1 Introduction
1.1 The need for a consistent and comprehensive life-cycle-based environmental assessment method
-
It establishes two methods to measure environmental performance throughout the life cycle, the Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) and the Organisation Environmental Footprint (OEF);
-
It recommends the use of these methods to Member States, companies, private organisations and the financial community through a Commission Recommendation (EC 2013b);
-
It announces a 3-year testing period to develop product- and sector-specific rules through a multi-stakeholder process;
-
It provides principles for communicating environmental performance, such as transparency, reliability, completeness, comparability and clarity.
1.2 The EC environmental footprint methods
1.3 Goal and scope of the end-of-life assessment in the EC EF methods
1.4 System boundaries and EoL allocation
1.5 Objectives and scope of the paper
2 Methods
2.1 Selection of potential EoL approaches and translation into EoL formulas
Formula | Name | Formula |
---|---|---|
1a | 0:100, no credit | EF = E
V + R
2 × E
recycling , EoL + (1 − R
2) × E
D
|
1b | 0:100, credit for avoided virgin productiona
|
\( EF={E}_{\mathrm{V}}+{R}_2\times \left({E}_{\mathrm{recycling},EoL}-{E^{*}}_{\mathrm{V}}\times \frac{Q_{\mathrm{S}}}{Q_{\mathrm{P}}}\right)+\left(1-{R}_2\right)\times {E}_{\mathrm{D}} \)
|
2 | 100:0, no credit | EF = (1 − R
1) × E
V + R
1 × E
recycled + (1 − R
2) × E
D
|
3a | 100:100, no credit | EF = (1 − R
1) × E
V + R
1 × E
recycled + R
2 × E
recycling , EoL + (1 − R
2) × E
D
|
3b | 100:100, credit for avoided virgin productiona
|
\( EF=\left(1-{R}_1\right)\times {E}_{\mathrm{V}}+{R}_1\times {E}_{\mathrm{recycled}}+{R}_2\times \left({E}_{\mathrm{recycling},EoL}-{E^{*}}_{\mathrm{V}}\times \frac{Q_{\mathrm{S}}}{Q_{\mathrm{P}}}\right)+\left(1-{R}_2\right)\times {E}_{\mathrm{D}} \)
|
3c | 100:100, credit for avoided production of mix at input sideb
|
\( EF=\left(1-{R}_1\right)\times {E}_{\mathrm{V}}+{R}_1\times {E}_{\mathrm{recycled}}+{R}_2\times \left({E}_{\mathrm{recycling},EoL}-{E^{*}}_{\mathrm{V}}\times \frac{Q_{\mathrm{S}}}{Q_{\mathrm{P}}}\right)+\left(1-{R}_2\right)\times {E}_{\mathrm{D}} \)
|
3d | 100:100: crediting for avoided virgin production a ratio of min(R
2,|R
2–R
1|)a
|
\( EF=\left(1-{R}_1\right)\times {E}_{\mathrm{V}}+{R}_1\times {E}_{\mathrm{recycled}}+{R}_2\times {E}_{\mathrm{recycling},EoL}- \min \left(\mathrm{abs}\left({R}_2-{R}_1\right),{R}_2\right)\times {E^{*}}_{\mathrm{V}}\times \frac{Q_S}{Q_P}+\left(1-{R}_2\right)\times {E}_{\mathrm{D}} \)
|
4a | 50:50, no credit |
\( EF=\left(1-{R}_1\right)\times {E}_{\mathrm{V}}+\frac{R_1}{2}\times {E}_{\mathrm{recycled}}+\frac{R_2}{2}\times {E}_{\mathrm{recycling},EoL}+\left(1-{R}_2\right)\times {E}_{\mathrm{D}} \)
|
4b | 50:50, credit for avoided virgin production a ratio of R
2/2a
|
\( EF=\left(1-{R}_1\right)\times {E}_{\mathrm{V}}+\frac{R_1}{2}\times {E}_{\mathrm{recycled}}+\frac{R_2}{2}\times \left({E}_{\mathrm{recycling},EoL}-{E^{*}}_{\mathrm{V}}\times \frac{Q_{\mathrm{S}}}{Q_{\mathrm{P}}}\right)+\left(1-{R}_2\right)\times {E}_{\mathrm{D}} \)
|
5 | BPX 50/50_adapteda, c
|
\( EF=\left(1-\frac{R_1}{2}\right)\times {E}_{\mathrm{V}}+\frac{R_1}{2}\times {E}_{\mathrm{recycled}}+\frac{R_2}{2}\times \left({E}_{\mathrm{recycling},EoL}-{E^{*}}_{\mathrm{V}}\times \frac{Q_{\mathrm{S}}}{Q_{\mathrm{P}}}\right)+\left(1-\frac{R_1}{2}-\frac{R_2}{2}\right)\times {E}_{\mathrm{D}} \)
|
6 | Degressive, linearly | For all except R
1 = R
2 = 1:\( EF=\left(1-{R}_1\right)\times \left(\frac{\left(2\times n-1\right)}{n^2}\times {E}_V+\frac{E_D}{n^2}\right)+\left(1-{R}_2\right)\times \left(\frac{E_{\mathrm{V}}}{n^2}+\frac{\left(2\times n-1\right)}{n^2}\times {E}_{\mathrm{D}}\right)+\frac{R_1}{2}\times {E}_{\mathrm{recycled}}+\frac{R_2}{2}\times {E}_{\mathrm{recycling},EoL} \)
|
For R
1 = R
2 = 1: \( EF=\left(\frac{E_{\mathrm{V}}}{n}+\frac{E_{\mathrm{D}}}{n}\right)+0.5\times {E}_{\mathrm{recycled}}+0.5\times {E}_{\mathrm{recycling},EoL} \)
|
2.1.1 Approaches considered for the allocation of the environmental burdens of recycling
-
