Rationales for and limitations of preferred solutions for multi-functionality problems in LCA: is increased consistency possible?

PurposeThe ISO 14044 standard for life cycle assessment (LCA) provides the reference decision hierarchy for dealing with multi-functional processes. We observe that, in practice, the consistent implementation of this hierarchy by LCA practitioners and LCA guidance document developers may be limited. In an attempt to explain this observation, and to offer suggestions as to how consistency in LCA practice might be improved, we identify and compare the rationales for (and limitations of) different common approaches to solving multi-functionality problems in LCA.MethodsThe different prevalent understandings of specific approaches for dealing with multi-functional processes were identified, and their respective rationales were analyzed. This takes into account identifying the implicit underlying assumptions regarding the nature and purpose of LCA that support each approach.Results and discussionWe identified what we believe to be three internally consistent but mutually exclusive schools of thought amongst LCA practitioners, which differ in subtle but important ways in terms of their understanding of the nature and purpose of LCA, and the multi-functionality solutions necessary to support them. These three divisions follow two demarcations. The first is between consequential and attributional data modeling approaches. The second is between adherence to a natural science-based approach (privileging physical allocation solutions) and a socioeconomic approach (favoring economic allocation solutions) in attributional data modeling.ConclusionsWe conclude that the ISO 14044 multi-functionality hierarchy should explicitly differentiate between attributional and consequential data modeling applications. We question the feasibility and practical utility of system expansion (currently privileged in the ISO hierarchy) in attributional data modeling applications. We suggest that ISO 14044 should also make explicit its rationale for privileging natural science-based approaches to solving multi-functionality problems and to more clearly differentiate between natural science and social science-based approaches. We also call for the formulation of additional guidance for solving multi-functionality problems, in particular for justifying the use of lower-tier solutions from the ISO hierarchy when these are applied in LCA studies. We suggest that this additional guidance and clarity in ISO 14044 will contribute to increased consistency in LCA practice and also increase the potential for users of information from LCA studies to make informed decisions as to their relevance within the context of specific intended applications.

[1]  Ardente Fulvio,et al.  Economic Allocation in Life Cycle Assessment: The State of the Art and Discussion of Examples , 2012 .

[2]  R. Heijungs,et al.  Economic allocation: Examples and derived decision tree , 2004 .

[3]  G. Huppes.  Macro-environmental policy : principles and design : with cases on milk packaging, cadmium, phosphorus and nitrogen, and energy and global warming , 1993 .

[4]  Henrik Wenzel,et al.  Life cycle inventory modelling of land use induced by crop consumption , 2007 .

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

[6]  B. Weidema.  Has ISO 14040/44 Failed Its Role as a Standard for Life Cycle Assessment? , 2014 .

[7]  Göran Finnveden,et al.  Data quality of life cycle inventory data — rules of thumb , 1998 .

[8]  M. Huijbregts,et al.  Handbook on Life Cycle Assessment: Operational Guide to the ISO Standards , 2002 .

[9]  Daniel Spreng,et al.  Life cycle inventory analysis for decision-making scope-dependent inventory system models and context-specific joint product allocation , 2008 .

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

[11]  Bo Pedersen Weidema,et al.  Marginal production technologies for life cycle inventories , 1999 .

[12]  Not Indicated,et al.  International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook - General guide for Life Cycle Assessment - Detailed guidance , 2010 .

[13]  E. Peereboom,et al.  Influence of Inventory Data Sets on Life‐Cycle Assessment Results: A Case Study on PVC , 1998 .

[14]  Edgar G. Hertwich,et al.  A Theoretical Foundation for Life‐Cycle Assessment , 2000 .

[15]  M. Brander,et al.  The use of substitution in attributional life cycle assessment , 2011 .

[16]  N. Pelletier,et al.  An Ecological Economic Critique of the Use of Market Information in Life Cycle Assessment Research , 2011 .

[17]  Annik Magerholm Fet,et al.  LCA studies of food products as background for environmental product declarations , 2008 .

[18]  Michael Jones,et al.  Application in the Dairy Industry and Implications for Systems Analysis , 2007 .

[19]  Rolf Frischknecht.  Life cycle inventory analysis for decision-making , 1998 .

[20]  Tomas Ekvall,et al.  Open-loop recycling: Criteria for allocation procedures , 1997 .

[21]  Brian Vad Mathiesen,et al.  Uncertainties related to the identification of the marginal energy technology in consequential life cycle assessments , 2009 .

