Today, the interpretation of an LCA is often still limited by a failure to take account of uncertainties, particularly those relating to the characterisation factors used in impact assessment methods.
Thus, Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs) and future Digital Product Passports partially incorporate these uncertainties (variability in inventories), but no operational solution exists to quantify and incorporate the uncertainties of Characterisation Factors into impact calculations, even though these uncertainties can be critical.

This project aims to improve LCA practice through:

– The quantification of uncertainties in Characterisation Factors (creation of an uncertainty database for priority impact methods based on – foundational research)

– The development of calculation protocols

– The proposal of an interpretation methodology (practical guide and recommendations)

To date, the RE2020 requires a life cycle assessment (LCA) to be carried out for new buildings. Within this framework, reused products are considered to have no environmental impact, based on the assumption that their impact is entirely attributed to their first life. This approach raises major methodological questions:

– To whom should the production impact be attributed?

– How should the specific impacts of circularity solutions (dismantling, storage, transport, end-of-life) be assessed?

– Should impacts be allocated across life cycles, and if so, how? What are the criteria for a fair allocation between successive uses?

The aim of this study is to assess the environmental, economic and social impacts of processes related to circularity, in particular practices aimed at extending the service life of products (repair, retrofitting, re-use, reuse, etc.), by identifying:

– the levers for reducing impacts,

– the critical thresholds beyond which the benefits are negated,

– the choice of allocation methods (ISO 14044, PEF, GHG Protocol, etc.) and their influence on the results.

Copper is one of the basic materials used in a wide range of general and specific applications, as well as one of the key strategic materials for the energy transition, which means there are competing uses for this resource. The assessment of copper-containing products raises a number of methodological and strategic issues.

– How should comparisons with non-copper-containing products be handled, given that these are often skewed by an underestimation of the impacts associated with mining, as well as an overestimation of the benefits of future recycling?

– How can the variability in recycling practices be taken into account?

– What about the social issues?

The aim of this study is to address these gaps identified in current practices.

LCA is at the heart of regulatory and standards-related issues, but the landscape has never been more complex and fluid. Between evolving ISO/CEN standards, the rise of private frameworks (PEF, GHG Protocol, etc.) and the proliferation of European regulations (ESPR, DPP, RE2020…), LCA practitioners must navigate between scientific rigor, legal compliance, and operational expectations—which are often contradictory.
– How can one reconcile a standard-compliant Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) with a Digital Product Passport aligned with PEF?
– What risks are involved in the event of discrepancies?
– How can we anticipate upcoming methodological shifts (new impact categories, spatialized data, etc.)?

The objective of this study is to provide a clear overview of the convergences and divergences between standards, regulations, and frameworks, as well as pragmatic solutions to ensure the reliability of your LCA processes and turn them into a strategic lever.

SCORE LCA’s study on taking the temporal dimension into account in LCA highlighted the need to develop and make available Life Cycle Inventory data that can be used to carry out LCA studies that take a forward-looking perspective into account.
What are the key data to be developed and according to which methods?
The challenge is to shed light on sustainability and circular economy actions.
The objectives of this study are therefore:
– to update the methodological recommendations of the first study on prospective LCA by SCORE LCA (No. 2015-07), focusing on how to develop LCI data that can be used in a prospective context, in particular by identifying published sources of information that can be used to develop LCI,
– to apply the recommendations for generating ICV that can be used to carry out LCA studies that take into account the prospective dimension.
This work will complement the work of the first project on prospective LCA: the data can be integrated into the tools specified during this first project.

Background: Which pollutants are rarely or never considered in LCA? Micro- and nanoplastics, as well as other substances of concern (PFAS, endocrine disruptors, nanomaterials, heavy metals), represent a growing challenge for the sustainability of industrial products. Current LCA inventories and methods only partially account for these impacts, limiting a comprehensive and reliable understanding of the risks associated with industrial products.
Workshop objectives: to address the following questions raised by members
Which plastic pollutants are rarely or never considered in LCA? What are the advances and limitations in LCA? Current status, methodological challenges, data, and best practices for a robust and operational assessment in an industrial setting. The goal is to provide an operational framework to guide product design and improvement toward safer, more sustainable, and circular solutions.

Decarbonisation technologies (solid-state batteries, carbon capture, etc.) often require significant investment to develop. Applying a forward-looking LCA approach could help justify these investments by quantifying the expected environmental gains.

How can we extrapolate the performance of new technologies that are still in the early stages of development to determine how these technologies will perform once they reach maturity?

How can we scale up pilot projects to industrial level, taking into account changes in the context in which these mature technologies will be used?

The major challenge here is to help decision-makers make investment choices that satisfy them and promote developments whose environmental benefits will be significantly useful to all. The objective of this study is therefore to further explore prospective LCA methodological choices so that they can be used to aid decision-making in the case of low TRL (Technology Readiness Level) technologies.

This involves:

– Establishing methodological recommendations for carrying out LCA modelling based on laboratory-scale data.

