Attributional & Consequential Life Cycle Assessment: Definitions, Conceptual Characteristics and Modelling Restrictions

To assess the potential environmental impact of human/industrial systems, life cycle assessment (LCA) is a very common method. There are two prominent types of LCA, namely attributional (ALCA) and consequential (CLCA). A lot of literature covers these approaches, but a general consensus on what they represent and an overview of all their differences seems lacking, nor has every prominent feature been fully explored. The two main objectives of this article are: (1) to argue for and select definitions for each concept and (2) specify all conceptual characteristics (including translation into modelling restrictions), re-evaluating and going beyond findings in the state of the art. For the first objective, mainly because the validity of interpretation of a term is also a matter of consensus, we argue the selection of definitions present in the 2011 UNEP-SETAC report. ALCA attributes a share of the potential environmental impact of the world to a product life cycle, while CLCA assesses the environmental consequences of a decision (e.g., increase of product demand). Regarding the second objective, the product system in ALCA constitutes all processes that are linked by physical, energy flows or services. Because of the requirement of additivity for ALCA, a double-counting check needs to be executed, modelling is restricted (e.g., guaranteed through linearity) and partitioning of multifunctional processes is systematically needed (for evaluation per single product). The latter matters also hold in a similar manner for the impact assessment, which is commonly overlooked. CLCA, is completely consequential and there is no limitation regarding what a modelling framework should entail, with the coverage of co-products through substitution being just one approach and not the only one (e.g., additional consumption is possible). Both ALCA and CLCA can be considered over any time span (past, present & future) and either using a reference environment or different scenarios. Furthermore, both ALCA and CLCA could be specific for average or marginal (small) products or decisions, and further datasets. These findings also hold for life cycle sustainability assessment.

[1]  M. Margni,et al.  Considering time in LCA: dynamic LCA and its application to global warming impact assessments. , 2010, Environmental science & technology.

[2]  Louise Laumann Kjær,et al.  Life Cycle Costing: An Introduction , 2018 .

[3]  Edgar G. Hertwich,et al.  Deriving life cycle assessment coefficients for application in integrated assessment modelling , 2018, Environ. Model. Softw..

[4]  Anne-Marie Boulay,et al.  Marginal and non-marginal approaches in characterization: how context and scale affect the selection of an adequate characterization model. The AWARE model example , 2019, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[5]  Steven De Meester,et al.  Sustainability Assessment Methods and Tools , 2013 .

[6]  P. Holland Statistics and Causal Inference , 1985 .

[7]  F. Creutzig,et al.  Using Attributional Life Cycle Assessment to Estimate Climate‐Change Mitigation Benefits Misleads Policy Makers , 2014 .

[8]  M. Finkbeiner,et al.  Comment to “Marginal and non-marginal approaches in characterization: how context and scale affect the selection of an adequate characterization factor. The AWARE model example” , 2020, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[9]  Richard Wood,et al.  Unified Theory of Allocations and Constructs in Life Cycle Assessment and Input‐Output Analysis , 2014 .

[10]  Romain Sacchi A trade-based method for modelling supply markets in consequential LCA exemplified with Portland cement and bananas , 2017, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[11]  Ligia Tiruta-Barna,et al.  A tool to operationalize dynamic LCA, including time differentiation on the complete background database , 2019, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[12]  S. Suh,et al.  On the uncanny capabilities of consequential LCA , 2014, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[13]  Reinout Heijungs,et al.  Some fundamentals on ALCA and CLCA , 2015 .

[14]  T. Koellner,et al.  UNEP-SETAC guideline on global land use impact assessment on biodiversity and ecosystem services in LCA , 2013, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[15]  Reinout Heijungs,et al.  Digesting the alphabet soup of LCA , 2018, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[16]  Enrico Benetto,et al.  Sustainability assessment of circular economy over time: Modelling of finite and variable loops & impact distribution among related products , 2020 .

[17]  Reinout Heijungs,et al.  Lights and shadows in consequential LCA , 2012, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[18]  Dieuwertje Schrijvers,et al.  Developing a systematic framework for consistent allocation in LCA , 2016, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[19]  Zhongyi Zhu,et al.  Continuously dynamic additive models for functional data , 2016, J. Multivar. Anal..

[20]  Mark A. Delucchi,et al.  Response to “On the uncanny capabilities of consequential LCA” by Sangwon Suh and Yi Yang (Int J Life Cycle Assess, doi: 10.1007/s11367-014-0739-9) , 2014, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[21]  Massimo Pizzol,et al.  Attributional or consequential Life Cycle Assessment: A matter of social responsibility , 2018 .