Full allocation of the recycling impact to the product producing a recycled material and no burdens allocated to downstream products using input recycled materials (sometimes referred to as 0:100 approach or recyclability substitution approach or EoL recycling approach) (formula 1a + 1b in Table 1);
-
Full allocation of the recycling impact to the product using a recycled material, with no burdens from recycling operations allocated to the upstream product (sometimes referred to as 100:0 approach or recycled content approach or cutoff approach) (formula 2 in Table 1);
-
Full allocation of the recycling impact to both the product producing a recycled material and also to the product using a recycled material (sometimes referred to as 100:100 approach) (formula 3a–d in Table 1);
-
Fifty-per cent allocation of the recycling impact to the product producing a recycled material and 50% to the product using the recycled material (sometimes referred to as 50:50 approach) (formula 4a + 4b in Table 1);
-
BPX 50/50-based approach. This approach does not only distribute the impacts due to recycling in a 50:50 manner but also the virgin and disposal impact over the different products in the overall product cascade system (formula 5 in Table 1). It should be noted that we slightly adapted the original BPX 50/50 formula to enable differentiating between recycled content (E recycled) and recyclability (E recycling,EoL) and to enable considering changes in inherent material properties (as was identified to be necessary for the purpose of the EC EF methods).
2.1.2 Approaches considered for the allocation of the credits due to recycling
-
For the 0:100 approach:
-
No credit (formula 1a);
-
Credit for the avoided virgin production a ratio of the R 2. It is thus assumed that the recycled material from the product life cycle analysed replaces virgin material in the expanded system (formula 1b);
-
-
For the 100:0 approach:
-
No credit (formula 2);
-
-
For the 100:100 approach:
-
No credit (formula 3a);
-
Credit for the avoided virgin production a ratio of the R 2. It is thus assumed that the recycled material from the product life cycle analysed replaces virgin material in the expanded system (formula 3b);
-
Credit for the avoided virgin production but to a smaller extent: i.e. a ratio of the minimum of the R 2 or difference between R 2 and recycled content (R 1; i.e. min(R 2,|R 2–R 1|)). This would, for example equal 40% (instead of 80%) for product B in Fig. 1 (formula 3c);
-
Credit for the avoided production of the production mix (virgin + recycled content) at input side a ratio of the R 2. In this case, it is assumed that the recycled material from the product life cycle analysed replaces the same input mix in the expanded system (formula 3d);
-
-
For the 50:50 approach:
-
No credit (formula 4a);
-
Credit for the avoided virgin production a ratio of R 2/2. It is thus assumed that the recycled material from the product life cycle analysed replaces virgin material in the expanded system (formula 4b);
-
-
The BPX approach credits for avoided virgin production a ratio of R 2/2. It furthermore differs from the 50:50 approach with credits (as analysed in this paper) in distributing also both the virgin production and disposal impacts over the different products in the overall system.
-
EF: emissions and resources consumed (per unit of analysis) arising from the production and the EoL stages of the product life cycle.1
-
E V = emissions and resources consumed (per unit of analysis) arising from the acquisition and pre-processing of virgin material.
-
E*V = emissions and resources consumed (per unit of analysis) arising from the acquisition and pre-processing of virgin material assumed to be substituted by recyclable materials.
-
E recycled = emissions and resources consumed (per unit of analysis) arising from the production process of the recycled material, including collection, sorting and transportation processes.
-
E recyclingEoL = emissions and resources consumed (per unit of analysis) arising from the recycling process at the EoL, including collection, sorting, transportation and recycled material production processes.
-
E D = emissions and resources consumed (per unit of analysis) arising from disposal of waste material (e.g. landfilling, incineration and pyrolysis).
