cover all those activities that an LCA practitioner needs to undertake in a typical process-LCA, and the presentation follows the normal progression of the LCA work according to the ISO framework. For explanation of the reasoning behind the actions, the reader is referred to the presentation of the methodological elements in Part 2 of the book. 37.1 This chapter is a cookbook with recipes on how to perform an LCA. It is intended to guide the LCA practitioner through the many steps, activities and decisions (“actions”) that are needed to perform an LCA according to the ILCD Handbook (EC-JRC 2010). The cookbook follows the main structure of the ISO 14044 standard and gives detailed and concrete instructions on the main steps and activities that are relevant for most LCAs


The cookbook follows the main structure of the ISO 14044 standard and gives detailed and concrete instructions on the main steps and activities that are relevant for most LCAs. The instructions are based on provisions and actions in the ILCD Handbook that are needed in order to perform an LCA. We have chosen to base the cookbook on the ILCD Handbook since it is the most recent detailed LCA guideline, based on the body of existing LCA methods, developed through an extensive public-, expert- and stakeholder consultation process. The ILCD Handbook offers very detailed guidance and requirements to the LCA practitioner, so detailed that the important provisions sometimes drown in the detail that is offered in the documentation of less important provisions. For the cookbook, we have therefore performed a selection of those provisions and M.Z. Hauschild (&)  A


For the cookbook, we have therefore performed a selection of those provisions and M.Z. Hauschild (&)  A. Bjørn Division for Quantitative Sustainability Assessment, Department of Management Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark e-mail: mzha@dtu.dk A. Bjørn CIRAIG, Polytechnique Montréal, 3333 Chemin Queen-Mary, Montreal, QC, Canada © Springer International Publishing AG 2018 M.Z. Hauschild et al. (eds.), Life Cycle Assessment, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-56475-3_37


recommended actions under each provision that are most important and that need to be considered in the majority of LCA studies. We also find that the ILCD Handbook is useful as a reference for documentation of the applied methodology in a way that increases the transparency and reproducibility of an LCA study. There may be reasons why an LCA practitioner wishes to deviate from the guidelines of the ILCD Handbook, just as the chapters of Part II of this book sometimes do. In such cases the guidelines are still useful for the documentation of the methodology applied in the LCA study to be able to state where provisions have been followed, where deviations were made and what actions were taken instead. The focus of the cookbook is on answering the “what” and “how” questions to carrying out an LCA study. The reader is referred to the presentation and discussion of the methodological elements of LCA in Chaps


The reader is referred to the presentation and discussion of the methodological elements of LCA in Chaps. 7–13, for answer to any “why” questions that may arise during the use of the cookbook, and indeed, it is advisable to read these chapters prior to attempting to use the recipes of the cookbook. With respect to the reporting of an LCA study, the reader is referred to Chap. 38, which offers a template for an LCA report based on the reporting provisions of the ILCD Handbook. The intended use of this chapter is thus to serve as a quick reference for the practitioner who is already familiar with the rationale behind the different elements of the LCA methodology and simply needs guidance on which steps to undertake and how to do them in order to perform an LCA. It can also be used as a checklist to ensure that all needed activities have been performed. As illustrated in Fig. 37.1 and explained in Sect


It can also be used as a checklist to ensure that all needed activities have been performed. As illustrated in Fig. 37.1 and explained in Sect. 6.3, the performance of an LCA involves several iterations where earlier phases are revisited and refined based on the insights gained in later phases and the use of sensitivity and uncertainty analyses. This iterative approach should be followed, also when you use the cookbook. Fig. 37.1 Framework of LCA based with the main phases (modified from the ISO 14040 standard) M.Z. Hauschild and A. Bjørn


Inspired by the ISO standard, the ILCD Handbook operates with three degrees of strength in the requirements: “Shall”, “Should” and “May”. • “Shall” means that the provision is a mandatory requirement that must be followed • “Should” is a weaker requirement where the provision must be followed but deviations are allowed if they are clearly justified in the report. A justification can be that the provision or parts of it are not applicable, or that another solution can be demonstrated to be more appropriate • “May” means that the provision is to be seen as a recommendation only (sometimes the term “recommended” is used instead of “may”) The guidelines in the ILCD Handbook follow the ISO standard but in some provisions, the ILCD requirement is stronger than the requirement in the ISO standard. There are also cases where the ILCD provision addresses an aspect that is not covered by the ISO standard. These deviations from the standard are marked with [ISO!] and [ISO+], respectively


There are also cases where the ILCD provision addresses an aspect that is not covered by the ISO standard. These deviations from the standard are marked with [ISO!] and [ISO+], respectively. Each set of provisions has a number that refers to the section of the ILCD Handbook where it is discussed. This reference has been kept to allow the reader the possibility to consult the Handbook for further in-depth explanation of the requirements. 37.2 Goal Definition The goal definition is discussed in Chap. 7 of this book. It is the first phase of the LCA, where the purpose of the study is defined and described. The goal definition is decisive for all following phases of the LCA. It guides the details of the scope definition, which sets the scene for both the inventory analysis and the impact assessment and determines the quality and level of precision that is needed from these phases


Finally, it frames the interpretation phase where the questions posed in the goal definition are attempted answered based on the outcome of the other methodological phases. 37.2.1 The Seven Aspects of Goal Definition The central provisions and actions from the ILCD guideline on the seven1 aspects of goal definition are the following: 1In the introduction to goal definition in Chap. 7, only six aspects are discussed because aspects IV and V are combined under one—“Target audience”.


Seven aspects of goal definition (Provisions 5.2) 1. SHALL—Intended applications: Unambiguously identify the intended applications of the deliverable of the LCI or LCA study. 2. SHALL—Limitations of study: Unambiguously identify and detail any initially set limitations for the use of the LCI/LCA study. These can be caused by the following: 2:1. Impact coverage limitations such as in Carbon footprint calculations 2:2. Methodological limitations of LCA in general or of specific method approaches applied 2:3. Assumption limitations: Specific or uncommon assumptions/scenarios modelled for the analysed system [ISO+] Note that the initially identified limitations may need to be adjusted during the later LCA phases when all the related details are clear. Other possible limitations due to lack of achieved LCI data quality may also restrict the applicability; these are identified in the later interpretation phase of the study. 3