[22]  S. Hellweg,et al.  Emerging approaches, challenges and opportunities in life cycle assessment , 2014, Science.

[23]  Thomas Gibon,et al.  When to replace a product to decrease environmental impact?—a consequential LCA framework and case study on car replacement , 2020, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[24]  R. Heijungs,et al.  Differences between LCA for analysis and LCA for policy: a case study on the consequences of allocation choices in bio-energy policies , 2012, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[25]  D. Schrijvers Evaluation environnementale des options de recyclage selon la méthodologie d’analyse de cycle de vie : établissement d’une approche cohérente appliquée aux études de cas de l’industrie chimique , 2017 .

[26]  B. Weidema Market aspects in product life cycle inventory methodology , 1993 .

[27]  Marc-Andree Wolf,et al.  Chapter 1: The Context for Global Guidance Principles for Life Cycle Inventories , 2011 .

[28]  R. Heijungs,et al.  On the use of different models for consequential life cycle assessment , 2018, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[29]  G. Finnveden,et al.  Attributional and consequential LCA in the ILCD handbook , 2016, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[30]  Anders Hammer Strømman,et al.  Influence of allocation methods on the environmental performance of biorefinery products—A case study , 2011 .

[31]  Göran Finnveden,et al.  Best available practice regarding impact categories and category indicators in life cycle impact assessment , 1999 .

[32]  Sangwon Suh,et al.  Generalized Make and Use Framework for Allocation in Life Cycle Assessment , 2010 .

[33]  Edgar G. Hertwich,et al.  Understanding the Climate Mitigation Benefits of Product Systems: Comment on “Using Attributional Life Cycle Assessment to Estimate Climate‐Change Mitigation…” , 2014 .

[34]  Benedetto Rugani,et al.  A Revision of What Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment Should Entail: Towards Modeling the Net Impact on Human Well‐Being , 2017 .

[35]  Stefano Merciai,et al.  An input-output model in a balanced multi-layer framework , 2019, Resources, Conservation and Recycling.

[36]  Roger L. Burritt,et al.  Coupling attributional and consequential life cycle assessment: A matter of social responsibility , 2019, Journal of Cleaner Production.

[37]  Ligia Tiruta-Barna,et al.  Framework and computational tool for the consideration of time dependency in Life Cycle Inventory: proof of concept , 2016 .

[38]  Other,et al.  Global guidance principles for Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) databases: a basis for greener processes and products , 2011 .

[39]  A. Cowie,et al.  Consequential Life Cycle Assessment: What, How, and Why? , 2017 .

[40]  M. Brander Conceptualising attributional LCA is necessary for resolving methodological issues such as the appropriate form of land use baseline , 2016, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[41]  M. Niero,et al.  Is life cycle assessment enough to address unintended side effects from Circular Economy initiatives? , 2021, Journal of Industrial Ecology.

[42]  Göran Finnveden,et al.  Attributional life cycle assessment: is a land-use baseline necessary? , 2015, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[43]  Ivo Mersiowsky,et al.  LCA’s theory and practice: like ebony and ivory living in perfect harmony? , 2012, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[44]  Yi Yang,et al.  A unified framework of life cycle assessment , 2019, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[45]  David Pennington,et al.  Recent developments in Life Cycle Assessment. , 2009, Journal of environmental management.

[46]  Alex K. Jones,et al.  Dynamic life cycle assessment: framework and application to an institutional building , 2012, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[47]  Tomas Ekvall,et al.  System boundaries and input data in consequential life cycle inventory analysis , 2004 .

[48]  Bo Pedersen Weidema Estimation of the size of error introduced into consequential models by using attributional background datasets , 2016, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[49]  S. Pauliuk,et al.  On the boundary between economy and environment in life cycle assessment , 2018, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[50]  Deepak Rajagopal,et al.  A Step Towards a General Framework for Consequential Life Cycle Assessment , 2017 .

[51]  Pilar Swart,et al.  Abiotic Resource Use , 2015 .

[52]  Fang Yao,et al.  Continuously additive models for nonlinear functional regression , 2013 .

[53]  Tomas Ekvall,et al.  Moral Philosophy, Economics, and Life Cycle Inventory Analysis , 2000 .

[54]  S. Hellweg,et al.  Discounting and the Environment Lca Methodology with Case Study 8 Lca Methodology with Case Study Should Current Impacts Be Weighted Differently than Impacts Harming Future Generations? , 2022 .

