The objective of this workshop is to understand the latest developments in GLAM (Global Guidance for Life Cycle Impact Assessment Indicators and Methods, launched by UNEP) and improve practices in the use of characterisation methods.

What adjustments are made to databases depending on the software with which they are used? How is the same source translated into Gabi and SimaPro in terms of inventory and then impact (different flows, different description methods, etc.)? How can we link this to the upcoming PEF database? Andres Ciroth (from GreenDelta) will lead this workshop on 6 November 2025 and will attempt to answer members’ questions, enabling them to understand the differences between the various software programmes and grasp certain limitations.
On the agenda: interoperability in LCA
o What is it? And why are we talking about it?
o Practical cases/needs
o LCA tools, databases and compliance systems
o Different LCA universes
o Solutions and practical examples
– Main solutions and workarounds
– Practical solutions
o Technical level
o Workflow, by design solutions, with examples: the same generic databases in different LCA software, conclusions
o Outlook, discussions

The purpose of the workshop is to discuss three topics chosen by the members, in the form of three rounds of discussion (one table per topic), in groups of six to seven people:

1. The human organisation of LCA within companies
2. The uses of LCA and tools for practice
3. The automation of LCA: what are the objectives? What are the risks? What tools are available?

The objective of this study will be to consolidate a specification model for the two main current LCA practices: LCA-A and LCA-C.
Based on discussions with practitioners and researchers, it will re-examine the recommendations of SCORE LCA studies in order to position them on a dual scale of practices, according to desirability and operationality (to what extent is this recommendation a desirable practice? Is it operationalisable?).
It will incorporate the results of this work into a comprehensive specification model, presenting the requirements and recommendations to be followed at each stage of an LCA study.

Currently, the method used by the European Commission to assess the criticality of materials includes criteria relating to availability and geopolitical risks, but does not take into account the environmental aspects associated with these materials.

– How might LCA practices evolve to incorporate the concepts of availability and geopolitical risks, and thus criticality?
– How can assessment methods and LCA practice be enhanced by making better use of the results, to support the assessment of an indicator that is not fully covered by LCA but is increasingly being considered?

Overall, to what extent could environmental impacts, quantified in particular through LCA, help to complement the definition of criticality for raw materials?

What are the alternatives for improving the consideration of different end-of-life activities using the Circular Formular Footprint (CFF)?

How can standardisation and weighting practices as described in ISO 14074 and PEF (Product Environmental Footprint) be improved, in particular what methodological improvements can be proposed for standardisation factors that are compatible with weighting factors based on planetary boundaries?

LCA practitioners wishing to analyse a product in terms of its water footprint may use the AWARE LCA indicator, which is used in the PEF method. More broadly, the ISO 14046 Water Footprint standard provides a comprehensive methodological framework for taking into account the various environmental impacts associated with water consumption. The aim of the study is therefore to provide feedback on how water issues are addressed in product/system assessments: do companies/manufacturers use ISO 14046 (and if so, how?) or do they simply use an LCA indicator? In addition, it is proposed to carry out a case study using the AWARE LCA indicator, in order to analyse its advantages/limitations, particularly in terms of applicability: quality and completeness of the necessary data, geographical and temporal scales, interpretation of results, most suitable LCA software, consistency with ISO 14046?

Building products are now well documented in terms of their LCA impacts. The same cannot be said for products used in infrastructure construction or large-scale projects.
In general, very little information is available on the construction phase (on new sites). The focus is often on carbon footprint assessments.

– What recommendations can be made for the use of LCA to support decisions on this type of project?
– What recommendations can be made for the construction of a reference database (particularly for low-carbon concrete)?
– How can the LCA assessment of infrastructure be improved and its use facilitated at the various decision-making stages in a project process?

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

Objective: to provide the key information needed to begin the process of integrating Simapro:

– to present the various technical solutions for integrating Simapro and their specifications,

– to illustrate these solutions using practical examples,

– to answer questions

Not all the indicators used in LCA (for example, those used by PEF) are universally accepted, as they vary in terms of their robustness (or lack thereof). The aim of this workshop would be to take stock of developments and progress made in recent years in order to reassess the robustness of these indicators.

The aim will be to provide critical feedback on the indicators, including feedback from members on their experience of using each one. Thus, for each impact category, the workshop would present: a summary of existing and developing methods; an analysis of who uses which indicator and why; and recommendations regarding the choice of indicators.