Other possible limitations due to lack of achieved LCI data quality may also restrict the applicability; these are identified in the later interpretation phase of the study. 3. SHALL—Reasons for study: Unambiguously identify the internal or external reason(s) for carrying out the study and the specific decisions to be supported by its outcome, if applicable. 4. SHALL—Target audience of study: Unambiguously identify the audience(s) to whom the results of the study are foreseen to be communicated. 5. SHALL—Type of audience: Classify the targeted audience(s) as being “internal”, “restricted external” (e.g. specific business-to-business customers) or “public”. Differentiate also between “technical” and “non-technical” audience. [ISO+] 6. SHALL—Comparisons involved? Unambiguously state whether the study involves comparisons or comparative assertions across systems (e.g. products) and whether these are foreseen to be disclosed to the public. [ISO!] 7


products) and whether these are foreseen to be disclosed to the public. [ISO!] 7. SHALL—Commissioner: Identify the commissioner of the study and all other influential actors such as co-financiers, LCA experts involved, etc. Each of the seven aspects must be considered when performing an LCA. While aspects 1 and 3 are central for doing an LCA because they have pervasive influence on decisions made in later LCA phases, aspects 2, 4, 5 and 6 mainly relate to communicating the results of an LCA, and aspect 7 addresses the organisational setup of the study. M.Z. Hauschild and A. Bjørn


37.2.2 Determining the Decision Context The decision context of the LCA influences some of the later actions of the LCA, in particular related to the handling of multifunctional processes and modelling of the background system during the inventory analysis. The decision context is determined according to the following provision: Classifying the decision context (Provisions 5.3) Table 37.1 gives an overview of the resulting, practically relevant three archetype goal situations that will be referred to throughout this document to provide the required, differentiated methodological guidance. This relates to the subsequent provisions on classifying the decision context of the LCA study: 1. SHALL—Identify applicable goal situation: Identify the type of decision context of the LCI/LCA study, i.e. to which of the archetype goal situations A, B, C1 or C2 the study belongs. Draw on the goal aspects “intended applications” and “specific decisions to be supported”), as follows: [ISO!] 1:1


to which of the archetype goal situations A, B, C1 or C2 the study belongs. Draw on the goal aspects “intended applications” and “specific decisions to be supported”), as follows: [ISO!] 1:1. 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


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 Table 37.1 Combination of two main aspects of the decision context: decision orientation and kind of consequences in background system or other systems Decision support? Yes Kind of process-changes in background system/other systems None or small-scale Large-scale Situation A “Micro-level decision support” Situation B “Meso/macro-level decision support” No Situation C “Accounting” (with C1: including interactions with other systems, C2: excluding interactions with other systems)


• Perform simplified KEPI-type LCA/Ecodesign study • Comparison of specific goods or services • Benchmarking of specific products against the product group’s average • Green Public or Private Procurement (GPP) • Development of life cycle-based Type I Ecolabel criteria • Development of Product Category Rules (PCR) or a similar specific guide for a product group • Development of a life cycle-based Type III environmental declaration (e.g. Environmental Product Declaration (EPD)) for a specific good or service • Development of the “Carbon footprint”, “Primary energy consumption” or similar indicator for a specific product • Greening the supply chain • Providing quantitative life cycle data as annex to an Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) for comparative use • Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and Joint Implementation (JI) • Development of specific, average or generic unit process or LCI results data sets for use in Situation A 1:2


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 and 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 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. M.Z. Hauschild and A. Bjørn


1:3. 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. See also the specific provision below for differentiating between Situation C and A/B: 1:3:1


See also the specific provision below for differentiating between Situation C and A/B: 1:3:1. 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 • 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 1:3:2


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. 2. 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. 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!] 3. 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


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. the study is only retrospectively informing about better performance in the past, then Situation C applies. [ISO!] Table 37.2 presents the classification to goal situation A, B or C for a wide range of LCA applications. 37.3 Scope Definition The scope definition is discussed in Chap. 8 of this book. It is the phase where the LCA is scoped in accordance with the goal and intended application as formulated in the goal definition. Together with the goal definition it determines how the other LCA phases should be performed (Inventory analysis, Impact assessment and Interpretation, including uncertainty and sensitivity analysis) and how the reporting of the LCA should be done


It is an overarching aim of the scope definition to ensure the consistency of the applied methods, assumptions, and data and to strengthen the reproducibility of the study. A scope definition encompasses the following nine scope items2: 1. Deliverables 2. Object of the assessment 3. LCI modelling framework and handling of multifunctional processes 4. System boundaries and completeness requirements 5. Representativeness of LCI data 6. Preparation of the basis for the impact assessment 7. Special requirements for system comparisons 8. Needs for critical review 2The ILCD Handbook operates with 10 scope items but here the aspect of data quality requirements, which the handbook proposes as a separate scope item, is considered under scope item 4 and 5. M.Z. Hauschild and A. Bjørn


Table 37.2 Most common types of LCI/LCA study deliverables required for specific LCA applications (indicative overview) 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”1, 2, 3 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 i; and f A Weak point analysis of a specific product f and d A ISO/TR 14062 (2002) Detailed Ecodesign/Design-for-recycling f A ISO/TR 14062 (2002) Perform simplified KEPI-type LCA/Ecodesign study i A Product comparisons and procurement Comparison of specific goods or services e, h, or j A Benchmarking of specific products against the product group’s average e A Green Public or Private Procurement (GPP) e, h, or j A ISO 14015 (2001)


Comparison of specific goods or services e, h, or j A Benchmarking of specific products against the product group’s average e A Green Public or Private Procurement (GPP) e, h, or j A ISO 14015 (2001) Communication Development of life cycle-based Type I Ecolabel criteria d, e, g, or i A ISO 14024 (1999) Development of Product Category Rules (PCR) or a similar specific guide for a product group e or d; and f A ISO 14025 (2006) Development of a life cycle-based Type III environmental declaration (e.g


Environmental Product Declaration (EPD)) for a specific good or service d or g; and f A ISO 14025 (2006) Development of the “Carbon footprint”, “Primary energy consumption” or similar indicator for a specific product d, g, or f A ISO 14025 (2006) Calculation of indirect effects in Environmental Management Systems (EMS) b or d C1 ISO 14001 (2015) Greening the supply chain h, j, or e A ISO 14015 (2001) Providing quantitative life cycle data as annex to an Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) for comparative use h, d, or g A (continued)


Table 37.2 (continued) 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”1, 2, 3 Applicable goal situation Related ISO standard (next to 14040 and 14044:2006) 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, h, g, 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 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 h C1 Corporate or site environmental reporting d C1 ISO 14015 (2001), ISO 14031 (2013) Accounting studies that according to their goal definition do not include any interaction with other systems d C2 1Basic 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: g KEPIs-based tool; h EPD; i Criteria set for life cycle-based Type I Ecolabel; j Life cycle-based Type I Ecolabel of the system 2Several 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 table 3Note 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 M.Z. Hauschild and A. Bjørn