[55]  Robert A Edwards,et al.  Reviewing ISO Compliant Multifunctionality Practices in Environmental Life Cycle Modeling , 2020, Energies.

[56]  Göran Finnveden,et al.  On the validity of natural regeneration in determination of land-use baseline , 2016, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[57]  Thomas Schaubroeck,et al.  Towards a general sustainability assessment of human/industrial and nature-based solutions , 2018, Sustainability Science.

[58]  Gjalt Huppes,et al.  Methods for Life Cycle Inventory of a product , 2005 .

[59]  Sangwon Suh,et al.  A review of methods for characterizing the environmental consequences of actions in life cycle assessment , 2020, Journal of Industrial Ecology.

[60]  Holger Dette,et al.  Optimal design for additive partially nonlinear models , 2011 .

[61]  J. Mill A System of Logic , 1843 .

[62]  Pascal Lesage,et al.  Valuing temporary carbon storage , 2012 .

[63]  A. Cowie,et al.  The Use of Life Cycle Assessment in the Support of Robust (Climate) Policy Making: Comment on “Using Attributional Life Cycle Assessment to Estimate Climate‐Change Mitigation …” , 2014 .

[64]  Gjalt Huppes,et al.  Life cycle assessment: past, present, and future. , 2011, Environmental science & technology.

[65]  Reinout Heijungs,et al.  Identifying best existing practice for characterization modeling in life cycle impact assessment , 2012, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[66]  R. Atkinson Atmospheric chemistry of VOCs and NOx , 2000 .

[67]  J. Guinée Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment: What Is It and What Are Its Challenges? , 2016 .

[68]  T. Schaubroeck The Concept of Cultural Ecosystem Services Should Not Be Abandoned , 2019, BioScience.

[69]  Guido Sonnemann,et al.  Archetypes of Goal and Scope Definitions for Consistent Allocation in LCA , 2020, Sustainability.

[70]  M. Svanström,et al.  Opportunities of consequential and attributional modelling in life cycle assessment of wastewater and sludge management , 2019, Journal of Cleaner Production.

[71]  Reinout Heijungs,et al.  Is mainstream LCA linear? , 2020, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[72]  Bart Muys,et al.  Temporalis, a generic method and tool for dynamic Life Cycle Assessment. , 2018, The Science of the total environment.

[73]  Massimo Pizzol,et al.  Identifying marginal supplying countries of wood products via trade network analysis , 2017, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[74]  J. M. Earles,et al.  Consequential life cycle assessment: a review , 2011 .

[75]  Nathaniel N. Beck,et al.  Beyond linearity by default: Generalized additive models , 1998 .

[76]  R. Baumgartner,et al.  The Third Wave of LCA as the “Decade of Consolidation” , 2019, Sustainability.

[77]  Jannick Højrup Schmidt,et al.  Methodology for the Construction of Global Multi‐Regional Hybrid Supply and Use Tables for the EXIOBASE v3 Database , 2018 .

[78]  Réjean Samson,et al.  Choice of Allocations and Constructs for Attributional or Consequential Life Cycle Assessment and Input‐Output Analysis , 2018 .

[79]  B. Weidema,et al.  Avoiding Allocation in Life Cycle Assessment Revisited , 2010 .

[80]  R. Heijungs Towards eco-efficiency with LCA’s prevention principle: an epistemological foundation of LCA using axioms , 1998 .

[81]  Walter Kloepffer,et al.  Life cycle sustainability assessment of products , 2008 .

[82]  Gregor Wernet,et al.  The ecoinvent database version 3 (part I): overview and methodology , 2016, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[83]  Jo Dewulf,et al.  Quantifying the environmental impact of an integrated human/industrial-natural system using life cycle assessment; a case study on a forest and wood processing chain. , 2013, Environmental science & technology.

[84]  A. Marvuglia,et al.  Modelling approaches for consequential life-cycle assessment (C-LCA) of bioenergy: Critical review and proposed framework for biogas production , 2013 .

[85]  Bo Weidema,et al.  In Search of a Consistent Solution to Allocation of Joint Production , 2018 .

[86]  Dieuwertje Schrijvers,et al.  Critical review of guidelines against a systematic framework with regard to consistency on allocation procedures for recycling in LCA , 2016, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[87]  Anne-Marie Tillman,et al.  Significance of decision-making for LCA methodology , 2000 .