Allocation Solutions For Secondary Material Production And End Of Life ...

Log InSign Up

• Log In
• Sign Up
• more
• • About
  • Press
  • Papers
  • Terms
  • Privacy
  • Copyright
  • We're Hiring!
  • Help Center
  • less

Outline

keyboard_arrow_downTitleAbstractFiguresIntroductionPresentation of the Methods and ParametersSelection of the MethodsAnalysis of the Methods for ComparisonModelling Approach of the Pas 2050 MethodIso/TS 14067 MethodObjectives and Scope of the Iso/TS 14067 MethodModelling Approach of the Iso/TS 14067 MethodModelling Approach of the BP X 30-323-0 MethodScope of the Pef MethodModelling Approach of the Pef MethodReapro MethodScope of the Reapro MethodModelling Approach of the Reapro MethodAnalysis of the Production/Eol EquationsIncluding Material and Energy CreditsDiscussionConclusions and PerspectivesReferencesFAQsAll TopicsEngineeringdownload

Download Free PDF

Download Free PDFAllocation solutions for secondary material production and end of life recovery: Proposals for product policy initiativesSimone ManfrediRana PantFulvio ArdenteCamillo De Camillis

2014, Resources, Conservation and Recycling

https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RESCONREC.2014.03.016visibility

…

description

12 pages

descriptionSee full PDFdownloadDownload PDF bookmarkSave to LibraryshareShareclose

Sign up for access to the world's latest research

Sign up for freearrow_forwardcheckGet notified about relevant paperscheckSave papers to use in your researchcheckJoin the discussion with peerscheckTrack your impact

Abstract

This paper aims at analysing how secondary materials production and end of life recovery processes are modelled in life cycle-based environmental assessment methods in order to discuss their suitability in product policy-support contexts, with a focus on Sustainable Consumption and Production (SCP) policies. The equations prescribed in three published, widely recognised standards are evaluated. In addition, more recent modelling approaches that have been adopted in the context of two EU product policy initiatives (the Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) and the Resource Efficiency Assessment of Products (REAPro)) are similarly analysed. All of the methods are scrutinised against eight criteria which we deem to be important in product policy-support contexts, including comprehensiveness, accommodation of openloop and closed-loop product systems, and consideration of recyclability/recoverability rates, to name a few. Based on this analysis, it is suggested that the PEF and REAPro modelling approaches appear to be better suited for use in product policy-support contexts than do the currently widely endorsed methods that we considered.

... Read moreFigures (1)arrow_back_ios

arrow_forward_ios

Related papers

Roadmap for the European Platform on Life Cycle Assessment: facilitating data collection and sustainability assessments for policy and businessCamillo De CamillisdownloadDownload free PDFView PDFchevron_rightTowards a life cycle sustainability assessment: making informed choices on productsGuido Sonnemann

2011

downloadDownload free PDFView PDFchevron_rightRecent developments in Life Cycle AssessmentGöran Finnveden, Reinout Heijungs

Journal of Environmental Management, 2009

Life Cycle Assessment is a tool to assess the environmental impacts and resources used throughout a product's life cycle, i.e., from raw material acquisition, via production and use phases, to waste management. The methodological development in LCA has been strong, and LCA is broadly applied in practice. The aim of this paper is to provide a review of recent developments of LCA methods. The focus is on some areas where there has been an intense methodological development during the last years. We also highlight some of the emerging issues. In relation to the Goal and Scope definition we especially discuss the distinction between attributional and consequential LCA. For the Inventory Analysis, this distinction is relevant when discussing system boundaries, data collection, and allocation. Also highlighted are developments concerning databases and Input-Output and hybrid LCA. In the sections on Life Cycle Impact Assessment we discuss the characteristics of the modelling as well as some recent developments for specific impact categories and weighting. In relation to the Interpretation the focus is on uncertainty analysis. Finally, we discuss recent developments in relation to some of the strengths and weaknesses of LCA.

downloadDownload free PDFView PDFchevron_rightProduct Environmental Life-Cycle Assessment Using Input-Output TechniquesSatish Joshi

Journal of Industrial Ecology, 1999

Life-cycle assessment (LCA) facilitates a systems view in environmental evaluation of products, materials, and processes. Life-cycle assessment attempts to quantify environmental burdens over the entire life-cycle of a product from raw material extraction, manufacturing, and use to ultimate disposal. However, current methods for LCA suffer from problems of subjective boundar y definition, inflexibility, high cost, data confidentiality, and aggregation. This paper proposes alternative models to conduct quick, cost effective, and yet comprehensive life-cycle assessments. The core of the analytical model consists of the 498 sector economic input-output tables for the U.S. economy augmented with various sector-level environmental impact vectors. The environmental impacts covered include global warming, acidification, energy use, non-renewable ores consumption, eutrophication, conventional pollutant emissions and toxic releases to the environment. Alternative models are proposed for environmental assessment of individual products, processes, and life-cycle stages by selective disaggregation of aggregate input-output data or by creation of hypothetical new commodity sectors. To demonstrate the method, a case study comparing the life-cycle environmental performance of steel and plastic automobile fuel tank systems is presented.