E-fuels are fuels produced from carbon-free electricity, obtained from a mix that may include renewable or nuclear sources, each of which may involve infrastructure whose construction emits CO₂. This ‘raw material’ differentiates e-fuels from biofuels, which are primarily produced from biomass. The production and use of e-fuels aims to significantly reduce the impacts associated with fuel production and use. In particular, some claim that, over their entire production cycle, ‘e-fuels have a significantly lower carbon footprint than fossil fuels’. Numerous LCA studies are being conducted to identify cases where this claim of ‘significant reduction’ is correct for e-fuels, and above all to quantify the difference in question on a case-by-case basis.

Following the 2014 SCORELCA study on ‘Taking geographical factors into account in LCA’ and the 2015 study on ‘Linking LCA and GIS’, this study aims to review how the spatialisation of impacts is taken into account in LCA methods and tools (feasibility, relevance, etc.), and the state of the art in their integration into expected LCA studies (particularly those required by regulations) and completed studies (as evidenced by published studies).

The differentiation of impacts over time (the ‘dynamic’ dimension) is often overlooked in LCA.

Indeed, ISO 14067 requires that the timing of CO₂ emissions be disregarded, i.e. that all CO₂ emissions or removals occurring during the life cycle of a product be attributed to the start of the life cycle (T0).

The content of ISO 14044 does not encourage this, and despite a request from France, the leadership of ISO/TC 207/SC 5 has not wished to move forward on this issue for the time being.

However, the long lifespan of certain products would require this dynamic dimension to be taken into account, especially since the impacts of some of these emissions vary depending on the time since release (time-specific effect curve for emissions).

The 2018 LCA and Sustainable Finance study addressed carbon credits and carbon footprints. This new study aims to take stock of carbon market mechanisms and detail calculation methods (which emission factors are used, how the inventory is compiled, etc.). The overall objective is to ensure consistency between carbon markets and LCA, particularly with regard to calculation methods and the data to be collected for these two systems.

Cas des bio-carburants : Le JEC (regroupement de la DG JRC avec les industries pétrolière et automobile) prend en compte la capture du carbone de l’atmosphère dans le bilan GES de production.Autre approche DG JRC, notamment pour les plastiques bio-sourcés : Le JRC recommande de ne pas intégrer le carbone absorbé par les plantes dans le bilan GES biogénique (Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of alternative feedstocks for plastics production – 2021, document de position du TAB de PEF) « afin que les bilans cradle to gate ne présentent pas de valeurs négatives » (cf. échanges au TAB de PEF, avec une dizaine de retours d’experts, disponibles)Cas du méthane biogénique issu des retenues des barrages dans les zones équatoriales : Comptabilisé ou non selon les sources.Et pourtant, physiquement, « un rejet de CO2 dans l’atmosphère contribue à l’augmentation de la quantité de CO2 dans l’atmosphère, quelle que soit l’origine du C de la molécule de CO2 ».

Following a period when so-called geographical (location-based) mixes were most commonly used in LCA to model the consumption of electricity supplied by the grids, PEF now requires, as the first choice, the use of contractual information specific to each electricity consumer.

In the context of attributional LCA, several questions arise:

– What are the methodological rules established by commonly used standards in environmental assessment regarding the modelling of electricity mixes?

– What are the principles governing the construction of different types of electricity mixes in the generic databases commonly used in LCA?

– Given that the use of contractual instruments to model electricity from grids is the subject of fundamental debate amongst stakeholders, what are the positions of the various actors?

– What are the practical and methodological challenges of implementation? What recommendations can be made?

The increase in the flow of recycled materials and regulatory incentives are driving manufacturers to incorporate recycled materials into their products. At first glance, recycling appears to offer nothing but environmental benefits: by transforming waste into resources, it helps to reduce the pollution caused by waste and conserves materials, thereby easing the pressure on those that are non-renewable or only marginally renewable.

However, the observation that prompted this project is that the recycled content rate alone is not sufficient to assess the environmental performance of a product incorporating recycled materials. Indeed, the environmental benefit of incorporating recycled materials depends on numerous technical and economic parameters, relating to both the recycled material itself and the product incorporating it. These parameters include the following characteristics: the recycling techniques used, which may vary in complexity and cost-effectiveness; the quality of the materials used for recycling and those obtained at the end of the process; and the logistics associated with collection and processing.

The aim of this study is to provide tools to guide manufacturers and purchasers of products containing recycled materials (specifically plastics, concrete, steel and hollow glass) in identifying the criteria that may result in a greater environmental impact compared with a product made from 100 per cent virgin materials.
These tools have been developed through two areas of work:
1) An initial methodological approach involving an analysis of how recycling is taken into account in current standards and regulatory frameworks,
2) A sector-specific approach to characterising the various target markets