9. Planning reporting of results Items 2–6 are central for doing an LCA because these have pervasive influence on decisions made in later LCA phases. Aspects 1, 7, 8 and 9 mainly relate to reporting and communicating an LCA study. 37.3.1 Deliverables The intended deliverable depends on the intended application of the results of the LCA study. Table 37.2 gives an overview of a broad range of applications and the deliverable that is needed from the LCA to support the application. The table also links the application to the goal situation as discussed in Sect. 37.2.2. The following guidance is given on the determination of the type of LCA deliverable and intended application based on the overview given in Table 37.2. Types of LCA deliverables and intended applications (Provisions 6.3) 1


Types of LCA deliverables and intended applications (Provisions 6.3) 1. SHOULD—Types of deliverables: Derive from the intended application(s) identified in the goal definition and any potential pre-settings, the appropriate type(s) of deliverable(s) that the LCI/LCA study should provide. Table 37.2 gives an overview. The following types are most common, listed in order of increasing comprehensiveness and/or complexity: [ISO!] 1:1. Life Cycle Inventory (“LCI”) study and/or data set, in the following variants: 1:1:1. Unit process study and/or data set, with two sub-types: 1:1:1:1. Single operation unit process (variants: fixed or parameterised) 1:1:1:2. Black box unit process (variants: fixed or parameterised) 1:1:2. Partly terminated system data set (variants: fixed or parameterised) 1:1:3. Life Cycle Inventory results (“LCI results”) study and/or data set 1:2. Life Cycle Impact Assessment results (“LCIA results”) study and/or data set 1:3


Life Cycle Inventory results (“LCI results”) study and/or data set 1:2. Life Cycle Impact Assessment results (“LCIA results”) study and/or data set 1:3. Non-comparative Life Cycle Assessment study (“LCA study”), i.e. including impact assessment and interpretation 1:4. Comparative Life Cycle Assessment study (“Comparative LCA study”), in the following variants: 1:4:1. Non-assertive comparative Life Cycle Assessment study (“Non-assertive comparative LCA study”) 1:4:2. Comparative assertion Life Cycle Assessment study (“Comparative assertion LCA study”), with superiority, inferiority or equality of any compared alternatives are explicitly concluded 1:5. Detailed LCI model of the analysed system


37.3.2 Object of the Assessment The object of the assessment must be defined in a functional unit to ensure comparability of the studied alternatives in the case of a comparative LCA. If the purpose is to develop unit process LCI data or an environmental product declaration, the object of the assessment is defined as a reference flow (typically of one unit of the product, material or service). Function, functional unit and reference flow (Provisions 6.4) 1. SHALL—Identify system or process: Identify in line with the goal and with the other scope settings the to-be-analysed system(s) or process(es) (e.g. good, service, technology, strategy, country, etc.) and describe it/them in an unambiguous way. 2. MAY—Photos, specifications: Provide photos, and/or technical specifications, and/or descriptions of the system(s), if and as appropriate for the addressees. [ISO+] 3


2. MAY—Photos, specifications: Provide photos, and/or technical specifications, and/or descriptions of the system(s), if and as appropriate for the addressees. [ISO+] 3. SHALL—Identify function(s) and functional unit(s): One or more function(s) and quantitative, measurable functional unit(s) of each of the system(s) shall be clearly identified, if applicable and appropriate for the type of system. 4. SHALL—Functional unit, details: The functional unit(s) shall be identified and specified in detail across all the following aspects: 4:1. Function provided (what), 4:2. in which quantity (how much), Note that, even though the “how long” information is important, the use intensity and resulting overall quantity of the performed function is key to valid comparisons. 4:3. for what duration (how long), and 4:4. to what quality (in what way and how well is the function provided). 4:5. Changes in the functional performance over time (e.g


4:3. for what duration (how long), and 4:4. to what quality (in what way and how well is the function provided). 4:5. Changes in the functional performance over time (e.g. due to ageing of the product) shall be explicitly considered and quantified, as far as possible. [ISO+] 5. MAY—Obligatory and positioning properties: If product systems are analysed, it is recommended to use obligatory and positioning properties for the quantitative and qualitative aspects of their function, respectively. [ISO+] 6. SHALL—Measurement methods: ISO or national harmonised standards shall be used as measurement methods, as far as possible and wherever available and appropriate for use in an LCA context. Own measurement methods should only be used in case of unavailable or inappropriate harmonised standards only. They shall be clearly specified and documented and later be subject to critical review. M.Z. Hauschild and A. Bjørn


7. SHOULD—Alternatives and complements to the functional unit: It is noted that a functional unit cannot always be given or is not appropriate/useful. In such cases, it should be replaced or complemented by another clearly defined, quantitative and measurable item as outlined below; deviations shall be concisely justified: [ISO!] 7:1. Materials and other application-unspecific products: A functional unit cannot generally be given. Only the reference flow that includes the main technical specification of the product should be provided. In this case, the reference flow is also the declared unit, but not the functional unit. 7:2. Multifunctional processes: For each function one functional unit and/or reference flow should be given, as appropriate, depending on the kind of co-function/co-product (see other items in this sub-list). Otherwise the technical specification of the process and functions should be provided in the accompanying documentation. 7:3


Otherwise the technical specification of the process and functions should be provided in the accompanying documentation. 7:3. Monofunctional systems: For systems (e.g. products) with only one relevant function or combination of functions, the functional unit(s) should be specified. In addition, one reference flow with a clear and detailed system name should be provided. The functionally relevant technical specification should be provided as part of the reference flow name and/or in the accompanying documentation. 7:4. Multifunctional systems: For multifunctional systems with multiple, parallel functions, the detailed technical specification should be provided. The corresponding functional units should be given in addition and when appropriate to the given case. One reference flow with a clear and detailed system name should be provided. (This one reference flow can be split up into each one reference flow for each function in case the data set is directly used in comparative studies


(This one reference flow can be split up into each one reference flow for each function in case the data set is directly used in comparative studies. This to allow substitution of single functions to achieve equivalence of compared alternatives). 7:5. Systems with alternative functions: For systems with alternative functions, the most relevant alternative functions and functional units should be specified. In addition, one reference flow with a clear and detailed system name shall be provided. The functionally relevant technical specification should be provided as part of the reference flow name and/or in the accompanying documentation. 8. SHOULD—Highly variable functions: For highly variable functions of processes and systems, the way that the variable and parameters relate to the system’s performance and to its inventory should be documented. This should be in form of mathematical relations or in another suitable form


This should be in form of mathematical relations or in another suitable form. The use of parameterised data sets is recommended to support appropriate documentation and efficient use. 9. SHALL—Comparative studies: For comparative studies, see Provisions 6.10 in Sect. 37.3.7. Among others, they shall be compared based on their reference flow.


