Abstract
Purpose
How to apply allocation in an life cycle assessment (LCA) is a long-running and controversial debate. Consensus seems to exist on the fact that the allocation procedure should follow logically from the LCA goal definition. This paper proposes to use an axiomatic method to (1) identify an allocation procedure for co-production, joint treatment, and recycling, that best responds to a specific LCA goal and (2) communicate the rationale applied by the LCA practitioner transparently. The method is illustrated via a case study.
Materials and methods
The specific goal definition for which a suitable allocation procedure is identified is to evaluate what impacts can be attributed to a product, which could inform a company about potential sources of reputation damage. Subjective assumptions that reflect our vision of “what impacts can be attributed to a product” are described in definitions and axioms.
Results and discussion
Axioms are formulated that describe the system boundaries of the product system and the partitioning criterion. The derived allocation procedure corresponds to “Allocation at the Point of Substitution,” which is applied in one of the system models of ecoinvent. Partitioning is based on market information, which corresponds to a cause-oriented perspective on “what impacts can be attributed to a product.” Other LCA goal definitions and rationales could require different system boundaries or a different partitioning criterion.
Conclusions and perspectives
The axiomatic method presented in this paper supports the identification of a suitable allocation procedure for a defined LCA goal and the transparent communication of the rationale that backs up this procedure. Building forth on the approach of this paper, a collection of axioms and corresponding allocation procedures could be developed on which consensus might exist within the LCA community. Such goal-dependent allocation procedures could form the basis of future guidance on LCA.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
Our manuscript has no associated data.
Notes
In the case of combined production, the production quantities of the co-products are independently variable. In joint production, the relative output volume of the co-products is fixed (Frischknecht 2000; Weidema 2000). Allocation is not necessary in combined production as the specific inventory related to a single co-product can be modeled following physical relationships (Azapagic and Clift 1999).
“Analytic work begins with material provided by our vision of things, and this vision is ideological almost by definition. It embodies the picture of things as we see them, and wherever there is any possible motive for wishing to see them in a given rather than another light, the way in which we see things can hardly be distinguished from the way in which we wish to see them.” (Schumpeter 1954, p. 40)
In response to the question “Why do magnets repel each other?” Feynman explains the difficulties of the “why” question. He uses an example of Aunt Minnie who is in the hospital. Why is she in the hospital? Because she went outside, slipped on the ice, and broke her hip. This answer can be satisfying if you understand that people who break their hip go to the hospital, and if you understand that ice is slippery. However, you could continue asking the “why” question. Why is ice slippery? This could go on until you reach a statement on which there is a common understanding or agreement.
References
Ardente F, Cellura M (2012) Economic allocation in life cycle assessment. J Ind Ecol 16:387–398. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2011.00434.x
Ardente F, Talens Peiró L, Mathieux F, Polverini D (2018) Accounting for the environmental benefits of remanufactured products: method and application. J Clean Prod 198:1545–1558. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.012
Azapagic A, Clift R (1999) Allocation of environmental burdens in co-product systems: product-related burdens (Part 1). J Clean Prod 7:101–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-6526(98)00046-8
EC, European Parliament, Council of the European Union (2008) Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives
Ecosystem.eco (2020) Documentation et ressources. https://www.ecosystem.eco/fr/liste-ressource/documentation?tags=(36). Accessed 1 Dec 2020
Ekvall T, Finnveden G (2001) Allocation in ISO 14041—a critical review. J Clean Prod 9:197–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-6526(00)00052-4
Ekvall T, Tillman A-M (1997) Open-loop recycling: criteria for allocation procedures. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2:155. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02978810
ERP France (2020) DEEE. https://erp-recycling.org/fr-fr/deee/. Accessed 1 Dec 2020
European Commission (2016) The ‘Blue Guide’ on the implementation of EU products rules 2016
Frischknecht R (2000) Allocation in life cycle inventory analysis for joint production. MIIM LCA PhD Club 179:85–95. https://doi.org/10.1065/lca2000.02.013
Gereffi G, Fernandez-Stark K (2016) Global value chain analysis: A Primer, 2nd Edition
Guinée JB, Heijungs R, Huppes G (2004) Economic allocation: examples and derived decision tree. Int J Life Cycle Assess 9:23. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02978533
Heijungs R (1994) The problem of allocation: some more complications. In: Huppes G, Schneider F (eds) Proceedings of the European workshop on allocation in LCA. CML, Leiden
