Advertisement

Are we still keeping it “real”? Proposing a revised paradigm for recycling credits in attributional life cycle assessment

  • Christoph KofflerEmail author
  • Matthias Finkbeiner
COMMENTARY AND DISCUSSION ARTICLE

Abstract

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 “system expansion through substitution” and “future 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.

Keywords

LCA LCI End-of-life Recyling Allocation 

Supplementary material

11367_2017_1404_MOESM1_ESM.xlsx (177 kb)
ESM 1 (XLSX 177 kb)

References

  1. Allacker K, Mathieux F, Pennington D, Pant R (2017) The search for an appropriate end-of-life formula for the purpose of the European Commission Environmental Footprint initiative. Int J Life Cycle Assess 22(9):1441–1458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Atherton J (2007) Declaration by the metals industry on recycling principles. Int J Life Cycle Asssess 12(1):59–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Attanasio A et al (2017) Towards greener concrete: the challenges of SUS-CON project. In: Hordijk D, Luković M (eds) High tech concrete: where technology and engineering meet. Springer, Berlin, pp 2373–2381Google Scholar
  4. Baitz M et al (2013) LCA’s theory and practice: like ebony and ivory living in perfect harmony? Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(1):5–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bohnacker J (1998) Einfluß von Recyclingverfahren auf die umweltliche Produktbilanz. Shaker Verlag, AachenGoogle Scholar
  6. Bontempi E (2017) A new approach for evaluating the sustainability of raw materials substitution based on embodied energy and the CO2 footprint. J Clean Prod 162:162–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. CEN (2012) EN 15804:2012—sustainability of construction works—environmental product declarations—core rules for the product category of construction products. Brussels: European Committee for StandardizationGoogle Scholar
  8. den Hollander MC, Bakker CA, Hultink EJ (2017) Product design in a circular economy—development of a typology of key concepts and terms. J Ind Ecol 21(3):517–525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Densley Tingley D, Davison B (2012) Developing an LCA methodology to account for the environmental benefits of design for deconstruction. Build Environ 57:387–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Finkbeiner M, Neugebauer S, Berger M (2013) Carbon footprint of recycled biogenic products: the challenge of modelling CO2 removal credits. Int J Sustain Eng 6(1).  https://doi.org/10.1080/19397038.2012.663414
  11. Frischknecht R (2010) LCI modelling approaches applied on recycling of materials in view of environmental sustainability, risk perception and eco-efficiency. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15(7):666–671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Han M et al (2017) Global water transfers embodied in Mainland China’s foreign trade: production- and consumption-based perspectives. J Clean Prod 161:188–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Heijungs R (2014) Ten easy lessons for good communication of LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:473–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. ISO (2006a) ISO 14040—environmental management—life cycle assessment—principles and framework. Geneva: International Organization for StandardizationGoogle Scholar
  15. ISO (2006b) ISO 14044—environmental management—life cycle assessment—requirements and guidelines. Geneva: International Organization for StandardizationGoogle Scholar
  16. ISO (2012) ISO/TR 14049—environmental management—life cycle assessment—illustrative examples on how to apply ISO 14044 to goal and scope definition and inventory analysis. Geneva: International Organization for StandardizationGoogle Scholar
  17. Koffler C (2014) Reply to “Ten easy lessons for good communication of LCA” by Reinout Heijungs. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:1170–1171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Koffler C, Florin J (2013) Tackling the downcycling issue—a revised approach to value-corrected substitution in life cycle assessment of aluminum (VCS 2.0). Sustainability 5:4546–4560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Koffler C, Wang JM (2017) Comment on “Toward estimating displaced primary production from recycling—a case study of U.S. aluminum” by Zink et al. (2017). J Ind Ecol. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12656
  20. Krinke S, Bossdorf-Zimmer B, Goldmann D (2005) Executive summary—life cycle assessment of end-of-life vehicle treatment. Volkswagen AG, WolfsburgGoogle Scholar
  21. Lindeijer E (1994) Allocating recycling for integrated chain management: taking account of quality losses. SETAC, BrüsselGoogle Scholar
  22. Mengarelli M et al (2017) End-of-life modelling in life cycle assessment—material or product-centred perspective? Int J Life Cycle Assess 22(8):1288–1301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Popper KR (1972) Objective knowledge: an evolutionary approach. Revised edition ed. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  24. Schrijvers D, Loubet P, Sonnemann G (2016) Developing a systematic framework for consistent allocation in LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 21(7):976–993CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sitang L, Huiqiang L (2005) Quantitative assessment on the embodied environmental impact of concrete with or without fly ash. J Wuhan Univ Technol 20(3):99–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sodersten C-J, Wood R, Hertwich EG (2017) Environmental impacts of capital formation. J Ind Ecol.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12532
  27. Talens Peiro L, Ardente F, Mathieux F (2017) Design for disassembly criteria in EU product policies for a more circular economy: a method for analyzing battery packs in PC-tablet and subnotebooks. J Ind Ecol 21(3):731–741CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. The Quartz Project, 2015. The Quartz Common Products Database. [Online] Available at: http://quartzproject.org/[Accessed 10 July 2017]
  29. Vadenbo C, Hellweg S, Astrup TF (2016) Let’s be clear(er) about substitution—a reporting framework to account for product displacement in life cycle assessment. J Ind Ecol.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12519
  30. Weidema BP (2003) Market information in life cycle assessment, Copenhagen. Danish Environmental Protection AgencyGoogle Scholar
  31. Weidema BP (2017) In search of a consistent solution to allocation of joint production. J Ind Ecol.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12571
  32. Werner F (2002) Treatment of aluminium recycling in LCA—development and evaluation of the value-corrected substitution procedure. EMPA, DuebendorfGoogle Scholar
  33. Wilts H et al (2016) Benefits of resource efficiency in Germany, Wuppertal: Wuppertal Institute worldsteel (2011) Life Cycle Assessment Methodology Report, Brussels: worldsteel associationGoogle Scholar
  34. worldsteel (2011) Methodology report — Life cycle inventory study for steel products. worldsteel association, Brussels. Available at https://www.worldsteel.org/en/dam/jcr:6a222ba2-e35a-4126-83ab-5ae5a79e6e46/LCA+Methodology+Report.pdf. Accessed: Oct. 12, 2017
  35. Wu X, Chen G (2017) Energy and water nexus in power generation: the surprisingly high amount of industrial water use induced by solar power infrastructure in China. Appl Energ 195:125–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Zink T, Geyer R (2017) Circular economy rebound. J Ind Ecol 21(3):593–602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Zink T, Geyer R, Startz R (2015) A market-based framework for quantifying displaced production from recycling or reuse. J Ind Ecol 20(4):719–729CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Zink T, Geyer R, Startz R (2017) Toward estimating displaced primary production from recycling—a case study of U.S. aluminum. J Ind Ecol.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12557

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.thinkstep Inc.BostonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Environmental TechnologyTechnical University BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations