Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Method based on market changes for improvement of comparative attributional life cycle assessments

  • LCI METHODOLOGY AND DATABASES
  • Published:
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Current comparative life cycle assessment (LCA) studies claim to answer whether it is better or worse for the environment to change from old to new systems. Most commonly, the attributional LCA (ALCA) is practised despite its limitations to describe market effects. Hence, an attempt is done here to include market effects in the ALCA practice for comparisons in order to improve ALCA. The purpose is neither to investigate which LCA concept, ALCA, consequential LCA or decisional LCA, is the best for comparisons nor which is the best for decision-making.

Methods

Here, for the first time, a method based on marked changes which can be used for sensitivity checks of comparative ALCAs, advanced ALCA (AALCA) is presented. The new concept of global change mix factors (GCMF) is introduced. The method, based on accessible market data, is applied to previous comparative ALCAs of conductive adhesives, cooling modules used in radio base stations, office computing systems, as well as personal devices usage, here represented by multifunctional smartphones replacing other devices such as digital cameras.

Results and discussion

The results show that AALCA based on market data improves the understanding and can act as a sensitivity check of comparative ALCA results. For declining markets of products, with relatively high eco-environmental impacts, the difference between comparative AALCA and ALCA can be significant. As AALCA is founded in marginal electricity thinking and uses market data, there are similarities between AALCA and simplistic consequential LCA (CLCA). However, AALCA is not intended to replace CLCA or decisional LCA (DLCA).

Conclusions

By applying allocation factors, GCMF, based on real or future market changes, the interdependence of global markets and micro-level LCA shifts can be taken into account in comparative micro-level ALCA studies and make them more robust. Further, the sensitivity of using price units instead of physical units, as the basis for the GCMF, should be investigated. The degree to which AALCA and CLCA can complement each other should be examined. Also, the degree to which the GCMF used in AALCA-H address rebound effects should be further explored. The annual eco-environmental impacts of mobile devices towards 2020 are also of interest, and more LCA case studies are welcome.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Andersen O (2013) Unintended consequences of renewable energy: problems to be solved. Springer

  • Andrae ASG, Östermark U, Liu J (2000) Life cycle assessment of a telecommunications exchange. J Electron Manuf 10:147–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andrae ASG, Itsubo N, Yamaguchi H, Inaba A (2008) Life cycle assessment of Japanese high-temperature conductive adhesives. Environ Sci Technol 42:3084–3089

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Andrae ASG (2009) Global life cycle impact assessments of material shifts: the example of a lead-free electronics industry. Springer

  • Andrae ASG, Andersen O (2010) Life cycle assessments of consumer electronics—are they consistent? Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:827–836

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andrae ASG, Andersen O (2011) Life cycle assessment of integrated circuit packaging technologies. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16:258–267

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Andrae ASG (2013) Comparative micro life cycle assessment of physical and virtual desktops in a cloud computing network with consequential, efficiency, and rebound considerations. J Green Eng 3:193–218

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrae ASG, Corcoran PM (2013) Emerging trends in electricity consumption for consumer ICT. http://vmserver14.nuigalway.ie/xmlui/handle/10379/3563. Accessed: 17 June 2014

  • Benoît C (ed) (2010) Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products. United Nations Environment Programme

  • Corcoran PM, Andrae ASG (2014) On thin-clients and the cloud; can smartphones and tablets really reduce electricity consumption?. In 2014 I.E. International Conference on Consumer Electronics (ICCE), Las Vegas, NA, pp 81–84

  • Croft McKenzie E, Durango-Cohen PL (2010) An input-output approach for the efficient design of sustainable goods and services. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:946–961

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dandres T, Gaudreault C, Tirado-Seco P, Samson R (2011) Assessing non-marginal variations with consequential LCA: application to European energy sector. Renew Sust Energ Rev 15:3121–3132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ekvall T, Andrae ASG (2006) Attributional and consequential environmental assessment of the shift to lead-free solders. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11:344–353