Heijungs R (1997) Economic drama and the environmental stage—formal derivation of algorithmic tools from a unified epistemological principle. Dissertation, Rijksuniversiteit Leiden
Heijungs R (1998) Towards eco-efficiency with LCA’s prevention principle: an epistemological foundation of LCA using axioms. In: Klostermann JEM, Tukker A (eds) Product innovation and eco-efficiency. Twenty-three industry efforts to reach the factor 4. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 175–185
Heijungs R, Guinée JB (2007) Allocation and “what-if” scenarios in life cycle assessment of waste management systems. Waste Manag 27:997–1005. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2007.02.013
ISO (2012) ISO/TR 14049: Environmental management—life cycle assessment—illustrative examples on how to apply IS0 14044 to goal and scope definition and inventory analysis. The International Organization for Standardization (ISO), Geneva, Switzerland
ISO (2006) ISO 14044 - Environmental management—life cycle assessment—requirements and guidelines. The International Organization for Standardization (ISO), Geneva, Switzerland
Lueddeckens S, Saling P, Guenther E (2020) Temporal issues in life cycle assessment—a systematic review. Int J Life Cycle Assess 25:1385–1401. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-020-01757-1
Margonelli L (2009) Clean energy’s dirty little secret. In: Atl. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/05/clean-energys-dirty-little-secret/307377/. Accessed 10 Nov 2020
Ministère de l’Environnement de l’Energie et de la Mer (2016) Le principe de la responsabilité élargie du producteur. http://www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/Le-principe-de-la-responsabilite,12046.html. Accessed 20 Nov 2016
Müller LJ, Kätelhön A, Bringezu S et al (2020) The carbon footprint of the carbon feedstock CO2. Energy Environ Sci 13:2979–2992. https://doi.org/10.1039/d0ee01530j
Pelletier N, Ardente F, Brandão M et al (2014) Rationales for and limitations of preferred solutions for multi-functionality problems in LCA: is increased consistency possible? Int J LCA. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-014-0812-4
Pelletier N, Tyedmers P (2011) An ecological economic critique of the use of market information in life cycle assessment research. J Ind Ecol 15:342–354. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2011.00337.x
Schrijvers D, Loubet P, Sonnemann G (2020) Archetypes of goal and scope definitions for consistent allocation in LCA. Sustainability 12:5587. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12145587
Schrijvers DL, Loubet P, Sonnemann G (2016a) Developing a systematic framework for consistent allocation in LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 21:976–993. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1063-3
Schrijvers DL, Loubet P, Sonnemann G (2016b) Critical review of guidelines against a systematic framework with regard to consistency on allocation procedures for recycling in LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 21:994–1008. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1069-x
Schumpeter JA (1954) History of Economic Analysis
Sonnemann GW, Vigon BW (2011) Global guidance principles for life cycle assessment databases—a basis for greener processes and products. France, Paris
The Atlantic (2010) Richard Feynman explains magnets (and pretty much everything else). http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2010/11/richard-feynman-explains-magnets-and-pretty-much-everything-else/66201/. Accessed 24 Jan 2017
Weidema B (2000) Avoiding co-product allocation in life-cycle assessment. J Ind Ecol 4:11–33. https://doi.org/10.1162/108819800300106366
Weidema BP (2017) In search of a consistent solution to allocation of joint production. J Ind Ecol 0:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12571
Weidema BP, Bauer C, Hischier R, et al (2013) Overview and methodology—data quality guideline for the ecoinvent database version 3. Ecoinvent Report 1 (v3). St. Gallen: The ecoinvent Centre
Weidema BP, Ekvall T, Heijungs R (2009) Guidelines for application of deepened and broadened LCA - Deliverable D18 of work package 5 of the CALCAS project
Weidema BP, Pizzol M, Schmidt J, Thoma G (2018) Attributional or consequential life cycle assessment: a matter of social responsibility. J Clean Prod 174:305–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.340
Weinzettel J, Pelletier N, Tyedmers P (2012) 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.” J Ind Ecol 16:455–456. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00460.x
Acknowledgements
We are grateful for the contributions of the Solvay Research and Innovation team “Eco-design, Modeling and Simulation” to the manuscript, especially from Jean-François Viot and Françoise Lartigue-Peyrou. Furthermore, we greatly appreciate the critical reflections of Reinout Heijungs, Ellen Bracquené, and two anonymous reviewers to this paper, which allowed us to improve its quality.
Funding
We received financial support from the Solvay and the French National Association for Technical Research (CIFRE Convention No. 2013/ 1146) for the Ph.D. study of the first author.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Communicated by Hans-Jürgen Garvens
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Schrijvers, D.L., Loubet, P. & Sonnemann, G. An axiomatic method for goal-dependent allocation in life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 26, 1223–1235 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-021-01932-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-021-01932-y