[22]  Jan Weinzettel,et al.  Understanding Who is Responsible for Pollution: What Only the Market can Tell Us—Comment on “An Ecological Economic Critique of the Use of Market Information in Life Cycle Assessment Research” , 2012 .

[23]  Michael Jones,et al.  Generation of an Industry-specific Physico-chemical Allocation Matrix. Application in the Dairy Industry and Implications for Systems Analysis (9 pp) , 2007 .

[24]  Nathan Pelletier,et al.  Co-product allocation in life cycle assessments of seafood production systems: Review of problems and strategies , 2007 .

[25]  N. Pelletier,et al.  WHAT’S AT STEAK? ECOLOGICAL ECONOMIC SUSTAINABILITY AND THE ETHICAL, ENVIRONMENTAL, AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS FOR GLOBAL LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION , 2010 .

[26]  Nathan Pelletier,et al.  Response to Weinzettel , 2012 .

[27]  Göran Finnveden,et al.  Allocation in ISO 14041—a critical review , 2001 .

[28]  Ester van der Voet,et al.  Life-cycle assessment of biofuels, convergence and divergence , 2010 .

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

[30]  Bo Pedersen Weidema,et al.  Avoiding Co‐Product Allocation in Life‐Cycle Assessment , 2000 .

[31]  M. Brandão,et al.  Food, Feed, Fuel, Timber or Carbon Sink?: Towards Sustainable Land-Use Systems: A Consequential Life Cycle Approach. , 2012 .

[32]  Chalmers Industriteknik,et al.  Choice of system boundaries in life cycle assessment , 2002 .

[33]  M. Cellura,et al.  Economic Allocation in Life Cycle Assessment , 2012 .

[34]  E. Robert,et al.  Indirect Land Use Change From Increased Biofuels Demand - Comparison of Models and Results for Marginal Biofuels Production from Different Feedstocks , 2010 .

[35]  B. Mathiesen,et al.  Energy system analysis of marginal electricity supply in consequential LCA , 2010 .

[36]  Otto Andersen,et al.  Life cycle assessments of consumer electronics — are they consistent? , 2010 .

[37]  Frank Werner,et al.  Economic Allocation in LCA: A Case Study About Aluminium Window Frames , 2000 .

[38]  Anders S. G. Andrae,et al.  Attributional and Consequential Environmental Assessment of the Shift to Lead-Free Solders (10 pp) , 2006 .

[39]  Reinout Heijungs,et al.  Allocation and 'what-if' scenarios in life cycle assessment of waste management systems. , 2007, Waste management.

[40]  John J. Reap,et al.  A survey of unresolved problems in life cycle assessment , 2008 .

[41]  R. Frischknecht.  Allocation in Life Cycle Inventory Analysis for Joint Production , 2000 .

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

[43]  David K. Chiabi.  European Telecommunications Standards Institute , 2015 .

[44]  G. Ionescu.  Differences Between LCA for Analysis and LCA for Policy: A Case Study on the Consequences of Allocation Choices in Bio-Energy Policies , 2016 .

[45]  Walter Klöpffer,et al.  Allocation rule for open-loop recycling in life cycle assessment , 1996 .

[46]  Maurizio Cellura,et al.  Life cycle assessment of Italian citrus-based products. Sensitivity analysis and improvement scenarios. , 2010, Journal of environmental management.

[47]  Jeroen B. Guinee,et al.  Handbook on life cycle assessment operational guide to the ISO standards , 2002 .

[48]  Nathan Pelletier,et al.  Life Cycle Assessment of Frozen Tilapia Fillets From Indonesian Lake‐Based and Pond‐Based Intensive Aquaculture Systems , 2010 .

[49]  Harald Ellingsen,et al.  The Carbon Footprint of Norwegian Seafood Products on the Global Seafood Market , 2013 .

[50]  Michael Narodoslawsky,et al.  Life Cycle Assessment as an engineer's tool? , 2008 .

[51]  Mikkel Thrane,et al.  LCA of Danish Fish Products. New methods and insights (9 pp) , 2006 .

[52]  Per Christensen,et al.  LCA of Danish fish products , 2001 .

[53]  Hans-Jürgen Dr. Klüppel,et al.  The Revision of ISO Standards 14040-3 - ISO 14040: Environmental management – Life cycle assessment – Principles and framework - ISO 14044: Environmental management – Life cycle assessment – Requirements and guidelines , 2005 .

[54]  Rana Pant,et al.  The European Commission Organisation Environmental Footprint method: comparison with other methods, and rationales for key requirements , 2013, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.