downloadDownload free PDFView PDFchevron_rightAre we still keeping it “real”? Proposing a revised paradigm for recycling credits in attributional life cycle assessmentChristoph Koffler

The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2017

Purpose End-of-life (EoL) recycling poses a challenge to many practitioners today due to the availability of different calculation approaches and the lack of scientific consensus, which is fueled by academic research and vested industry interests alike. One of the main challenges in EoL modeling is the credible calculation of the appropriate recycling credit in open-loop and closed-loop situations. Methods We believe that part of the challenge is caused by a lack of understanding of the underlying recycling paradigm, which refers to the meaning that is assigned to the recycling credit. Referred to as Bsystem expansion through substitution^and Bfuture displacement of primary production,^the two predominant paradigms are delineated from each other followed by a discussion of their remaining challenges. Results and discussion Based on these considerations, we propose a revised paradigm based on embodied burdens that is able to alleviate many of the most pressing issues associated with material recycling in attributional life cycle assessment. Conclusions With this discussion paper, we look forward to a productive and lively debate on the matter.

downloadDownload free PDFView PDFchevron_rightLife cycle analysis: A critiqueRobert U. Ayres

Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 1995

Life cycle analysis (LCA) is an increasingly important tool for environmental policy, and even for industry. Analysts are also interested in forecasting future materials/energy fluxes on regional and global scales, as a function of various economic growth and regulatory scenarios. A fundamental tenet of LCA is that every material product must eventually become a waste. To choose the 'greener' of two products or policies it is necessary to take into account its environmental impacts from 'cradle to grave'. This includes not only indirect inputs to the production process, and associated wastes and emissions, but also the future (downstream) fate of a product. The first stage in the analysis is quantitative comparisons of materials flows and transformations. Energy fluxes are important insofar as they involve materials (e.g., fuels, combustion products). This can be an extremely valuable exercise, if done carefully. However, the data required to accomplish this first step are not normally available from published sources. Theoretical process descriptions from open sources may not correspond to actual practice. Moreover, so-called 'confidential' data are unverifiable (by definition) and may well be erroneous. In the absence of a formal materials balance accounting system, such errors may not be detected. A key thesis of this paper is that process data can, in many cases, be synthesized, using models based on the laws of thermodynamics and chemistry. While synthetic but possible data may not fully reflect the actual situation, it is far superior to 'impossible' data. Most of the recent literature on LCA focusses on the second stage of the analysis, namely the selection and evaluation of different, non-comparable environmental impacts ('chalk vs. cheese'). This problem is, indeed, very difficult -and may well be impossible to solve convincingly even at the conceptual level. However, the only approach that can make progress is one that utilizes monetization to the limits of its applicability, rather than one that seeks to by-pass (or 're-invent' ) economics. Nevertheless, the evaluation problem is second in priority, for the simple reason that LCA has utility even if the evaluation technique is imperfect. On the other hand, LCA has no (or even negative) utility if the underlying physical data is wrong with respect to critical pollutants.

downloadDownload free PDFView PDFchevron_rightCritical review of life cycle analysis and assessment techniques and their application to commercial activitiesJacquetta Lee

Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 1995

This paper summarises the basic methodology of life cycle analysis, and aims to show that without clear understanding of the technique, life cycle inventories (LCI) can be easily misused to give preferred results, or misunderstood to give erroneous results which could lead to detrimental environmental decisions. It highlights areas where most errors are likely to exist, namely through the definition of system boundaries and the collection of data, and shows through examples how these can drastically affect LCI results. The paper also touches briefly on life cycle assessment techniques, which are aimed at evaluating environmental damage, and concludes with a brief summary of the properties of an ideal LCI which would provide a comprehensive data base for life cycle assessment.

downloadDownload free PDFView PDFchevron_rightUse of Life Cycle Assessment to Develop Industrial Ecologies—A Case StudyR. Clift

Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 2005

P rinter and letter quality paper represents a high-value component of the waste from commercial premises. Around large cities, exemplified by London, the paper flows are sufficiently large to sustain a dedicated logistics network and plant to recover and recycle graphics-quality paper. Analysis of the fibre flows around the supply system for paper recovery and recycling shows that, given the present low proportion of recycled fibre graphics paper used in the UK, other sources of fibre are not needed to maintain the supply and quality of the recycled material. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of the recycling system shows that its environmental performance is dominated by energy use and greenhousewarming emissions. Although the detailed results depend on how waste fibre and biomass are otherwise used, this emerges as a case in which recycling really does give environmental benefits. LCA also enables possible changes in the system for recovering and reprocessing paper to be examined, leading to new concepts for more sustainable local management of resource flows.

downloadDownload free PDFView PDFchevron_rightPeer Reviewed: Economic Input–Output Models for Environmental Life-Cycle AssessmentSatish Joshi