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (EC) (2010) The International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) handbook—general guide for life cycle assessment—detailed guidance. European Commission, Joint Research Centre. Publications office of the European Union, Luxemburg

  • European Telecommunications Standards Institute (2011) ETSI TS 103 199 V1.1.1 (2011–11) Environmental Engineering (EE); Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of ICT equipment, networks and services; General methodology and common requirements

  • Fleck B, Huot M (2009) Comparative life-cycle assessment of a small wind turbine for residential off-grid use. Renew Energ 34:2688–2696

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Frischknecht R, Stucki M (2010) Scope-dependent modelling of electricity supply in life cycle assessments. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:806–816

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Graedel TE, Allwood J, Birat JP, Buchert M, Hagelüken C, Reck BK, Sonnemann G (2011) Recycling rates of metals: a status report. United Nations Environment Programme

  • Hertwich EG (2005) Consumption and the rebound effect: an industrial ecology perspective. J Ind Ecol 9:85–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Igos E, Benetto E, Baudin I, Tiruta-Barna L, Mery Y, Arbault D (2013a) Cost-performance indicator for comparative environmental assessment of water treatment plants. Sci Total Environ 443:367–374

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Igos E, Benetto E, Venditti S, Köhler C, Cornelissen A (2013b) Comparative and integrative environmental assessment of advanced wastewater treatment processes based on an average removal of pharmaceuticals. Water Sci Technol J Int Assoc Water Pollut Res 67:387–394

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • ISO (2006a) 14040 - Environmental management—life cycle assessment—principles and framework

  • ISO (2006b) 14044 - Environmental management—life cycle assessment–requirements and guidelines

  • Jackson R (2014) An integrated environmental and economic modeling framework for technological transitions (No. 201401) http://www.rri.wvu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Jackson_WP2014-01_WRSA2014Jackson.pdf. Accessed 17 June 2014

  • Jung J, von der Assen N, Bardow A (2013) Comparative LCA of multi-product processes with non-common products: a systematic approach applied to chlorine electrolysis technologies. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:828–839

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Merciai S, Schmidt JH, Dalgaard R (2011) Inventory of country specific electricity in LCA – India. 2.0 LCA consultants, Aalborg, Denmark

  • Mutel CL, de Baan L, Hellweg S (2013) Two-step sensitivity testing of parametrized and regionalized life cycle assessments: methodology and case study. Environ Sci Technol 47:5660–5667

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plevin RJ, Delucchi MA, Creutzig F (2014) Using attributional life cycle assessment to estimate climate‐change mitigation benefits misleads policy makers. J Ind Ecol 18:73–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renouf MA, Pagan RJ, Wegener MK (2011) Life cycle assessment of Australian sugarcane products with a focus on cane processing. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16:125–137

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Reinhard J, Zah R (2009) Global environmental consequences of increased biodiesel consumption in Switzerland: consequential life cycle assessment. J Clean Prod 17(S1):S46–S56

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rajagopal D, Zilberman D (2013) On market-mediated emissions and regulations on life cycle emissions. Ecol Econ 90:77–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt JH (2010) Comparative life cycle assessment of rapeseed oil and palm oil. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:183–197

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Suh S, Weidema B, Schmidt JH, Heijungs R (2010) Generalized make and use framework for allocation in life cycle assessment. J Ind Ecol 14:335–353

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhu Y, Andrae ASG (2014) System and method of life-cycle assessment for equipment of information and communication technology. WO2014012590 A1, 23 Jan 2014

Download references

Acknowledgments

I am grateful to Huawei Technologies, my colleagues and the anonymous reviewer’s comments which greatly improved this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Huawei Technologies Sweden AB, Skalholtsgatan 9, SE-164 94, Kista, Sweden

    Anders S. G. Andrae

Authors
  1. Anders S. G. Andrae
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anders S. G. Andrae.

Additional information

Responsible editor: Adisa Azapagic

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Andrae, A.S.G. Method based on market changes for improvement of comparative attributional life cycle assessments. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20, 263–275 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-014-0830-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-014-0830-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation