IN DEGREE PROJECT MECHANICAL ENGINEERING, SECOND CYCLE, 30 CREDITS , STOCKHOLM SWEDEN 2021 Life Cycle Assessment in the Automotive Industry Considerations for First-Tier Suppliers ALY IBRAHEM NILS SJÖQVIST KTH ROYAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY SCHOOL OF INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
IN DEGREE PROJECT MECHANICAL ENGINEERING,SECOND CYCLE, 30 CREDITS
, STOCKHOLM SWEDEN 2021
Life Cycle Assessment in the Automotive IndustryConsiderations for First-Tier Suppliers
ALY IBRAHEM
NILS SJÖQVIST
KTH ROYAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGYSCHOOL OF INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT
Life Cycle Assessment in the Automotive Industry
Considerations for First-Tier Suppliers
by
Aly Ibrahem
Nils Sjöqvist
Master’s Degree Project KTH Royal Institute of Technology
School of Industrial Engineering and Management Department of Sustainable Production Development
Master of Science Thesis HPU 2021
Life Cycle Assessment in the Automotive Industry: Considerations for First-Tier Suppliers
Aly Ibrahem Nils Sjöqvist
Approved
2021-June-17Examiner KTH
Andreas Archenti
Supervisor KTH
Seyoum E. Birkie
Commissioner
Veoneer Sweden AB
Contact person at company
Karin Käck
Abstract
Climate change is increasingly gaining the attention of governments, companies, and the
general public. Many original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) have set their own
milestones to achieve carbon neutrality, as early as 2039 (Daimler, 2018). This presents a
competitive opportunity for first-tier suppliers to aid the OEMs with their targets. Life cycle
assessment (LCA) is proposed as an approach that provides visibility into the potential life
cycle impacts of a product. LCA methodology as defined and described by ISO 14040:2006
and ISO 14044:2006 is general. Therefore, methodological choices specific to the
application need to be considered and defined.
This thesis attempted to address this issue for first-tier suppliers in the automotive industry
by compiling the current practice in industry and academia. A literature review was
conducted, LCA reports from OEMs were studied, standards on LCA were consulted, and
two OEMs and an organisation representing suppliers were interviewed.
The findings from these methods were compiled and discussed. From the discussions, key
recommendations were made on how a first-tier supplier might conduct an LCA study,
following the methodology from ISO 14040:2006 and ISO 14044:2006.
Masterexamensarbete HPU 2021
Livscykelanalys inom fordonsindustrin: Övervägningar för förstahandsleverantörer
Aly Ibrahem Nils Sjöqvist
Godkänt
2021-Juni-17
Examinator KTH
Andreas Archenti
Handledare KTH
Seyoum E. Birkie
Uppdragsgivare
Veoneer Sweden AB
Företagskontakt/handledare
Karin Käck
Sammanfattning
Klimatförändring får alltmer uppmärksamhet från regeringar, företag och allmänheten.
Många biltillverkande företag har satt egna milstolpar för att uppnå neutralt
koldioxidutsläpp, så tidigt som 2039 (Daimler, 2018). Detta presenterar
konkurrensmöjligheter för förstahandsleverantörer till dessa stora företag att hjälpa dem
uppnå deras milstolpar. Livscykelanalys (LCA) föreslås som ett tillvägagångssätt som
tillhandahåller synlighet i den potentiella livscykelpåverkan av en produkt.
Livscykelanalysens metodik som definieras och beskrivs i ISO 14040:2006 och ISO
14044:2006 är allmän. Därför behövs det definieras metodologiska val som är specifika till
tillämpningen.
Denna avhandling har försökt att adressera denna fråga för förstahandsleverantörer inom
fordonsindustrin genom att sammanställa nuvarande praxis i industrin och forskning. En
litteraturstudie genomfördes, LCA rapporter studerades, standarder för LCA konsulterades,
och två biltillverkare samt en organisation som representerar leverantörer intervjuades.
Resultaten från dessa metoder sammanställdes och diskuterades. Från diskussionerna
drogs viktiga rekommendationer om hur en förstahandsleverantör skulle kunna utför en
LCA studie, genom att följa metodiken från ISO 14040:2006 och ISO 14044:2006.