Environmental Science & Technology, 1998

downloadDownload free PDFView PDFchevron_rightThe Environmental Relevance of Capital Goods in Life Cycle Assessments of Products and ServicesDaniel Kellenberger

International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2007

Goal and Scope. Many life cycle assessment case studies neglect the production of capital goods that are necessary to manufacture a good or to provide a service. In ISO standards 14040 and 14044 the capital goods are explicitly part of the product system. Thus, it is doubtful if capital goods can be excluded per se as has been done in quite a number of case studies and LCA databases. There is yet no clear idea about if and when capital goods play an important role in life cycle assessments. The present paper evaluates the contribution of capital goods in a large number and variety of product and service systems. A classification of product and service groups is proposed to give better guidance on when and where capital goods should be included or can be neglected. Methods. The life cycle inventory database ecoinvent data v1.2 forms the basis for the assessment of the environmental importance of capital goods. The importance is assessed on the basis of several hundreds of cradle-to-g...

downloadDownload free PDFView PDFchevron_rightSee full PDFdownloadDownload PDF

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

References (34)

1. environmental communication on mass market products. Part 0: general principles and meth- odological framework. Paris, France: AFNOR; 2011. p. 38.
2. Ardente F, Cellura M. Economic allocation in life cycle assessment: state of the art and discussion of some examples. J Ind Ecol 2012;16(3):387-98.
3. Ardente F, Mathieux F. Report 3 of the project "Integration of resource efficiency and waste management criteria in European product policies -Second phase": Revised methodologies and guidance documents. Ispra, Italy: European Com- mission -Joint Research Centre; 2012a.
4. Ardente F, Mathieux F. Report 2 of the project "Integration of resource efficiency and waste management criteria in European product policies -Second phase": appli- cation of the project's methods to three product groups. Ispra, Italy: European Commission -Joint Research Centre; 2012b.
5. Ardente F, Mathieux F. Identification and assessment of product's measures to improve resource efficiency of products: the case-study of an Energy Using Product. J Clean Prod 2013 (submitted for publication).
6. Ardente F, Mathieux F, Recchioni M. Combining five criteria to identify relevant products measures for resource efficiency of an energy using product. In: 20th CIRP international conference on life cycle engineering (LCE): 'Re-engineering Manufacturing for Sustainability'; 2013. p. 111-6, ISBN 978-981-4451- 47-5.
7. Ardente F, Mathieux F. Environmental assessment of the durability of energy-using products: method and application. J Clean Prod 2014., http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.03.049, in press, Corrected proof. BSI. The guide to PAS 2050:2011. How to carbon footprint your products, identify hotspots and reduce emissions in your supply chain. British Standards Institu- tion; 2011a. p. 79.
8. BSI. PAS 2050:2011. Specification for the assessment of the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of goods and services. British Standards Institution; 2011b. p. 45.
9. Chen C, Haberta G, Bouzidi Y, Jullien A, Ventura A. LCA allocation procedure used as an incitative method for waste recycling: an application to mineral additions in concrete. Resour Conserv Recycl 2010;54:1231-40.
10. EC-JRC. ILCD handbook. General guide for Life Cycle Assessment -detailed guidance. European Commission -Joint Research Centre; 2010.
11. Ekvall T. A market-based approach to allocation at open-loop recycling. Resour Conserv Recycl 2000;29:91-109.
12. EN 15804. Sustainability of construction works -environmental product declara- tions -communication format business-to-business. European Committee for Standardisation; 2012.
13. European Commission. Communication from the Commission to the European Par- liament, The Council, The European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Public procurement for a better environment, Brus- sels; 2008.
14. European Commission. Communication from the Commission to the European Par- liament, The Council, The European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe, Brussels; 2011. European Commission. ANNEX II: Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) GUIDE to the COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION on the use of common methods to mea- sure and communicate the life cycle environmental performance of products and organisations. European Commission; 2013a.
15. European Commission. Communication from the Commission to the European Par- liament, The Council, The European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: "Building the Single Market for Green Products Facil- itating better information on the environmental performance of products and organisations", Brussels; 2013b.
16. European Union. Directive 2000/53/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on End-of-Life Vehicles; 2000.
17. European Union. Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on Waste and Repealing Certain Directives; 2008.
18. European Union. Directive 2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for the setting of Ecodesign requirements for energy-related products; 2009.
19. European Union. Regulation (EC) No 66/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the EU Ecolabel; 2010.
20. European Union. Directive 2012/19/EU of the European Parliament and of the Coun- cil on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) (Recast); 2012.
21. Frischknecht R. LCI modelling approaches applied on recycling of materials in view of environmental sustainability, risk perception and eco-efficiency. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2010;15(7):666-71.
22. ISO. ISO 14040:2006 -environmental management -life cycle assessment -prin- ciples and framework. International Standard Organisation; 2006a.
23. ISO. ISO 14044:2006 -environmental management -life cycle assessment -require- ments and guidelines. International Standard Organisation; 2006b.
24. ISO. ISO/TR 14049:2012 -environmental management -life cycle assessment - illustrative examples on how to apply ISO 14044 to goal and scope definition and inventory analysis. International Standard Organisation; 2012.
25. ISO. ISO/TS 14067 -greenhouse gases -carbon footprint of products -requirements and guidelines for quantification and communication. 1st ed. International Standard Organisation; 2013.
26. Kim S, Hwang T, Lee KM. Allocation for cascade recycling system. Int J LCA 1997;2(4):217-22.
27. Klöpffer W. Allocation rule for open-loop recycling in Life Cycle Assessment. Int J LCA 1996;1:27-31.
28. Merrild H, Damgarrd A, Chistensen TH. Life cycle assessment of waste paper man- agement: the importance of technology data and system boundaries in assessing recycling and incineration. Resour Conserv Recycl 2008;52:191-398.
29. Pelletier N, Allacker K, Pant R, Manfredi S. The European Commission Organisation Environmental Footprint method: comparison with other methods, and rationales for key requirements. Int J LCA 2013., http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11367-013-0609-x.
30. Pelletier N, Tyedmers P. An ecological economic critique of the use of market infor- mation in Life Cycle Assessment research. J Ind Ecol 2011;15(3):342-54.
31. Shen L, Worrell E, Patel MK. Open-loop recycling: a LCA case study of PET bottle-to- fibre recycling. Resour Conserv Recycl 2010;55:34-52.
32. Sinden G. The contribution of PAS 2050 to the evolution of international greenhouse gas emission standards. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2009;14(3):195-203.
33. Vogtländer JG, Brezet HC, Hendriks CF. Allocation in recycling systems -an inte- grated model for the analyses of environmental impact and market value. Int J LCA 2001;6:1-11.
34. WRI/WBCSD. Corporate value chain (Scope 3) accounting and reporting standard. Supplement to the GHG protocol corporate accounting and reporting standard. World Resources Institute/World Business Council for Sustainable Develop- ment; 2011. p. 149.