37.3.3 LCI Modelling Framework and Handling of Multifunctional Processes The choice of LCI modelling framework (attributional or consequential) must be made in accordance with the classification into goal situation A, B or C as described in Sect. 37.2.1. The handling of multifunctional processes must be in accordance with the chosen framework as described in the following provisions. LCI modelling provisions for Situations A, B and C (Provisions 6.5.4) 1. SHALL—LCI modelling provisions to be applied: A specific combination of LCI modelling framework (attributional or consequential) and LCI method approaches (allocation or system expansion/substitution) is identified for each of the goal situations A, B, C1 and C2. The provisions cover scenario and uncertainty calculation. The provisions shall be applied as follows: [ISO!] 1:1. Situation A—“Micro-level decision support” (6.5.4.2): 1:1:1


The provisions cover scenario and uncertainty calculation. The provisions shall be applied as follows: [ISO!] 1:1. Situation A—“Micro-level decision support” (6.5.4.2): 1:1:1. Life cycle model: The life cycle model of the analysed system(s) shall be modelled as an attributional model, i.e. depicting the existing supply-chain processes). 1:1:2. Subdivision and virtual subdivision for black box unit processes and multifunctionality: It shall be aimed at avoiding black box unit processes and solving multifunctionality by subdivision or virtual subdivision, as far as possible. The following applies for cases of system–system relationships and cases of multifunctionality, if subdivision/virtual subdivision is not possible or not feasible. 1:1:3


The following applies for cases of system–system relationships and cases of multifunctionality, if subdivision/virtual subdivision is not possible or not feasible. 1:1:3. Cases of system–system relationship: if the analysed system’s secondary function acts within a context system, where it only affects the existing processes operation, system expansion shall be performed via substitution with the short-term marginal. Note that the analysed system may also have influenced the installed capacity of the context system, if it had been considered when planning the context system. For example, the heat generated by office equipment may have been considered when dimensioning the heating and cooling system of an office building. Part-system relationships require no specific modelling provision, but the correct identification of the processes within the system boundary. M.Z. Hauschild and A. Bjørn


1:1:4. Cases of multifunctionality—general: 1:1:4:1. Substitution of market mix of specific alternatives: (Simplification compared to full consequential model): If for the not required3 specific co-function, functionally equivalent alternative processes/systems are operated/produced to a sufficient4 extent: the not required co-function shall, as far as possible, be substituted with the average market5 consumption mix of the processes or systems that it supersedes, excluding the to-be-substituted function from this mix. If the to-be-substituted function has a small share in the overall environmental impact of the market mix, the market mix can be used instead, if the results are not relevantly changed. 1:1:4:2


If the to-be-substituted function has a small share in the overall environmental impact of the market mix, the market mix can be used instead, if the results are not relevantly changed. 1:1:4:2. Substitution of market mix of general, wider alternatives: If such alternative processes/systems do not exist6 or are not operated to a sufficient extent, alternative processes/systems of the not required co-function in a wider sense should be used for substitution,7 applying the same provisions as set out in the preceding sub-provision. 1:1:4:3. Situation B? If also such alternative processes/systems for the wider function do not exist or do not meet the named requirements, the study is 3i.e. in contrast to the one that is analysed or within the system boundary in the background system. 4“Sufficient” means that the not required co-function can quantitatively be absorbed by the market


in contrast to the one that is analysed or within the system boundary in the background system. 4“Sufficient” means that the not required co-function can quantitatively be absorbed by the market. That shall be assumed to be the case, if the annually available amount of the to-be-substituted co-function is not more than the annual amount produced by the annually replaced installed capacity of the superseded alternative process(es) or system(s). Note that this refers to the amount of co-function provided by the analysed process. E.g. if the study refers to a specific producer that contributes only a small share to the total production of the co-function, only this small amount counts, i.e. it is very likely that it can be absorbed by the market. If the study refers to the total production of a certain product that has the not required co-products, there is the chance that this much larger amount of co-products cannot be absorbed by the market


5This “market” is the market where the secondary function is provided. E.g. for products produced from end-of-life and waste management this is the market of the primary production at the time and the location (e.g. country, region or global etc. market) where the end-of-life product or waste is known or forecasted to undergo recycling, reuse, or energy recovery. If this market cannot be clearly determined, the most likely market shall be assumed and well justified; this most likely market shall be on a continental scale or at least cover a group of countries/markets. 6As is the case e.g. for wheat grain and straw production, many oil refinery products, etc. 7E.g. for NaOH, as co-product of Chlorine production, apart from NaCl electrolysis no alternative route is operated to the sufficient extent


7E.g. for NaOH, as co-product of Chlorine production, apart from NaCl electrolysis no alternative route is operated to the sufficient extent. However, NaOH provides in a wider sense the function of neutralising agent (next to some other, quantitatively less relevant functions) and hence other, technically equivalent and competing neutralising agents such as KOH, Ca(OH)2, Na2CO3, etc. can be assumed to be superseded; their mix would be used to substitute the not required NaOH. For the example of a wheat grain study and the not required co-product straw: instead of straw, other dry biomass (e.g. Miscanthus grass, wood for heating, etc.) provides equivalent functions and its market mix can be assumed to be superseded.


in fact a Situation B type study, as this implies large-scale consequences on other systems. 1:1:4:4. Allocation: (Simplification compared to full consequential model): if modelling of substitution is not feasible8 and generic data is not sufficiently accurate to represent the superseded processes/systems: the two-step allocation procedure of Provisions 7.9.3 in Sect. 37.4.4 can be applied instead. Allocation shall, however, not be performed if it would relevantly favour the analysed process/system. This fact shall be argued or approximated. If allocation is performed, the resulting lack of accuracy shall be reported and explicitly be considered later in the result’s interpretation. For multifunctional products and the alternative second step in allocation, Quality Function Deployment (QFD) is the preferred alternative to market price allocation. 1:1:4:5