Acknowledgements
This thesis has been a degree project for the master’s programme of Sustainable Production
Development at KTH. The project was commissioned by Veoneer Sweden AB and supervised
by Veoneer Sweden AB and the HPU department at KTH.
We would like to express our sincere appreciation to our supervisor at Veoneer Sweden AB,
Karin Käck, for supporting us every step of the way. The continuous support and guidance
are truly appreciated.
We would like to extend our sincere appreciation to our supervisor at KTH, Seyoum E.
Birkie, for always challenging us intellectually to think one step beyond and helping us
secure an academically valid thesis.
We would like to thank Cathrine Stjärnekull, Daniel Åhlström, Jennie Viskari, Ola Boström,
Pierre Hultstrand and Tobias Aderum at Veoneer Sweden AB for their valuable time and
assistance provided to our work. The discussions, insights, and contacts they have provided
us with have made all the difference.
We would like to express our gratitude to Gustav Hanberger, Vincent Lingehed, and all other
staff at Veoneer Sweden AB that have shown interest in our thesis and provided their
support.
We would like to show our gratitude to Erik Postma at CLEPA, Lisa Bolin and Christian
Samson at Polestar, and Andrea Egeskog at Volvo for allocating their time to be interviewed.
Without these interviews, the thesis would not be complete.
Table of Contents
1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Background ................................................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Purpose and Objectives ............................................................................................................ 2
1.3 Delimitations ............................................................................................................................ 2
1.4 Report Structure Outline ......................................................................................................... 3
2 Theoretical Framework ..................................................................................................................... 5
2.1 Development of LCA methodology .......................................................................................... 5
2.2 Purpose of LCA ......................................................................................................................... 5
2.3 Attributional vs Consequential LCA ........................................................................................ 6
2.4 LCA Methodology according to ISO 14040:2006 and ISO 14044:2006 ............................... 6
Goal and Scope definition of the LCA .................................................................................. 7
Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) Analysis ..................................................................................... 8
Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) ................................................................................. 8
Life Cycle Interpretation Phase ........................................................................................... 8
Reporting and Critical Review of LCA ................................................................................ 8
2.5 Sustainability and LCA ............................................................................................................. 9
3 Research Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 11
3.1 Academic Literature Review ................................................................................................... 11
Formulation of review question.......................................................................................... 11
Formulation of Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria .............................................................. 12
Search for Literature ........................................................................................................... 12
Synthesis from Literature ................................................................................................... 13
3.2 Industry Review ....................................................................................................................... 14
Industry Interviews ............................................................................................................. 14
Industry Reports.................................................................................................................. 14
3.3 Standards Review .................................................................................................................... 14
4 Results ............................................................................................................................................... 15
4.1 Goal .......................................................................................................................................... 15
Intended Application of LCA Studies ................................................................................. 15
Reason(s) for Carrying out LCA Studies ............................................................................ 16
The Intended Audience of LCA Studies ............................................................................. 17
Whether the Results are Intended to be Used in Comparative Assertions Intended to be Disclosed to the Public ..................................................................................................................... 17
4.2 Scope ........................................................................................................................................ 17
The Product System ............................................................................................................ 18
The Functional Unit and Functions of the Product System .............................................. 18
The System Boundaries ....................................................................................................... 19
Allocation Procedures ........................................................................................................ 20
Impact Categories Selected and Methodology of Impact Assessment and Subsequent Interpretation ................................................................................................................................... 21
Data Requirements ............................................................................................................. 22
Assumptions ........................................................................................................................ 23
Limitations .......................................................................................................................... 23
Initial Data Quality Requirements..................................................................................... 24
Type of Critical Review ................................................................................................... 25
Type and Format of a Report for the LCA Study .......................................................... 25
4.3 Inventory Analysis .................................................................................................................. 26