View morearrow_downward

FAQs

AI

What complicates allocation in life-cycle environmental assessments?add

Allocation complexities arise when multiple products share inputs or outputs in their life cycles, necessitating principled environmental impact attribution.

How do different methodologies approach end-of-life modeling?add

The study critiques various methods like PAS2050 and PEF, highlighting their differing approaches to recycling and energy recovery allocation.

What are the primary aims of the European Commission's resource efficiency policies?add

The EU aims to enhance resource productivity while reducing the environmental impact of economic growth through sustainable consumption and production practices.

Why is harmonization of recycling modeling approaches challenging?add

Divergent value assumptions underlie competing strategies, making consensus on recycling modeling approaches unlikely, as concluded in recent discussions.

What criteria are essential for effective end-of-life modeling?add

Key criteria include accommodating open and closed-loop systems, distinguishing recycled content, and including energy recovery credits to ensure comprehensive assessments.

Related papers

End-of-life modelling in life cycle assessment—material or product-centred perspective?Marco Mengarelli

The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2016

Purpose End-of-life (EoL) modelling in life cycle assessment has already been broadly discussed within several studies. However, no consensus has been achieved on how to model recycling in LCA, even though several approaches have been developed. Within this paper, results arising from the application of two new EoL formulas, the product environmental footprint (PEF) and the multi-recycling-approach (MRA) ones, are compared and discussed. Both formulas consider multiple EoL scenarios such as recycling, incineration and landfill. Methods The PEF formula has been developed within the PEF programme whose intent is to define a harmonized methodology to evaluate the environmental performance of products. The formula is based on a 50:50 allocation approach, as burdens and benefits associated with recycling are accounted for a 50% rate. The MRA formula has been developed to change focus from products to materials. Recycling cycles and material losses over time are considered with reference to material pools. Allocation between systems is no longer needed, as the actual number of potential life cycles for a certain material is included in the calculation. Both the approaches have been tested within two case studies. Results and discussion Methodological differences could thereof be determined, as well as applicability concerns, due to the type of data required for each formula. As far as the environmental performance is concerned, impacts delivered by MRA are lower than those delivered by PEF for aluminium, while the opposite happens for plastic and rubber due to the higher share of energy recovery accounted in PEF formula. Stainless steel impacts are almost the same. Conclusions and recommendations The application of the two formulas provides some inputs for the EoL dilemma in LCA. The use of a wider perspective, better reflecting material properties all over the material life cycle, is of substantial importance to properly represent recycling situations. In MRA, such properties are treated and less data are required compared to the PEF formula. On the contrary, the PEF model better accommodates the modelling of products whose materials, at end of life, can undertake the route of recycling or recovery (or landfill), depending on country-specific EoL management practices. However, its application requires more data.

downloadDownload free PDFView PDFchevron_rightAllocation Issues in Life Cycle Assessment–benefits of Recycling and the Role of Environmental Rating SchemesTim Grant

… of the 4th Australian Conf on …, 2005

There are two emerging approaches to undertaking Life Cycle Inventories, which are the attributional approach and the consequential approach. The attributional approach is retrospective in that it describes what happened in production terms and what ...