– Providing specifications for an assessment tool that can be used to qualify the promises behind certain technological solutions.

This work will provide input for the development of sectoral roadmaps to better allocate resources and efforts to reduce environmental impacts and decarbonisation.

Workshop Agenda Hosted by CIRAIG:

Introduction and Overview:

• Review of SCORE LCA Project No. 2024-03.
• Presentation of the AWARE indicator.

Methodological differences and inventory choices:

• Water balance of a unit process. Challenges in ensuring mass balance and the consistency of water flows.
• Comparison of approaches to quantifying net water consumption (watershed differential vs. consumption flow).
• Discussion of characterizable elementary flows.
• LCA databases: use and operational limitations

Spatial and temporal refinement of calculations:

• Presentation of spatialization methods at the watershed scale (GIS, identification of sub-basins).
• Introduction to the monthly temporal resolution of AWARE factors and the consideration of seasonality.
• Use of sector-level aggregated factors when data is limited.

Interpretation of results and decision support:

• Reading and reporting results in world-equivalent cubic meters.
• Presentation of the main LCA software tools used to calculate AWARE and their operational limitations.
• Discussion of the marginality assumption, the identification of geographic hotspots, and complementarity with other impact indicators.

Examples from various case studies will be incorporated into the workshop to illustrate inventory development, spatial analysis, and the interpretation of water scarcity results. These examples

Workshop to prepare for the revision of ISO 14 044 (with the work coordinator within ISO/TC 207/SC 5 : Philippe OSSET)

In many sectors, studies relating to carbon neutrality rely on biomass resources, which are not infinitely scalable. To guide strategic decisions – particularly those involving the substitution of one resource for another – it is essential to use LCA to quantify the environmental footprints of products derived from biomass, i.e. bioproducts. In accordance with established methodologies, the aim is to make LCI data available to eco-designers, as there is currently little Life Cycle Inventory data available for bioproducts in existing databases.

The study therefore aims to:

– identify the various uses of biomass, both currently and in the future, across all sectors, and compare these with available resources, in order to gain a clear picture of credible potential uses of biomass, and thus the potential these uses offer for the materials transition.

– to carry out life cycle inventories (LCIs) for a number of bio-based materials, enabling SCORE LCA members to conduct life cycle assessments (LCAs) using high-quality inventories of bio-based materials.

In response to requests from members, an in-person workshop is being organized in Paris to discuss the following three topics:

1. LCA tools—what are the (future) needs for tools and for what purposes?
2. Experience sharing on the various uses of databases and result comparisons
3. Experience sharing on the use of Artificial Intelligence: What are the risks?

Despite LCA work establishing methods for taking biodiversity impacts into account, providing results and interpretations, and despite the IPBES conferences held since its creation in 2012, assessments by the Stockholm Resilience Centre show no progress in terms of damage to ecosystems (Biosphere Integrity) on a global scale: the limit has been exceeded for more than 16 years, i.e. since this damage has been assessed.

It is therefore necessary to give greater prominence to this endpoint in quantified environmental assessments, in the recommendations based on these assessments, and finally in decision-making, in order to minimise damage to biodiversity and limit or even reduce the exceeding of planetary boundaries.

In fact, LCA experts often consider it less uncertain to work at the ‘midpoint’ level. The European PEF has published a list of recommended midpoint indicators. These midpoint indicators will serve as the basis for future European regulatory requirements for reporting the environmental performance of products within the Digital Product Passport (DPP), under the Construction Products Regulation (CPR) and the Ecodesign Regulation for sustainable products (ESPR).

Furthermore, the aggregation method proposed by PEF does not directly provide an indicator for biodiversity. However, producing LCA reports based solely on the 16 PEF indicators (common practice) does not provide comprehensive, direct support for decision-making aimed at preserving or even restoring biodiversity.

How can midpoints be better used to address biodiversity issues?

Are there complementary methods to the interpretation of the 16 classic PEF indicators that could be quickly and reliably integrated into LCA work in order to systematically inform decisions on biodiversity (reducing damage to biodiversity and more specifically to ecosystem services)?

This formal insight would be an essential prerequisite for decision-making.

Workshop Objective: Update on the latest developments regarding PEF’s work

The European Commission has just launched an initial survey on data and governance issues related to the future development of environmental footprint methods.

This is an opportunity for everyone to:

to contribute to the future EF database by proposing high-quality databases—since the EF 4.0 database development project has been halted
to express interest in joining the future PEF Technical Advisory Board.

Deadline: May 4.

Two additional surveys will be launched in May (the future of PEF, and a public consultation on the final proposals for the PEF guide)

Applicable since 1 January 2024, European Directive 2022/2464 Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) sets out new specific methodological practices and non-financial reporting requirements. Life Cycle Assessment appears to be a relevant tool for addressing the environmental aspect of CSRD reporting.