For multifunctional products and the alternative second step in allocation, Quality Function Deployment (QFD) is the preferred alternative to market price allocation. 1:1:4:5. No substitution of main function(s): (Simplification compared to full consequential model): The determining co-function(s) shall not be substituted. In the case the determining and dependent co-functions cannot be clearly identified, the determining co-function(s) should be assumed to be those that jointly contribute more than 50% to the combined market value of all co-functions of the analysed multifunctional process or system.9 (The market value is for this purpose the value of the co-functions as provided by the multifunctional process, i.e. without any further processing). In this case, the two-step allocation procedure shall be applied (see Provisions 7.9.3 in Sect. 37.4.4). 1:1:4:6


without any further processing). In this case, the two-step allocation procedure shall be applied (see Provisions 7.9.3 in Sect. 37.4.4). 1:1:4:6. Considering functional differences: Differences in functionality between substituted and superseded function shall be considered either preferably by substituting the actually superseded amounts, or by substituting the market value corrected amount of the function. 1:1:5. Cases of multifunctionality—waste and end-of-life treatment: (note the simplifications given here for Situation A): 1:1:5:1. Recyclability substitution of primary route market mix: (Simplification compared to full consequential model): For waste and end-of-life treatment as cases of multifunctionality: system expansion shall be performed in accordance with the provisions for the cases of general multifunctionality. The avoided primary production of the reused part, recycled good, or recovered energy shall be substituted


The avoided primary production of the reused part, recycled good, or recovered energy shall be substituted. This shall apply the recyclability 8“not feasible” refers to cases where many alternative processes/systems or alternatives for the function in a wider sense exist e.g. where over 10 alternative processes/systems make up over 80% of the market for the to-be-substituted function, and/or where the superseded processes/systems themselves have a number of co-functions. 9The reasoning is that in that case it is likely that the determining co-functions would be substituted. M.Z. Hauschild and A. Bjørn


substitution approach, with the simplification of substituting the average primary route consumption mix of the market where the secondary good is produced. 1:1:5:2. Recyclability substitution of general, wider alternatives: For “open loop —different primary route” cases, the market consumption mix of alternative goods in a wider sense should be used for substitution, along the same provisions as set out in the preceding sub-provision. 1:1:5:3. Situation B? Especially for the case of “open loop—different primary route” and for secondary goods with relevantly changed/downcycled properties, in addition, verification is needed on whether for the reused part, recycled material, or recovered energy, functionally equivalent, alternative processes or systems, or functional equivalents in a wider sense exist. If this is the case, it needs additional verification whether these are operated to a sufficient extent


If this is the case, it needs additional verification whether these are operated to a sufficient extent. Otherwise, the study is in fact a Situation B type study, as this implies large-scale consequences on other systems. 1:1:5:4. Allocation: (Simplification compared to full consequential model): if modelling the substitution is not feasible and generic data is not sufficiently accurate to represent the superseded processes/systems, then the two-step allocation procedure applied to waste/end-of-life according to Provisions 7.9.3 in Sect. 37.4.4 can be applied instead. This shall not be done if it would relevantly favour the analysed process/system; this fact shall be argued or approximated. If allocation is performed, the resulting lack of accuracy shall be reported and explicitly be considered later in the results interpretation. 1:1:5:5


If allocation is performed, the resulting lack of accuracy shall be reported and explicitly be considered later in the results interpretation. 1:1:5:5. Considering functional differences: Differences in functionality between substituted and superseded function shall be considered either and preferably by substituting the actually superseded amounts. As second priority and if the superseded amounts are not known, market value correction of the amount of the substituted function shall be performed. Note that this applies to all cases of waste and end-of-life treatment that generate any valuable secondary good, i.e. “closed loop”, “open loop—same primary route” and “open loop—different primary route”). 1:1:6. Comparative studies, scenarios, uncertainty calculation: 1:1:6:1. If among the to-be-compared systems, one or more systems have additional functional units, comparability shall be achieved by system expansion. 1:1:6:2


If among the to-be-compared systems, one or more systems have additional functional units, comparability shall be achieved by system expansion. 1:1:6:2. For comparative studies of Situation A, the main model for each of the compared alternatives shall each be complemented with assumption scenarios of reasonably best and reasonably worst cases. Optionally further assumption scenarios can be defined. Uncertainty calculation shall be performed, unless it has already been used to derive the reasonably best and worst-case scenarios. These scenarios serve to later perform the sensitivity check. The interested parties shall be involved towards a best attainable consensus on the definition of the reasonably best and reasonably worst-case assumption scenarios (and uncertainty calculation) that can in principle vary


all data and method provisions and assumptions for Situation A except for the “shall” provisions and assumptions/conventions. It is recommended to also perform and report such assumption scenarios and uncertainty calculations for non-comparative LCI and LCA studies. Note that for LCI data sets that are intended to support comparative studies, the reasonably best and worst-case scenarios may be included within these data sets or be provided as complement. 1:2. Situation B “Meso/macro-level decision support” (6.5.4.3): 1:2:1. Provisions as for Situation A with two differences: The above provisions for Situation A shall also be applied for Situation B, with two differences: 1:2:1:1. Large-scale consequences: Processes that have been identified as being affected by “big”10 large-scale changes as a consequence of the analysed decision shall be modelled as the expected mix of the long-term marginal processes. 1:2:1:2


1:2:1:2. Comparative studies, scenarios, uncertainty calculation: (Additional flexibility for assumption scenarios), for comparative studies of Situation B: The assumption scenarios and uncertainty calculation can in principle vary all data and method provisions and assumptions for Situation B including the “shall” provisions and assumptions/conventions of the ILCD Handbook, while not those of ISO 14040 and 14044.11 Note that comparative Situation B studies often include a “zero” option, i.e. include a scenario of “no action” (e.g. “no change in existing policy Y”, or “no strategic measure on raw material X security of supply”). 1:3. Situation C—“Accounting” (6.5.4.4): 1:3:1. Provisions as for Situation A with two differences: The provisions for Situation A shall also be applied for Situation C. With two differences: 1:3:2. Remaining cases of multifunctionality: These shall be solved as follows: 1:3:3