downloadDownload free PDFView PDFchevron_rightGeneralized Make and Use Framework for Allocation in Life Cycle AssessmentJannick Schmidt

Journal of Industrial Ecology, 2010

downloadDownload free PDFView PDFchevron_rightLife-cycle assessment, resource efficiency and recyclingJean-Pierre Birat

Metallurgical Research & Technology, 2015

The Circular Economy is a contemporary and popular concept that describes how materials and resources should be handled in the future: the European Commission has recently published a communication setting the relevant policy trends. The present paper discusses some of these issues, proposing an analysis of what the concept means from the standpoint of materials stakeholders and how it can be refined or nuanced with a practical approach in mind. The core of the Circular Economy is the recycling of materials, which are recovered from the collection of end-of-life (EoL) investment or consumer goods. The key word is therefore recycling of EoL goods, materials, metals, minerals, residues and by-products and also molecules, like CO or CO 2 (Carbon Capture Use and Storage, CCUS). Recycling brings materials savings and reduces the need for virgin resources (primary raw materials). When materials are recycled to the same material, other environmental benefits can also be collected, like energy savings, greenhouse gas emission reduction and a smaller environmental footprint in general. The kind of recycling that ought to be privileged is therefore that which improves all of these indicators at the same time, thus material-to-thesame material recycling. The circular economy should be described material by material, in order to analyze in detail what is already being done and what can still be improved: the various materials achieve very different levels of recycling and thus policies for going beyond present achievements will differ according to each material. The circular economy has an important time dimension, as many materials are stocked in the economy for long times, sometimes half a century or more. The lifespan of the material stocks means that high recycling rates today will be translated into high-recycled contents only in the future, sometimes in the long time. The Circular Economy is a long-time endeavor! There are two important tools for dealing with these issues, LCA (Life Cycle Assessment) and MFA (Materials Flow Analysis). They incorporate the cycle time of recycling but need to be expanded into dynamic LCA and MFA in order to become fully time-dependent. Policies founded on LCA at a microeconomic scale, and MFA at a macroeconomic scale are the most apt to mirror how the socioeconomic system works and thus to avoid negative rebound effects. Fostering the use of these tools is an important element in encouraging the Circular Economy. But it is also important to understand that the rationale for moving in this direction is environmental and political, not necessarily economical. Thus it will not be enough to foster technological R&D (Research & Development) and to achieve R&I (Research & Innovation): tools to internalize these externalities in the market economy will need to be introduced more widely.

downloadDownload free PDFView PDFchevron_rightOptimizing environmental product life cyclesPaul Michael Weaver

Environmental & Resource Economics, 1997

In this paper, we propose a methodology, based on materials accounting and operational research techniques, to assess different industry configurations according to their life cycle environmental impacts. Rather than evaluating a specific technology, our methodology searches for the feasible configuration with the minimum impact. This approach allows us to address some basic policy-relevant questions regarding technology choice, investment priorities, industrial structures, and international trade patterns. We demonstrate the methodology in the context of the European pulp and paper industry. We are able to show that current environmental policy's focus on maximizing recycling is optimal now, but that modest improvements in primary pulping technology may shift the optimal industry configuration away from recycling toward more primary pulping with incineration. We show that this will have significant implications for the amount and type of environmental damage, for the location of different stages in the production chain, and for trade between European member states. We caution policy makers that their single-minded focus on recycling may foreclose investment in technologies that could prove environmentally superior. Finally, we hint that member state governments may be fashioning their environmental policy positions at least in part on some of the trade and industrial implications we find.

downloadDownload free PDFView PDFchevron_rightImproving material efficiency in the life cycle of products: a review of EU Ecolabel criteriaRenata Kaps

The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment

Purpose Material efficiency encompasses a range of strategies that support a reduction of material consumption and waste production from a product's life cycle perspective and which can help the transition towards a circular economy. The aim of this paper is to analyse the state of implementation of material efficiency requirements for products as set out in existing EU Ecolabel criteria, consider possible improvements, identify current limitations and describe potential or existing synergies with other EU policies and initiatives. Methods Key concepts related to material efficiency have been provided and classified into three groups which are, in order of decreasing priority: reduction, reuse, and recycling/recovery. This classification system has then been used for the analysis of existing requirements set out for different EU Ecolabel products. This includes a description of potential environmental benefits, trade-offs, market barriers and risks. Material efficiency concepts have then been cross-checked with other EU policies and initiatives. Results and discussion Looking at EU Ecolabel criteria for 26 different product groups revealed a broad range of material efficiency aspects, some of which are influenced by the nature of the product group itself. Some material efficiency aspects were broadly integrated into EU Ecolabel criteria through complementary strategies (e.g. design for durability, recyclability, availability of spare parts, reversible disassembly and provision of information). However, ways to implement additional material efficiency requirements (e.g. minimum lifetime of products) should be sought further. A symbiotic relationship can exist between the EU Ecolabel and many policy tools in the sense that regulatory and standardisation frameworks can offer a robust basis for justifying the integration of material efficiency aspects in the EU Ecolabel, while the EU Ecolabel can explore and promote approaches targeted at front runners in material efficiency aspects in a voluntary manner. Conclusions The experience gained from implementing material efficiency aspects in the EU Ecolabel could serve as a reference for shaping design, communication or policy initiatives aimed at the promotion of a more circular economy. Attempts to quantify the impacts from material efficiency measures should be also integrated systematically in future research, with the support of tools like life cycle assessment. However, additional considerations of political, technical and socioeconomic nature must be considered when assessing the relevance, feasibility and ambition level of any material efficiency-related requirements.