Data Collection .................................................................................................................... 27
Data Calculation ................................................................................................................. 29
Allocation of Flows and Releases ....................................................................................... 29
4.4 Impact Assessment ................................................................................................................. 29
4.5 Interpretation .......................................................................................................................... 30
4.6 Sustainability and LCA ........................................................................................................... 31
5 Discussion ........................................................................................................................................ 33
5.1 Goal .......................................................................................................................................... 33
Intended Application of LCA Studies ................................................................................ 33
The Reason(s) for Carrying out LCA Studies .................................................................... 33
The Intended Audience of LCA Studies ............................................................................. 33
Whether the Results are Intended to be Used in Comparative Assertions Intended to be Disclosed to the Public ..................................................................................................................... 34
5.2 Scope ........................................................................................................................................ 34
The Product System ............................................................................................................ 34
The Function of the Product System and Functional Unit ............................................... 34
The System Boundary ......................................................................................................... 35
Allocation Procedures ......................................................................................................... 36
Impact Categories Selected and Methodology of Impact Assessment and Subsequent Interpretation ................................................................................................................................... 36
Data Requirements ............................................................................................................. 37
Initial Data Quality Requirements..................................................................................... 37
Type of Critical Review ....................................................................................................... 37
Type and Format of the Report Required for the LCA Study ........................................... 38
5.3 Inventory Analysis .................................................................................................................. 38
5.4 Impact Assessment ................................................................................................................. 39
5.5 Interpretation .......................................................................................................................... 40
5.6 Sustainability and LCA ........................................................................................................... 40
6 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................ 43
6.1 Key Recommendations ........................................................................................................... 43
6.2 Limitations of this Thesis ....................................................................................................... 45
6.3 Future Research and Development ....................................................................................... 46
References ................................................................................................................................................... I
Appendices ............................................................................................................................................... IV
List of Figures
Figure 1 - Historic Development of the LCA framework (Curran, 2015) ............................... 5
Figure 2 - LCA Framework according to ISO 14040:2006 .................................................... 7
Figure 3 - Thesis Research Design Diagram .......................................................................... 11
Figure 4 - Publications per year for papers included in the literature review ...................... 13
Figure 5 - Example of a Process Flow Diagram by Silva et al. (2018) .................................. 18
Figure 6 - ReCiPe 2016 Methodology (Huijbregts et al., 2017) ............................................ 22
Figure 7 - Example Diagram of LCA Data Sources (Polestar, 2020) ...................................28
Abbreviations
EPD Environmental Product Declaration
GHG Greenhouse Gas
GWP Global Warming Potential
LCA Life Cycle Assessment
LCI Life Cycle Inventory
LCIA Life Cycle Impact Assessment
OEM Original Equipment Manufacturer
PEF Product Environmental Footprint
1
1 Introduction
This chapter presents the scope of this thesis by addressing the background, purpose,
objectives, delimitations, and report outline.
1.1 Background
In 2015 the Paris agreement laid the foundation for global collaboration to limit global
warming to less than 2 °C. In December of 2019, the European Commission presented the
European Green Deal roadmap, which sets targets for how much emissions should be cut
down. By 2050 the EU aims to be emissions net neutral (European Commission, n.d.).
Not only the EU, but also the general public is increasingly more interested in carbon
neutrality and other environmental efforts. The Greenhouse Gas Protocol (2011) states that
as impacts from climate change become more frequent and prominent that governments are
expected to set new policies and provide additional market-based incentives to drive
significant reductions in emissions. These new policies and market drivers are argued to
direct economic growth on a low-carbon trajectory. This means, according to Arena et al.
(2013) that carmakers can no longer treat sustainability as a matter of compliance. They
argue that instead that carmakers must increasingly look to environmental sustainability as
an opportunity to gain competitive advantage.
Following the targets of the EU, many of the largest automotive original equipment
manufacturers (OEMs) are committed to achieving carbon neutrality as early as 2039
(Daimler, 2018). To enable this, product manufacturers need to have insight into their
products’ life cycle impacts. The Greenhouse Gas Protocol (2011) states that not long-ago,
companies have focused their attention on emissions from their own operations. However,
they conclude that companies increasingly understand the need for also accounting the
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions along the value chain and product portfolios in order to
comprehensively manage GHG emissions related risks and opportunities.