-
R 1 (dimensionless) = “recycled content of material”, is the proportion of material in the input to the production that has been recycled in a previous system (0 = <R 1 < = 1).
-
R 2 (dimensionless) = “recycling fraction of material”, is the proportion of the material in the product that will be recycled in a subsequent system, i.e. the rate between recycled output and virgin material input. R 2 shall therefore take into account the inefficiencies in the collection and recycling processes (0 = <R 2 = <1).
-
Q S = quality of the secondary material, i.e. the quality of the recycled material.
-
Q P = quality of the primary material, i.e. the quality of the virgin material.
-
n = the number of recycling cycles, i.e. the number of subsequent products produced out of virgin material.
2.2 Description of the analysis
-
“Distribution in a cascade system”: this refers to a “fair” distribution of burdens and benefits over the different products in the cascade system. The term “fair” is debatable and depends on the perspective of the individual. The assessment of this criterion in the paper reflects how the different formulas fit different viewpoints on “fairness”. This criterion is hence analysed from different viewpoints and is not an excluding criterion, only an informative one. This criterion relates to the objectives of being comprehensive and being physically correct;
-
“Practicality”: applicability to the majority of the products on the market. This criterion evaluates the feasibility of the chosen allocation approach and relates to the objective of being applicable for any product on the market.
2.2.1 First analytical step
2.2.2 Second analytical step
E
V
|
E
recycled = E
recycling, EoL
|
E
D
|
Q
S/Q
P
| Unit of impact | Source | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Aluminium | 9.7 | 0.5 | 0 | 1 |
\( {\mathrm{kg}\ CO}_{2^{-}}\mathrm{eq}./\mathrm{kg} \)
| EAA 2008
|
Paper | 0.6 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 0.5 |
\( {\mathrm{kg}\ CO}_{2^{-}}\mathrm{eq}./\mathrm{kg} \)
| SCA 2014
a
|
PVC | 2.01 | 0.32 | 0.0659 | 1 |
\( {\mathrm{kg}\ CO}_{2^{-}}\mathrm{eq}./\mathrm{kg} \)
| Ecoinvent v2.2b
|
EX 1, E
R > E
V
| 9.7 | 15 | 0 | 1 |
\( {\mathrm{kg}\ CO}_{2^{-}}\mathrm{eq}./\mathrm{kg} \)
| – |
EX 2, E
R = 0.5E
V
| 9.7 | 5 | 0 | 1 |
\( {\mathrm{kg}\ CO}_{2^{-}}\mathrm{eq}./\mathrm{kg} \)
| – |
EX 3, E
D > E
V
| 9.7 | 0.5 | 15 | 1 |
\( {\mathrm{kg}\ CO}_{2^{-}}\mathrm{eq}./\mathrm{kg} \)
| – |
Recycled content (R
1) | Recyclability (R
2) |
---|---|
0% | 0% |
100% | 100% |
0% | 100% |
100% | 0% |
80% | 30% |
30% | 80% |
30% | 95% |
3 Results
3.1 Results of the first step of the analysis (inventory level)
-
None of the formulas enables physically realistic results at both the product and the overall system level. It confirms the fact that priority needs to be given to one of both;
-
Only one formula, i.e. the 100:100 approach without credits, enables a correct physical result at the product level for the three products considered;
-
Five formulas provide a realistic modelling at the overall system level:
-
Crediting for avoided virgin production, 0:100;
-
Without crediting, 100:0;
-
Without crediting, 50:50;
-
BPX 50/50_adapted;
-
Degressive linearly
-
-
The distribution in a cascade system criterion is a more debatable one, but overall in any product-oriented approach, the following questions are to be considered:
-
Should the impact of the virgin production be entirely allocated to the first product in the chain? If so, approaches “50:50, no credit”, “100:100, no credit” and “100:0, no credit” are in line with this idea.