downloadDownload free PDFView PDFchevron_rightEnd-of-life LCA allocation methods: Open loop recycling impacts on robustness of material selection decisionsRandolph Kirchain

2009

Materials selection decisions exhibit great influence on the environmental performance of firms through their impact on processing technology, product form, and supply chain configuration. Consequently, materials dictate a product's environmental profile via the burden associated with extraction and refining, transformation from material to product, product performance characteristics during use, and potential recovery at end-of-life (EOL). While lifecycle assessment (LCA) methods provide quantitative input to a product designer's materials selection decision, LCA implementations are evolving and disparate. This work explores several analytical variations of LCA related to the allocation of recycling impacts at product EOL and the implications of these variants across a range of contexts. Stylized analyses across a range of materials are presented, focusing on materials with varying primary and secondary materials production burdens. This work illustrates that a) the application of distinct EOL allocation methods give different values of cumulative environmental impact for the same material, b) these impacts change at differing rates between the various methods, and c) these disparities can result in different rank ordering of materials preference. Characterizing this behavior over a range of parameters illustrates the potential trends in allocation method bias for or against particular materials classes. Index Terms-end-of-life, life cycle assessment, materials selection, recycling I. INTRODUCTION ndustries today deal with a range of environmental pressures that are diverse, dynamic, and demand new levels of accountability, financial commitment, and supply chain capabilities. Environmental pressures stem from four key sources, including regulations, resource accessibility, ethical responsibility, and consumer demand for environmentally

downloadDownload free PDFView PDFchevron_rightConsequential life cycle assessment: a reviewAnthony Halog

International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2011

Purpose Over the past two decades, consequential life cycle assessment (CLCA) has emerged as a modeling approach for capturing environmental impacts of product systems beyond physical relationships accounted for in attributional LCA (ALCA). Put simply, CLCA represents the convergence of LCA and economic modeling approaches. Method In this study, a systematic literature review of CLCA is performed. Results While initial efforts to integrate the two modeling methods relied on simple partial equilibrium (PE) modeling and a heuristic approach to determining affected technologies, more recent techniques incorporate sophisticated economic models for this purpose. In the last 3 years, Multi-Market, Multi-Regional PE Models and Computable General Equilibrium models have been used. Moreover, the incorporation of other economic notions into CLCA, such as rebound effects and experience curves, has been the focus of later research. Since economic modeling can play a prominent role in national policy-making and strategic/corporate environmental planning, developing the capacity to operate LCA concurrent to, or integrated with, these models is of growing importance. Conclusions This paper outlines the historical development of such efforts in CLCA, discusses key methodological advancements, and characterizes previous literature on the topic. Based on this review, we provide an outlook for further research in CLCA.

downloadDownload free PDFView PDFchevron_rightkeyboard_arrow_downView more papers

Related topics

EngineeringaddFollow

Cited by

Life cycle inventory data for the Italian agri-food sector: background, sources and methodological aspectsPietro Renzulli

The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment

Purpose For the development of any life cycle assessment study, the practitioner frequently integrates primary data collected on-field, with background data taken from various life cycle inventory databases which are part of most commercial LCA software packages. However, such data is often not generally applicable to all product systems since, especially concerning the agri-food sector, available datasets may not be fully representative of the site specificity of the food product under examination. In this context, the present work investigates the background, sources and methodological aspects that characterise the most known commercial databases containing agri-food data, with a focus on four agri-food supply chains (olive oil, wine, wheat products and citrus fruit), which represent an important asset for the Italian food sector. Methods Specifically, the paper entails a review of currently available LCI databases and their datasets with a twofold scope: firstly, to understand ho...

downloadDownload free PDFView PDFchevron_rightCritical review of guidelines against a systematic framework with regard to consistency on allocation procedures for recycling in LCAGuido Sonnemann