With two differences: 1:3:2. Remaining cases of multifunctionality: These shall be solved as follows: 1:3:3. Situation C1: Multifunctionality of processes and systems shall be solved with substitution via system expansion, as in Situation A, but independently 10Large-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 of the additionally demanded or supplied process, product, or broader function, as applicable. 11i.e. these scenarios and uncertainty calculation allow to apply the full range of method and modelling options of ISO 14044. M.Z. Hauschild and A. Bjørn


of the absolute amount of the not required co-function(s) that will be substituted.12 The other provisions apply analogously. 1:3:4. Situation C2: General cases of multifunctionality of processes and systems shall be solved with allocation (i.e. applying the two-step allocation procedure; for details see Provisions 7.9.3 in Sect. 37.4.4). Cases of waste and end-of-life treatment shall be solved via allocation. 1:3:5. Comparative studies: Note the restrictions for direct comparative decision support of accounting data. Note that Situation C1 is thereby modelled identically to Situation A, while independently of the size of the system or processes. Note that substitution can lead to negative elementary flows or in rare cases even negative overall environmental impacts of the analysed systems. This must be explicitly addressed in reporting, explaining all implications and helping to avoid misinterpretation and misleading conclusions


This must be explicitly addressed in reporting, explaining all implications and helping to avoid misinterpretation and misleading conclusions. 37.3.4 System Boundaries and Completeness Requirements The scoping of the system with the setting of the system boundaries and the decision of which processes to include and which not to include needs to be done in a way which is in accordance with the goal definition and in particular the completeness requirements that follows from the intended application. Deriving system boundaries and cut-off criteria (completeness) (Provisions 6.6) 1. SHALL—Scope of LCA: The following shall be covered by the LCI or LCA study: 1:1. potential impacts on the three areas of protection Human health, Natural environment and Natural resources, 1:2. that are caused by interventions between Technosphere and Ecosphere, and this 1:3


potential impacts on the three areas of protection Human health, Natural environment and Natural resources, 1:2. that are caused by interventions between Technosphere and Ecosphere, and this 1:3. during normal and abnormal operation, but excluding accidents, spills and similar.13 12The reasoning is that the effect of superseding alternative processes/systems is existing, other than in Situation A where an additional amount of co-function is pushed into the market, i.e. in Situation C1, the check whether alternative processes/systems are operated or produced to a sufficient extent is unnecessary, as the superseding factually already occurs. 13i.e. excluding accidents, indoor and workplace exposure, as well as impacts related to direct application or ingestion of products to humans.


1:4. other kinds of impacts outside the scope of LCA that are found relevant for the analysed or compared system(s) may be identified and their relevance be justified. [ISO+] 2. SHALL—Processes within the system boundary: The final system boundary/ies of the analysed system(s) shall as far as possible include all relevant life cycle stages and processes that 2:1. are operated within the technosphere, and 2:2. that need to be included along the provisions of identifying to-be-included processes under attributional or consequential modelling, but with the specific provisions and simplifications for the applicable Situation A, B, or C. 2:3. any relevant deviation/omission from the above shall be clearly documented and in case of LCA studies later be considered in the interpretation. 3


2:3. any relevant deviation/omission from the above shall be clearly documented and in case of LCA studies later be considered in the interpretation. 3. SHALL—Flows across the system boundary: Next to the reference flow(s) that provide the functional unit(s) and permissible waste flows, no relevant other flows shall cross the boundary between the analysed system(s) and the rest of the technosphere, as far as possible. Only elementary flows (including permissible measurement indicators and flow groups) should cross the boundary between the analysed system(s) and the ecosphere. Any relevant deviation/omission from the above shall be reported and in case of LCA studies later be considered in the interpretation. [ISO!] 4. SHALL—System boundary diagram: The extent of the system model shall be identified and a schematic system boundary diagram be prepared.14 Next to the included life cycle stages, the following shall be provided for the different types of deliverables: [ISO!] 4:1


For single operation unit processes: the process step to be represented. 4:2. For black box unit processes: the to-be-represented, e.g. process-chain, plant, site, etc. and the first and last process step included. 4:3. For LCI results, LCIA results and non-comparative LCA studies: the included life cycle stages. Finally, the first and/or last process step included shall be given, unless the life cycle starts or ends with the cradle or grave, respectively. 4:4. For comparative LCA studies: for each of the compared options the included life cycle stages. In addition, for each of the options the first and/or last process steps included shall be given, unless the respective life cycle starts or ends with the cradle or grave, respectively. 4:5 Flow chart: Especially for the foreground system, it is recommended to already prepare technical flow charts on the main process steps


4:5 Flow chart: Especially for the foreground system, it is recommended to already prepare technical flow charts on the main process steps. 14Other systems that become part of the analysed system in case system expansion is applied should not be shown in this diagram, but the quantitatively most relevant cases of multifunctional processes (as identified in the sensitivity analysis) shall be listed. This includes the quantitatively relevant cases of part-system relationships, which only exceptionally require an expanded system boundary diagram (e.g. if the analysed product would be the “part” of a part-system relationship such shall be provided). M.Z. Hauschild and A. Bjørn


5. SHALL—List of exclusions: Prepare an initial list of any types of activities, specific processes, product and waste flows, elementary flows or other parts that would be foreseen to be excluded from the analysed system, if any. [ISO+] Note that this initial list is to be (iteratively) updated to reflect the situation at the end of the study. Note that any final exclusion will need to be justified referring to the cut-off criteria and may limit the applicability of the resulting data set or the conclusions that can be drawn from a comparative study. 6. SHALL—Part-system and system–system relationships: For studies on parts that have a part-system relationship and on systems that have a system–system relationship, obtain data on the effects on the related systems and their data, as far as this is necessary in line with the goal and scope of the study. [ISO!] 7. SHALL—System-external off-setting: Off-set emissions (e.g


[ISO!] 7. SHALL—System-external off-setting: Off-set emissions (e.g. due to carbon off-setting by the Clean Development Mechanism, system-external carbon credits), and other, similar measures outside the analysed system shall not be included in the system boundaries, as far as they are relevant for the results. The related (reduced) emissions shall not be integrated into the inventory or used in LCA results interpretation. [ISO+] 8. SHALL—Quantitative cut-off criteria: Define the cut-off % value to be applied for the analysed system’s product, waste and elementary flows that cross the system boundary, but that are not quantitatively15 included in the inventory,16 as follows: 8:1. Overall environmental impact: The cut-off % value shall generally relate to the quantitative degree of coverage of the approximated overall environmental impact of the system.17 For comparative studies, the cut-off shall additionally also always relate to mass and energy


Two alternative options exist how to address the overall environmental impact: [ISO!] 15The respective flows shall, however, be foreseen to be identified and stay in the inventory, but without stating an amount and being marked as “missing relevant” or “missing irrelevant”, as applicable. 16Note that co-functions are initially part of the inventory and only later removed via allocation or addressed with system expansion/substitution. 17While the true absolute overall impact (i.e. the “100% completeness”) cannot be known in LCA and other such models, it can be approximated in practice in an iterative manner and with sufficient precision to serve as practical guidance and use for cut-off.


8:1:1. apply the cut-off individually for each of the to-be-included18 impact categories. This requires that the LCIA methods have been identified at that point. 8:1:2. apply the cut-off for the normalised and weighted overall environmental impact. This requires that the LCIA methods, normalisation basis and the weighting set have been identified at that point. 8:2. Identify the aimed-at% cut-off: The aimed at quantitative cut-off/completeness percentage shall be identified as follows: 8:2:1. For unit processes, LCI results and LCIA results: the cut-off value has either already been defined in the goal phase (e.g. “Development of a single operation unit process data set of 95% completeness”) or is to be derived from the respective completeness need of the intended application in the iterative scope steps. 8:2:2


8:2:2. For non-comparative LCA studies: the cut-off value has been identified depending on the detail of interest when analysing the system for key contributing processes and elementary flows; this has been defined typically in the goal of the study 8:2:3. For comparative LCA studies: the cut-off value is set depending on how much precision, accuracy and completeness is needed to show significant differences between the compared systems. This is done in the iterations of the LCA work after at least an initial LCI model has been modelled and analysed. Note that, unless it was initially defined, the cut-off can only roughly be approximated in the initial scope phase and has to be adjusted iteratively. Note that later deviations from the initially set cut-off criteria, e.g. due to lack of data, are to be identified in the subsequent LCI data collection and modelling and are to be documented at the end of the LCI/LCA study


due to lack of data, are to be identified in the subsequent LCI data collection and modelling and are to be documented at the end of the LCI/LCA study. The finally achieved cut-off (and any possible deviations) shall be reported and have to be fully reflected in the interpretation phase, in case of an LCA study. Both may lead to a revision of the supported intended applications of the LCI/LCA study. These issues are to be checked in the respective phase of the LCA work. 37.3.5 Representativeness of LCI Data The representativeness of process data that is collected in the LCI relative to the processes that it is intended to represent the product system is addressed in three dimensions—technological-, geographical—and time-related representativeness. 18For studies with limited impact coverage (e.g. Carbon footprint), only these categories are to be considered, accordingly. M.Z. Hauschild and A. Bjørn


Technological representativeness (Provisions 6.8.2) 1. SHALL—Good technological representativeness: The overall inventory data shall have an as good as required technological representativeness, meeting the goal requirements of the study (note that technological, geographical and time-related representativeness are closely interrelated). For both analysed processes and systems, this includes all quantitative and qualitative aspects of the functional unit(s) and/or reference flow(s), and/or technical specification(s). This applies especially for those aspects that matter in terms of leading to relevant differences in the LCI data. 2. SHALL—Specific way or mode of process? Identify along the goal of the study and especially the intended applications whether the data needs to represent a specific way or mode of operating the technology/technique (e.g


a specific load factor for transport, or a specific start, closure, cycle step of a process, etc.), if this differs from the average, typical or integrated operation. [ISO+] 3. SHALL—Different technologies for attributional and consequential modelling: Note that attributional and consequential modelling often require very different processes (and to some degree also systems) for the background system. But see the simplifications set for all Situations, except for the processes that face “big” changes in Situation B: [ISO!] 3:1. Attributional modelling: The following should be used: 3:1:1. Foreground system: Technology-specific primary data for the foreground system and for the specifications of the products and wastes that connect the foreground system with the background system. Secondary data of the actual suppliers/downstream actors should be preferred to other (third-party) secondary data


Secondary data of the actual suppliers/downstream actors should be preferred to other (third-party) secondary data. Technology-specific, generic or average data from third parties should be used in those parts of the foreground system where this for the given case is of higher quality (i.e. more accurate, precise, complete) than available technology-specific primary or secondary data from suppliers/downstream actors. 3:1:2. Background system: Average technology as market consumption19 mix data. 3:2. Consequential modelling: The following should be used: 3:2:1. Foreground system: The same applies as described above for attributional modelling. Here this includes the suppliers’/downstream actors’ technology-specific secondary data of the contractually fixed or planned supply chain. 3:2:2


Here this includes the suppliers’/downstream actors’ technology-specific secondary data of the contractually fixed or planned supply chain. 3:2:2. Background system: The short-term or long-term marginal technology mixes should be used, as appropriate for the applicable Situation A, B, C1 19This also applies if a market production mix data set is developed: the fact that the data set is to represent the production mix would be achieved by combining the representative mix of producing technologies of that market according to their production share. For the data in the background system of the individual routes, nevertheless the respective consumption mix data are to be used.


and C2. Among these, the named long-term technology mix only applies to those processes under Situation B that face “big” changes in consequence of the analysed decision, and—optionally—to the assumption scenarios. The technology mix of marginal processes should be identified, depending among others on the market conditions and the cost-competitiveness of the potential marginal processes. 3:3. Using not fully representative data: For both attributional and consequential modelling, not fully technologically representative data can be used only along the following conditions: 3:3:1. For LCI and LCIA data sets/non-comparative LCI/LCA studies: The use of not fully technologically representative data is justifiable only if this is not relevantly changing the overall LCIA results compared to using fully representative data; otherwise, the lower achieved representativeness shall be documented in the data set/report


For data provided for a competitor’s product, lower representativeness shall not lead to higher overall environmental impacts of the LCIA results calculated for that product. For data provided for own products or for products without any competition situation (e.g. generic data from consultants or research projects for general background use), lower representativeness shall not lead to lower impacts of the overall LCIA results calculated for that product. 3:3:2. For comparative LCA studies: The conclusions or recommendations of the study should not be affected, as far as possible. Otherwise the lower achieved technological representativeness shall explicitly be considered when drawing conclusions and giving recommendations. Especially shall the use of less representative data not relatively disfavour any competitors’ products to a relevant degree. Note that this can be implemented only in the subsequent iterative steps of the LCA work. 4


Note that this can be implemented only in the subsequent iterative steps of the LCA work. 4. SHALL—Non-scalable supplies: For the life cycle model of Situation A, B and C1, the following shall be applied: if the supply of a specific required function (e.g. product) cannot relevantly be increased in the analysed market and due to inherent constraints (e.g. as for hydropower in many countries) the market consumption mix of the specific function that the product provides (e.g. electricity in the above example) shall be used as far as possible, and not the data for the specific supplier/product. To not contradict the provisions on solving multifunctionality, this provision does not apply to required co-functions. [ISO!] M.Z. Hauschild and A. Bjørn


Geographical representativeness Provisions: 6.8.3) For LCI results, LCIA results, LCA studies: be aware that the declared geographical scope of all later to be used inventory data needs to enable a correct impact assessment. This is to be checked especially carefully if a non-generic impact assessment (e.g. with differentiated characterisation factors by country, region or even site) is applied. 1. SHALL—Good geographical representativeness: The overall inventory data shall have an as good as required geographical representativeness, according to the goal of the study. This applies especially, where this matters in terms of relevant differences in the LCI data of different geographical scope. 2. SHALL—Different geographical scope for attributional and consequential modelling: Note that attributional and consequential modelling may require processes/products of a different geographical scope in the background system


But see the simplifications set for all Situations, except for the processes that face “big” changes in Situation B: [ISO!] 2:1. Attributional modelling: The following should be used: 2:1:1. Foreground system: Site or producer/provider specific data for the foreground system, supplier-specific data for the products that connect the foreground with the background system. Generic data of geographical mixes can be used also in parts of the foreground system if for the given case justified as being more accurate, precise and complete than available specific data (especially for processes operated at suppliers). 2:1:2. Background system: Average market consumption mix data for the background system. 2:2. Consequential modelling: The following should be used: 2:2:1


2:1:2. Background system: Average market consumption mix data for the background system. 2:2. Consequential modelling: The following should be used: 2:2:1. Foreground system: Site or producer/provider specific data for the directly controlled processes of the foreground system, suppliers’ site specific data of the contractually fixed or planned supply chain of the foreground system plus for the products and wastes that connect the foreground with the background system. Generic data of geographical mixes can be used also in parts of the foreground system if for the given case justified as being more accurate, precise and complete than available specific data (especially for processes operated at suppliers). 2:2:2. Background system: The short-term or long-term marginal geographical mixes should be used for the background system, as appropriate for the applicable Situation A, B, C1, and C2


2:2:2. Background system: The short-term or long-term marginal geographical mixes should be used for the background system, as appropriate for the applicable Situation A, B, C1, and C2. The geographical mix of the marginal processes should be identified, depending among others on the market conditions and cost-competitiveness of the potential marginal processes. 2:3. Using not fully representative data: For both attributional and consequential modelling, not fully geographically representative data can be used only along the following conditions:


2:3:1. For LCI and LCIA data sets/non-comparative LCI/LCA studies: The use of not fully geographically representative data is justifiable only if this is not relevantly changing the overall LCIA results compared to using fully representative data; otherwise the lower achieved representativeness shall be documented in the data set/report. 2:3:2. For comparative LCA studies: The conclusions or recommendations of the study should not be affected; otherwise, the lower achieved geographical representativeness shall explicitly be considered when drawing conclusions and giving recommendations. Especially shall the use of less representative data not relatively disfavour any competitors’ products in a relevant degree. Time-related representativeness (Provisions 6.8.4) 1. SHALL—Good time-related representativeness: The overall inventory data shall have an as good as required time-related representativeness, according to the goal of the study


SHALL—Good time-related representativeness: The overall inventory data shall have an as good as required time-related representativeness, according to the goal of the study. This applies especially, where this matters in terms of relevant differences in the LCI data that represent a different time. Note that the represented year of a process or system shall refer to the actually represented year and not the year when the data set was calculated or the year of publication of used secondary data sources. 2. SHALL—Specific seasonal or diurnal situation? Check along the goal of the study and the intended applications whether the data needs to represent a specific seasonal or diurnal situation, if this differs from the average annual data. [ISO+] 3. SHOULD—Time-related representativeness of future processes: For processes that run more than 5 years in the future or past from the time of study (e.g


[ISO+] 3. SHOULD—Time-related representativeness of future processes: For processes that run more than 5 years in the future or past from the time of study (e.g. of the use and end-of-life stage of long-living products or in case of backward looking analysis), fully time-representative future/past scenario data should be used, if possible. If this is not possible: [ISO!] 3:1. BAT and recent data: For both attributional and consequential modelling, Best Available Technology (BAT) mix data should be used as second option, if BAT data can be argued to be sufficiently representative for the required time. The most recent data are the third option. 3:2. Using not fully representative data: Not fully time-representative data can be used only along the following conditions: 3:2:1


The most recent data are the third option. 3:2. Using not fully representative data: Not fully time-representative data can be used only along the following conditions: 3:2:1. For LCI and LCIA data sets/non-comparative LCI/LCA studies: The use of not fully time-representative data is justifiable only if this is not relevantly changing the overall LCIA results compared to using fully time- representative data; otherwise the lower achieved time-representativeness shall be documented in the data set/report. M.Z. Hauschild and A. Bjørn


3:2:2. For comparative LCA studies: The conclusions or recommendations of the study should not be affected; otherwise, the lower achieved time-representativeness shall explicitly be considered when drawing conclusions and giving recommendations. Especially shall the use of less time-representative data not relatively disfavour any competitors’ products in a relevant degree. 37.3.6 Preparation of the Basis for the Impact Assessment The preparation of the basis of the later impact assessment phase the scope definition serves two main purposes: One is to ensure that the impact assessment is done in accordance with the goal definition and the intended application of the LCA. The other is to prepare the basis to ensure that the inventory analysis compiles the relevant data on elementary flows from the product system to support the assessment of the relevant impact scores


The other is to prepare the basis to ensure that the inventory analysis compiles the relevant data on elementary flows from the product system to support the assessment of the relevant impact scores. The ILCD guidance document presents the following provisions for the preparation of the basis of the impact assessment: Preparing the basis for the impact assessment (Provisions 6.7) Note that an impact assessment is required for all types of LCI/LCA studies at least for systematically assessing and improving the overall data quality, including applying the cut-off rules. Impact categories and LCIA methods: 1. SHALL—Goal-conform selection of impact categories and LCIA methods: Select the impact categories to be included and the corresponding LCIA methods in accordance with the goal of the study. [ISO!] 2. SHOULD—Requirements for impact categories: 2:1


[ISO!] 2. SHOULD—Requirements for impact categories: 2:1. All impact categories that are environmentally relevant20 for the LCI/LCA study shall be included, as far as possible and unless the goal definition would explicitly foresee exclusions (e.g. for Carbon footprint studies). Further ones can be included optionally. 20As this can be judged only in view of the LCIA results, i.e. after LCI data collection, modelling, etc., it is recommended to initially foresee the inclusion of all of the default impact categories (see next action). If the impact assessment later shows irrelevance of one of more impact categories, they can be left out; see also further provisions. For principally restricted assessments (e.g. Carbon footprint), see the respective action below.