-
Or should the products which use recycled material out of this virgin production also be allocated part of the impacts as this virgin production was needed to produce the recycled material? If so, approaches “BPX 50/50_adapted” and “degressive linearly” are in line with this idea but consider different allocation rules;
-
Should the impact of the recycling process be entirely allocated to the product producing the recycled material? This is the approach followed by the approaches “100:0”. Or should it be allocated to the product using the recycled material, as is assumed by “0:100” approaches? Or to both, as for the “100:100” approach? Or should it be (evenly) distributed between the two products, as for the “50:50”, BPX 50/50_adapted and degressive linearly approaches?;
-
Should the impact of disposal entirely be allocated to the disposed product? The majority of the methods are in line with this idea except for BPX 50/50_adapted and degressive linearly because these allocate part of the disposal impact to previous products in the overall system;
-
-
The formula with the highest level of practicality (+++) is the “100:0_no credit” formula because it does not require to estimate the impact due to recycling at EoL nor the change in inherent properties. There are three approaches which score a little lower on the practicality criterion (++) because they do require to estimate the impact due to the recycling at EoL, i.e. the “0:100_no credit”, “100:100_no credit” and the “50:50_no credit” approaches. These however do not require knowing the avoided virgin production due to recycling at EoL. The latter is however required by the remaining formulas and these are therefore identified to have an even lower practicality level (+). The degressive linearly method scores the worst on this criterion because it requires to know the number of times a product is being recycled. This number is however unknown and difficult to predict. Although proposals are made to estimate this parameter (Yamada et al. 2006), to date, the uncertainty of this parameter is to be seen as high for many products;
-
Changes in inherent material properties are taken into account by all approaches except for the approaches without crediting. For the majority of the methods, the changes in inherent material properties is captured by considering changes in material qualities (Q S/Q P), except for the degressive linearly method which considers this implicitly in the number of times (n) a product or material is being recycled;
-
Final remarks:
-
The BPX 50/50_adapted approach distributes the disposal impact over the different products. It does however not make a difference in the impact due to disposal of the different products in the overall system. As long as the disposal impacts are the same for the different products in the chain, this differentiation is not important. However, when the impact due to disposal is different for the different products in the overall system, a differentiation is needed to ensure physical realism at the overall system level.
-
This can be illustrated based on the example in Fig. 1. The BPX 50/50_adapted approach results in the following environmental impact for the three products (assuming there is no quality difference between the three products):
-
-
The degressive linearly approach is the only method considering the number of times (n) a product or material is being recycled. The higher this number, the lower the impact of the products. If, for example, there would be a product B′ added in the overall system analysed in Table 4, n would increase from three to four products and the impact of product A would reduce to 7/16V + 1/16D + 0.5R, the impact of product B = B′ would reduce to 4/16V + 4/16D + R and the impact of product C to 1/16 V + 7/16D + 0.5R. The mass balance of the overall system remains correct.
-
The degressive linearly consists of two formulas while the aim of the EF is to have a single formula to ensure consistency. If this approach would be chosen for the EC EF, the two formulas would need to be transformed in a single formula.
1Approach | Credits | Physical realism | Distribution in a cascade system | Practicality | Other comments | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Product A | Product B | Product C | Products A + B + C | |||||||
R
1 = 0, R
2 = 1 |
R
1 = R
2 = 1 |
R
1 = 1, R
2 = 0 | Overall system | Virgin production | Recycling | Disposal | ||||
0:100 | No |
V + R
a
|
V + R
b
|
V + D
b
| 3V + 2R + D
b
| Allocated to all products | Only recyclability considered | Allocated to last product | ++ | |
Virgin a ratio R
2
|
R
b
|
R
b
|
V + D
b
|
V + 2R + D
a
| Allocated to last product | + | ||||
100:0 | No |
V
b
|
R
b
|
R + D
b
|
V + 2R + D
a
| Allocated to 1st product | Only recycled content considered | Allocated to last product | +++ | |
100:100 | No |
V + R
a
| 2R
a
|
R + D
a
|
V + 4R + D
b
| Allocated to 1st product | Allocated to both previous and next product | Allocated to last product | ++ | |
Virgin a ratio R
2
|
R
b
| 2R − V
b
|
R + D
a
| 4R + D − V
b
| No burden, only benefit | + | ||||
Input mix a ratio R
2
|
R
b
|
R
b
|
R + D
a
| 3R + D
b
| No burden | No consistent allocation | + | |||
Virgin a ratio min(R
2,|R
2–R
1|) |
R
b
| 2R
a
|
R + D
a
| 4R + D
b
| No burden | Allocated to both previous and next product | + | |||
50:50 | No |
V + 0.5R
b
|
R
b
| 0.5R + D
b
|
V + 2R + D
a
| Allocated to 1st product | 50% allocated to previous and next product | Allocated to last product | ++ | |
Virgin a ratio R
2/2 | 0.5V + 0.5R
b
|
R − 0.5V
b
| 0.5R + D
b
| 2R + D
b
| 50% allocated to 1st product | + | ||||
BPX 50/50 adapted | Virgin a ratio R
2/2 | 0.5V + 0.5R + 0.5D
b
|
R
b
| 0.5V + 0.5R + 0.5D
b
|
V + 2R + D
a
| 50% allocated to 1st and last product, nothing to product(s) in between | 50% allocated to previous and next product | 50% allocated to 1st and last product, nothing to product(s) in between | + |
E
D assumed to be equal for all products, while it might differ. |
Degressive linearly | No | 5/9V + 1/9D + 0.5R
b
| 3/9V + 3/9D + R
b
| 1/9V + 5/9D + 0.5R
b
|
V + 2R + D
a
| Allocated to all products degressively | 50% allocated to previous and next product | Allocated to all products degressively | − | Considers the number of times a product is recycled (n). |