The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2016

Purpose Multifunctionality in LCA can be solved by several allocation procedures. Various official guidelines give divergent recommendations in which allocation procedure to apply, and up to now, no consensus has been reached. We aim to identify the obstacles to a consistent allocation approach that can be applied to all product categories and is supported by a broad range of stakeholders. Methods Based on a systematic framework for consistent allocation, developed by Schrijvers et al. (Int J Life Cycle Assess, 2016), we identify five review criteria that indicate the degree of consistency in the proposed allocation procedure of official guidelines. Several relevant guidelines, i.e. ISO 14044, ISO/TR 14049, ISO/TS 14067, the ILCD Handbook, BP X30-323-0, PAS 2050, the Greenhouse Gas Protocol, EN15804, PEF Guide and guidance documents for EPDs and PCRs, are reviewed according to these criteria. Results and discussion None of the investigated guidelines fully follows the systematic framework for allocation. Often, different approaches are recommended for co-products and recycled materials, although the boundary between these flows is not always clear. Many guidelines do not recognize the existence of different LCA goals; therefore, elements of attributional and consequential LCAs are often mixed. The market situation of the recycled material is not always taken into account, e.g. in the mandatory 50/50 method of the PEF Guide. The ILCD Handbook and the General Programme Instructions for the International EPD® System provide most consistent guidance. We argue that consistency does not require a one-formula-fits-all method, as this would favour some product categories and only responds to a certain LCA goal. Conclusions and perspectives A critical review of guidelines against a systematic framework for allocation of co-products and recycled materials shows that few guidelines propose a consistent allocation approach. The main obstacles for consistency are the different approaches for co-production and (different types of open-loop) recycling and disregarding of different LCA goals and recycled material markets. We recommend to include material specific guidance in Product Category Rules on the determination of market prices, quality determining factors and relevant material properties for different applications.

downloadDownload free PDFView PDFchevron_rightCircular Economy in the Construction Industry: A Step towards Sustainable DevelopmentMaria Ghufran

Buildings

Construction is a resource-intensive industry where a circular economy (CE) is essential to minimize global impacts and conserve natural resources. A CE achieves long-term sustainability by enabling materials to circulate along the critical supply chains. Accordingly, recent research has proposed a paradigm shift towards CE-based sustainability. However, uncertainties caused by fluctuating raw material prices, scarce materials, increasing demand, consumers’ expectations, lack of proper waste infrastructure, and the use of wrong recycling technologies all lead to complexities in the construction industry (CI). This research paper aims to determine the enablers of a CE for sustainable development in the CI. The system dynamics (SD) approach is utilized for modeling and simulation purposes to address the associated process complexity. First, using content analysis of pertinent literature, ten enablers of a CE for sustainable development in CI were identified. Then, causality among thes...

downloadDownload free PDFView PDFchevron_rightCarbon footprint and energy use of recycled fertilizers in arable farmingJuha Helenius

Journal of Cleaner Production, 2021

The globally growing demand to produce more food with fewer inputs, less energy, and lower greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions challenges current agricultural practices. Recycled fertilizers made of various side streams and types of biomass have been developed mainly to improve nutrient recycling in food systems. However, the knowledge of the impacts of different recycled fertilizers on GHG emissions and energy use is lacking. There is also a need for developing environmental assessment methods for quantifying the impacts of recycling processes, particularly in terms of choosing reasonable methods for co-product allocation. The aims of this study were to address the above mentioned research gaps by i) assessing energy use and GHG emissions of various recycled fertilizers, ii) comparing the recycled fertilizers with mineral fertilizers, and iii) comparing the impacts of using different co-product allocation methods for the recycled fertilizers. Attributional Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) was used for estimating energy use and GHG emissions of recycled fertilizers, including ammonium sulfate, biogas digestate, and meat and bone meal, using kg of nitrogen in the fertilizers as a functional unit. In addition, the energy use and GHG emissions of oat production when using the recycled and mineral fertilizers were quantified. The data were obtained from field experiments, LCA databases, published literature, and fertilizer companies. The life-cycle energy consumption and GHG emissions of recycled fertilizers were found to be lower than that of mineral fertilizer, but also differences between recycled fertilizer products were notable. The biggest differences between fertilizers occurred in manufacturing and transportation. However, this conclusion is highly sensitive to several decisions, such as data sources and LCA methods used. Handling the raw materials of recycled fertilizers as by-products instead of residues adds burdens from primary production to fertilizers. Also handling the materials as waste increases the impacts due to burdens from the recycling process. Since the raw materials of fertilizers have only little economic value, applying economic allocation results to significantly lower impacts than mass allocation. Consequential LCA studies would be needed to improve the understanding of the wider impacts of recycled fertilizers, e.g. considering the benefits of avoided waste management processes.

downloadDownload free PDFView PDFchevron_rightEnd-of-life modelling in life cycle assessment—material or product-centred perspective?Marco Mengarelli