What are the potential positive interactions between CSRD and LCA practices? In concrete terms, how can LCA practitioners contribute to the CSRD? And conversely, how can the expertise developed for the CSRD, the collection, measurement and reporting tools, and the associated analyses be used in LCA?

What are the practical requirements and recommendations of the CSRD (analysis of the ESRS – European Sustainability Reporting Standards), particularly with regard to:

– Methodological choices: models used, in particular system boundaries, consideration of energy consumption, particularly electricity consumption, choice of allocation between co-products, choice of end-of-life, choice of impact methods for calculations, etc.?

– The types of data used: primary data collected, secondary data used, impact characterisation factors for the chosen impact methods, etc.?

The use of “chain of custody” contractual instruments is becoming increasingly widespread across multiple sectors (electricity, recycling, bio-based materials, textiles, etc.). Given that these chains of custody are used to reduce the environmental impact of products, the question arises as to how best to evaluate them.
Work was already carried out last year for SCORE LCA in the electricity sector. The questions raised by this study also apply to other sectors where similar contractual instruments are used.
The objectives of this workshop are as follows:
– To establish methodological recommendations for assessing the environmental impact of supply chains using LCA
– To facilitate the environmental assessment of supply chains for sectors other than electricity

Webinar program:

1. How can AI be used for life cycle analysis? Presentation by Laure Patouillard from CIRAIG (including ongoing work at UNEP)
2. What is the environmental impact of AI? Presentation by Etienne Lees-Perasso (TIDE)
3. Presentation of the framework for frugal AI, by Anna Medan from AFNOR

The SCORE LCA study on carbon storage/release by biomass focuses almost exclusively on the carbon cycle of the above-ground part of wood (trunk and branches), whereas a forest ecosystem encompasses a much broader range of interactions that are not limited to the climate change indicator and can function in very different ways depending on how the forest is managed and exploited.

The strategy to combat climate change aims to rely as much as possible on bio-based resources (75% of neutralisation comes from these), particularly forests and wood products, hence the relevance of addressing these issues, which currently seem to be only partially taken into account in LCAs.

– What is the current state of databases, common practices and knowledge on the biogenic ‘carbon cycle’ in forests?

– What are the typical scenarios for forest resource exploitation?

– What recommendations can be made for integrating upstream and forest interactions into the production of wood products in LCA?

This is the subject of this study launched by SCORE LCA!

Sustainable procurement, particularly public procurement, is one of the pillars of European environmental policy. In fact, if public procurement, which accounts for a significant share (> 10% of GDP for OECD countries), pushes companies to improve in order to meet these demands, then companies will improve their production methods… and products will be improved for 100% of their market. One of the challenges for an LCA practitioner is to understand where the bottlenecks lie and to develop solutions so that they can recommend purchases from suppliers that are appropriate for their management. The objective of this study is to identify how to develop purchasing practices that take environmental considerations into account using all the approaches that LCA can support, presenting concrete ways to overcome the obstacles that currently exist.

For certain sectors, neglecting certain activities/stages of the life cycle in product LCAs (e.g. employee travel, infrastructure, etc.) can lead to the sum of the company’s product or service assessments being significantly different from the ‘organisation’ assessment (particularly for digital services, for example).

The aim of this workshop is therefore to discuss:

What applies to organisations and products;
Is this ‘normal’ because these assessments are completely different? To what extent is it possible to use product LCAs to reconstruct an organisational LCA?
How to evaluate feedback (from members and in the literature) and learn from it
How to use OACVs and for what purposes.

Several presentations are planned:

Presentation of ISO 14072, the link with ISO 14044, the differences between OACVs and ACVs, use cases.
Presentation of two winners of ADEME’s TORGA Call for Expressions of Interest

There will be a focus on meaningful discussion between members to share testimonials and feedback.

Contents of the workshop, which will be led by CIRAIG (in French with English support):

1. Introduction (15 min):
o Presentation of the various standards/methodologies for quantification: ISO 14040/44 and ISO 14067 for products, ISO 14072 for organisational LCA, GHG Protocol (Corporate Standard and Product Standard) and ISO 14064-1.
o Brief presentation of the uses of each methodology and the implications in terms of implementation time and the need for external verification.
2. Brief reminder of scopes 1, 2 and 3 of the Corporate Standard (15 mins)
3. Methodological differences between the GHG Protocol and LCA (30 mins):
o Comparison in terms of boundaries, capital goods depreciation, environmental indicators, biogenic carbon and LULUC, and multifunctionality.
4. Analysis of different calculation approaches and data types (30 mins):
o Presentation of the input-output approach (economic data or EEIO) and the process-based approach (physical data). Explanation of the strengths and limitations of each approach, as well as the methodological elements to consider for each approach.
o Presentation of the elements to be considered in order to adapt the emission factors drawn from a life cycle inventory database to the GHG Protocol Scope 3 emission categories.
5. Case study:
o Examples will be included throughout the presentation to illustrate the various methodological aspects presented.