The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2016

Purpose End-of-life (EoL) modelling in life cycle assessment has already been broadly discussed within several studies. However, no consensus has been achieved on how to model recycling in LCA, even though several approaches have been developed. Within this paper, results arising from the application of two new EoL formulas, the product environmental footprint (PEF) and the multi-recycling-approach (MRA) ones, are compared and discussed. Both formulas consider multiple EoL scenarios such as recycling, incineration and landfill. Methods The PEF formula has been developed within the PEF programme whose intent is to define a harmonized methodology to evaluate the environmental performance of products. The formula is based on a 50:50 allocation approach, as burdens and benefits associated with recycling are accounted for a 50% rate. The MRA formula has been developed to change focus from products to materials. Recycling cycles and material losses over time are considered with reference to material pools. Allocation between systems is no longer needed, as the actual number of potential life cycles for a certain material is included in the calculation. Both the approaches have been tested within two case studies. Results and discussion Methodological differences could thereof be determined, as well as applicability concerns, due to the type of data required for each formula. As far as the environmental performance is concerned, impacts delivered by MRA are lower than those delivered by PEF for aluminium, while the opposite happens for plastic and rubber due to the higher share of energy recovery accounted in PEF formula. Stainless steel impacts are almost the same. Conclusions and recommendations The application of the two formulas provides some inputs for the EoL dilemma in LCA. The use of a wider perspective, better reflecting material properties all over the material life cycle, is of substantial importance to properly represent recycling situations. In MRA, such properties are treated and less data are required compared to the PEF formula. On the contrary, the PEF model better accommodates the modelling of products whose materials, at end of life, can undertake the route of recycling or recovery (or landfill), depending on country-specific EoL management practices. However, its application requires more data.

downloadDownload free PDFView PDFchevron_rightTowards more sustainable management of European food waste: Methodological approach and numerical applicationJorge Didier Jimenez Cristobal

Waste management & research : the journal of the International Solid Wastes and Public Cleansing Association, ISWA, 2016

Trying to respond to the latest policy needs, the work presented in this article aims at developing a life-cycle based framework methodology to quantitatively evaluate the environmental and economic sustainability of European food waste management options. The methodology is structured into six steps aimed at defining boundaries and scope of the evaluation, evaluating environmental and economic impacts and identifying best performing options. The methodology is able to accommodate additional assessment criteria, for example the social dimension of sustainability, thus moving towards a comprehensive sustainability assessment framework. A numerical case study is also developed to provide an example of application of the proposed methodology to an average European context. Different options for food waste treatment are compared, including landfilling, composting, anaerobic digestion and incineration. The environmental dimension is evaluated with the software EASETECH, while the economi...

downloadDownload free PDFView PDFchevron_rightLife Cycle Assessment of Solar TechnologiesRana Pant

Methods and Case Studies, 2015

downloadDownload free PDFView PDFchevron_rightAssessment of Implementation of Circular Economy Framework in the Sri Lankan Construction SectorThilina Weerakoon

Baltic Journal of Real Estate Economics and Construction Management

Concerns have been raised that the construction sector in both developed and developing countries has become a major environmental issue. This is mostly due to the excessive use of raw materials and energy sources. Moreover, the industry now follows the “take-make-dispose” linear economic paradigm. The circular economy idea was just brought to the sector based on the fundamental principles “reduce, reuse, recycle”, and yet the construction industry in Sri Lanka has failed to comply with this emerging framework. It is presently being debated throughout the world whether the 3R concept is adequate to achieve optimal industry sustainability. As a result, the 3R principles have lately expanded into a 10R framework. Consequently, the purpose of this article is to determine the possibilities and barriers to implement the 10R framework in the construction sector in Sri Lanka. The study was conducted using a qualitative research method. A semi-structured questionnaire was used to gather dat...

downloadDownload free PDFView PDFchevron_rightCombining Eco-Efficiency and Eco-Effectiveness for Continuous Loop Beverage Packaging Systems: Lessons from the Carlsberg Circular CommunityMichael Hauschild

Journal of Industrial Ecology, 2017

 Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research.  You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain  You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.

downloadDownload free PDFView PDFchevron_rightAssessing the Environmental Sustainability of Food Packaging: An Extended Life Cycle Assessment including Packaging-Related Food Losses and Waste and Circularity AssessmentManfred Tacker

Sustainability, 2019

Food packaging helps to protect food from being lost or wasted, nevertheless it is perceived as an environmental problem. The present study gives an overview of methods to assess the environmental sustainability of food packaging. Furthermore, we propose a methodological framework for environmental assessment of food packaging. There is a broad consensus on the definition of sustainable packaging, which has to be effective, efficient, and safe for human health and the environment. Existing frameworks only provide general guidance on how to quantify the environmental sustainability of packaging. Our proposed framework defines three sustainability aspects of food packaging, namely direct environmental effects of packaging, packaging-related food losses and waste, as well as circularity. It provides a list of key environmental performance indicators and recommends certain calculation procedures for each indicator. The framework is oriented towards the Product Environmental Footprint in...

downloadDownload free PDFView PDFchevron_rightkeyboard_arrow_downView more papers

• Explore
• Papers
• Topics

• Features
• Mentions
• Analytics
• PDF Packages
• Advanced Search
• Search Alerts

• Journals
• Academia.edu Journals
• My submissions
• Reviewer Hub
• Why publish with us
• Testimonials

• Company
• About
• Careers
• Press
• Help Center
• Terms
• Privacy
• Copyright
• Content Policy

580 California St., Suite 400San Francisco, CA, 94104© 2026 Academia. All rights reserved