This creates a scenario of opportunity for first-tier suppliers to gain competitiveness by
aiding the OEMs in achieving their commitments. This could be done by securing accurate
visibility of environmental impacts of the value chain and evaluating the environmental
impact of first-tier suppliers’ products.
Thus, steps need to be taken towards incorporating frameworks for applying tools that assess
life cycle environmental impacts. Life cycle assessment (LCA) is regarded as a holistic
2
approach to investigate the impacts (of e.g., a product) over all stages of a life cycle. ISO
provides a well-established generic framework for conducting LCA. The ISO 14040:2006
Environmental management – Life cycle assessment – Principles and framework standard
provides principles and a framework for LCA methodology. While the ISO 14044:2006
Environmental management – Life cycle assessment – Requirements and guidelines
standard provides requirements and guidelines for conducting LCA. The ISO methodology
is general but actual implementation of the methodology needs to be specific to the context
of its application.
This implies that different sectors and different links in a value chain need to develop their
own customised approach to LCA. Doing this, helps a company to make more informed
decisions for decreasing overall life cycle environmental impacts. Many companies have
limited knowledge, skills, and resources required to develop a context specific LCA
approach, which limits their ability to enhance (product) environmental performance.
Current studies do not address in detail how parts/sub-assembly suppliers to automotive
OEMs could implement LCA, in order to contribute to more accurate LCAs for the OEMs’
vehicles. This means that a context specific interpretation of LCA methodology needs to be
investigated for first-tier suppliers to automotive OEMs.
1.2 Purpose and Objectives
The purpose of this thesis is to investigate what considerations need to be made for a
customised attributional LCA approach for a first-tier supplier to automotive OEMs. Such
an approach should allow for scalability and be compatible with established LCA approaches
of the automotive OEMs. In order to fulfil this purpose, the objectives of this study are
defined as:
1. To explore and investigate prevailing considerations of existing LCA approaches applied
to the automotive sector.
2. To discuss the prevailing considerations of LCA approaches in the automotive industry
and conclude suitable recommendations to aid future formulation of a customised
implementation of LCA for first-tier suppliers.
1.3 Delimitations
Keeping in mind the time limitations and field of expertise of the authors of this thesis, the
study defines the following delimitations. Firstly, the thesis is not intended to deeply
investigate data science aspects of LCA, as this is out of the field of expertise of the authors
3
and the department of which this thesis work is written at. Secondly, the intention of the
thesis is not to perform a comprehensive LCA, but rather investigate considerations of LCA
application within the proposed context. Thirdly, the thesis is not to investigate approaches
and considerations for consequential LCA, only attributional LCA. The difference between
these two is briefly explained in section 2.3.
Finally, the thesis bases its findings around the methodology of ISO 14040:2006 and ISO
14044:2006. It should be noted that these standards were, at the time of writing, published
15 years ago. Additionally, the GHG protocol (2011) standard was also explored in this thesis
and was, at the time of writing, published 10 years ago. These standards could be regarded
as becoming old, this should be kept in mind.
1.4 Report Structure Outline
The rest of this report is structured as follows. Chapter 2 makes up the theoretical
framework, which introduces and explains some key concepts that serve as background
information for understanding this thesis report. Chapter 3 describes the methodology that
was used for obtaining the results. The results are presented in chapter 4, structured by LCA
methodology topics as defined in ISO 14040:2006. Chapter 5 discusses the results. Chapter
6 concludes the study by making key recommendations, acknowledging the limitations of
this study, and addresses possible future research.
4
5
2 Theoretical Framework
This chapter consists of concept definitions that make up the existing theories that support
this thesis.
2.1 Development of LCA Methodology
Strategic environmental approaches have developed through the development of laws and
regulations aiming to reduce pollution. Initial approaches focused on End-Of-Pipe solutions
and waste minimisation. These measures do not address the potential pollution caused
during all the lifecycle stages or end-of-life for the product system. Therefore, a more holistic
approach was needed to cover all the potential produced pollutants along a product's overall
life cycle stages.
The term LCA was first coined in 1990 in the US in a workshop held by the Society of
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) (Curran, 2015). The first LCA framework
proposed by SETAC consisted of three interrelated components, namely; Inventory, Impact
analysis and Improvement analysis. Later, the fourth component, the definition of Goal and
Scoping was added. ISO published their first standard in 1997, namely ISO 14040:1997,
describing Environmental management - Life cycle assessment - Principles and framework.
The framework took its current shape when it was updated in 2006 (see Figure 1).
Figure 1 - Historic Development of the LCA framework (Curran, 2015)
2.2 Purpose of LCA
LCA can be seen as an approach for assessing any potential impact associated with a product
life cycle. This approach requires quantification of all inputs and outputs of material, energy
and emissions throughout the product life stages. This inventory of inputs and outputs can
then be translated into impacts.
6
Typically, only environmental aspects are covered in LCA practise, leaving out economic and
social aspects of the product life cycle (ISO14040:2006).
2.3 Attributional versus Consequential LCA
There are two types of LCA approaches recognised in current methodology. Namely, the
attributional approach and the consequential approach.
Attributional LCA (ALCA) investigates the relationships between the physical flows from
and to the product or process (Curran, 2015), i.e., directly attributable to the product or
process. ISO 14040:2006 defines this approach as assigning elementary flows and potential
environmental impacts to a specific product system. Sometimes this is referred to as an
accounting LCA. A typical example of an attributional LCA could be the study by Silva et al.
(2018), where they account for the environmental impact of an engine valve.
Consequential LCA (CLCA) aims at describing the effect of changes within the life cycle,
given that changes lead to a series of consequences through chains of cause-effect
relationships (Curran, 2015). ISO 14040:2006 defines the consequential LCA approach as
studying the environmental consequences of possible (future) changes between alternative
product systems. Curran (2015) states that consequential LCAs are more applicable on
industrial operations of larger scales on the regional and national levels. An example of a
consequential LCA is one presented by Palazzo et al. (2019), they performed a study
investigating the environmental effects of replacing steel with aluminium in production of
vehicles in the North American industry.
Deciding on an attributional approach versus a consequential approach might result in
different conclusions. Searchinger (2008) as referenced by Curran (2015) presented a study
where attributional LCA results on corn-based ethanol showed a decrease of 20% in GHG
emissions compared to gasoline. The consequential LCA on the other hand showed an
increase of 47% in GHG emissions compared to gasoline. These additional emissions can be
attributed to the predicted increased land-use to meet the increasing demand for corn for
ethanol production.
2.4 LCA Methodology According to ISO 14040:2006 and ISO 14044:2006
ISO 14040:2006 describes the principles and framework for LCA. The main aspects that the
standard covers are:
- Goal and scope definition of the LCA
- The life cycle inventory (LCI) analysis phase
- The life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) phase
7
- The life cycle interpretation phase
- Reporting and critical review of the LCA
- Limitations of the LCA
- Relationship between LCA phases
- Conditions for use of value choices and operational elements
ISO14040:2006 describes LCA methodology as 4 phases that are applicable for any type of
product or service; Goal and scope definition, Inventory analysis, Impact assessment, and
interpretation (see Figure 2).
Figure 2 - LCA Framework according to ISO 14040:2006
Goal and Scope Definition of the LCA
The credibility of LCA outcome relies heavily on a clear and unambiguous goal definition, as
the goal will determine the direction, depth, and width of all the next steps in the framework.
In other words, the goal definition defines the LCA study scope. The goal definition states
the following components:
- The reason for carrying out of the study.
- The intended application of the results.
- The target audience.
The scope definition describes the following components:
- The studied system.
- The functional unit: a quantified description, of the function or services provided by the
system, to which the data will be related.
- Chosen impact categories to be studied.
- Assumptions. These can be made to simplify the study or compensate for lack of data.
- Limitations, as a result of the chosen scope and way of carrying out the study.
8
- Data requirements: specifying temporal and special attributes.
- Allocation procedures.
- Type of critical review.
Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) Analysis
LCI involves mapping and quantifying all relevant inputs and outputs of energy, materials
flows and emissions. This process requires collecting a considerable amount of data,
validation of the data and relating it to the processes. Therefore, simplifications and
assumptions can be made to ease the LCA implementation. Documentation of all
assumptions is needed to reserve the LCA study transparency and credibility.
Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA)
The mapped inputs and outputs of materials and emissions then can be associated with
specific impact categories and translated into a list of potential impacts. The purpose of LCIA
is to evaluate the significance of these potential impacts from the LCI results list. One
example of an LCIA framework is the ReCiPe method (explained in 4.2.5).
Life Cycle Interpretation Phase
According to ISO 14044:2006 the interpretation of the LCA study aims to identify the
significant issues from the LCI and LCIA phases such as energy consumption, emissions,
waste, etc. Furthermore, it thoroughly inspects the completeness, sensitivity, and
consistency of the results from these phases in relation to the goal and scope definition of
the LCA study. A full review of the functional unit, system boundaries and the limitations
introduced by data quality should be considered at this stage.
On the topic of a sensitivity analysis. The LCA results can be affected by many sources of
uncertainty, such as methodological choices, chosen system boundaries, and assumptions.
To examine the robustness of these results, LCA practitioners can use sensitivity analysis.
According to Pichery (2014), sensitivity analysis is the process of evaluating the effect of one
or more input variables on the output variables of a numerical model. In other words, the
sensitivity analysis highlights the values of an input variable beyond which, the output would
change significantly. In practice the practitioners change the input parameters of the model
to their extremes, in order to evaluate the significance of change on the overall results.
Reporting and Critical Review of LCA
Reporting LCA study results should articulate the different life cycle analysis phases, as
iteration might be needed to further refine the collected data and scope of study. ISO
9
14040:2006 standards recommend that in case the LCA study extended to LCIA or reported
to a third party the following aspects should be described in the report:
- A description of data quality.
- Characterization models.
- The chosen impact categories (e.g., GWP, Land use).
- Endpoints to be protected (e.g., human health, ecosystems).
- The indicators result profile.
- The factors and environmental mechanisms.
- The relationship with the LCI results.
2.5 Sustainability and LCA
Sustainability as a concept could be defined as the creation of value without compromising
the needs of future generations. The concept of sustainability is composed of three “pillars”.
These are the environmental, social, and economical pillars (sometimes referred to as
people, planet, profit).
Being environmentally sustainable could be defines as creating value without destabilising
or depleting natural resources and systems. Being socially sustainable could be defined as
proactively contributing to the improvement of society; locally, along the supply chain, and
for the customer. Being economically sustainable could be defined as creating long-term
economic growth without negatively impacting environmental and social aspects.
In order to know if sustainability is compromised on, visibility into impact performance is
needed. LCA provides this visibility and gives insight into impact performance. LCA studies,
traditionally, have been applied to the environmental pillar of sustainability only (ISO
14040:2006).
10
11
3 Research Methodology
The thesis research design is visualised in Figure 3. Before carrying out of the main task of
the thesis, a short pre-study was performed. The research design of the thesis is divided into
three steps: methodological design, findings from carrying out of those methodologies and
conclusions on those findings.
The first step, methodological design, covers three different sources of information:
academia through a literature review, findings from industry through interviews and public
reports, and findings from standards. The findings from these three sources are triangulated
and discussed.
Figure 3 - Thesis Research Design Diagram
3.1 Academic Literature Review
For the first step of the research, a literature review was conducted. The aim of the review is
to determine the state of the art of LCA in the automotive industry from the perspective of
academia.
In order to find review papers in a systematic manner, the literature review consisted of the
following steps: (1) Formulation of review question. (2) Formulation of inclusion and
exclusion criteria. (3) Search for literature. (4) Synthesising of the findings in the literature.
Formulation of Review Question
The following review question was defined to guide the literature review: “What LCA tools
and approaches are used in, the automotive industry?”. The question has been formulated
to the specific context of this thesis, in order to filter any content that is not applicable to the
case.
12
Formulation of Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
Both inclusion and exclusion criteria were be based on the title, abstract, and the full text of
the article. Interesting citations from the identified literature were included based on the
same criteria. The inclusion criteria were:
- The study should mainly concern LCA in any shape or form.
- The publication should be a journal article.
- The LCA study should address the automotive industry.
The exclusion criteria were:
- Any publication that does not fulfil the inclusion criteria will be excluded.
- Books and Conference publications will be excluded.
- publications that are older than 2007 are excluded (ISO 14040:2006 was published
in December of 2006).
- Any publication in a language other than English is excluded.
Search for Literature
Based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, search parameters can be set in the form of a
single query. The search was conducted on WebOfScience, from the core collection. The
timespan of publications was set to 2007-2021. The search query was set to search for key
words in the abstracts. Only English publications were selected. Only articles were selected,
any other publications, such as books or conference papers, were excluded.
The query logic was built to search for articles that included three components:
1. Any way of spelling LCA or substitutes of the word (LCA, Life Cycle Management,
Cradle to grave, etc.).
2. Automotive or any related word starting with “Automo”, such as Automobile.
3. Any indication of a case or original work, such as Case, Application, Tool,
Framework, etc.
The exact original search query was defined as follows: (AB=(("Life Cycle Assessment" OR
"LCA" OR "Life Cycle Management" OR "Cradle to grave" OR "Cradle to
gate")AND(Automo*)AND("Case" OR "application" OR "develop*" OR "guideline*" OR
"implement*" OR "tool*" OR "framework" OR "paradigm"))) AND LANGUAGE: (English)
AND DOCUMENT TYPES: (Article)
13
The search resulted in 145 papers applicable to the search parameters. From this any paper
that fit the inclusion and exclusion criteria (from the title) was selected for reading. 92
papers were selected. The next exclusion step was reading the abstract of these papers,
through which additional papers were excluded. After this, the remaining papers’ full text
were read. Resulting in an additional exclusion of 17 papers. Access could not be gotten to
the full text of some of the papers. Additionally, upon reading the full text of each paper,
additional papers were omitted. The remaining number of included papers in the study are
41. The full list of papers can be found in Appendix 1. A visualisation of number of
publications per year is found in Figure 4. There seems to be an increasing trend in
publications on the topic, as defined by the search query. This could indicate an increasing
interest in LCA within the automotive industry.
Figure 4 - Publications per year for papers included in the literature review
Separately from this slightly formal literature review, an initial exploratory literature was
also performed. Student thesis publications and some journal articles were read to form an
understanding of recent academic thesis work, to help scope this thesis and receive an
indication of the state-of-the-art on the field of LCA.
Synthesis from Literature
Relevant findings from the literature were synthesised by explicit themes in a spreadsheet.
That spreadsheet served as a basis for the results of the literature review. The themes were
product system, system boundaries, functional unit, assumptions, limitations, type and
format of the report, impact categories, allocations, allocation procedures, data quality, data
collection, data calculations, critical review, and optional steps of LCIA.
14
3.2 Industry Review
The industry review consists of interviews with representatives from industry and findings
from public reports from automotive OEMs.
Industry Interviews
Three interviews were conducted within the automotive industry. Two of the interviews were
with experts within the field of LCA at automotive OEMs Volvo and Polestar. The Polestar
interview was represented by Lisa Bolin and Christian Samson, which lasted 60 minutes.
The Volvo interview was represented by Andrea Egeskog, which lasted 30 minutes.
An interview with CLEPA was conducted and was represented by Erik Postma, who is
involved with the LCA taskforce of CLEPA. The interview lasted 60 minutes. CLEPA is an
organisation that represents suppliers in the automotive industry.
All three interviews were conducted as semi-structured interviews, according to the question
list in Appendix 2.
Industry Reports
In addition to the interviews, public reports from automotive OEMs were also consulted.
LCA reports from Volvo (2020), Polestar (2020), and Daimler (2018) were analysed. Annual
reports and/or sustainability reports from the respective companies were also consulted for
relevant information.
3.3 Standards Review
The third source of information of the research of this thesis comes from ISO 14040:2006,
ISO 14044:2006 and additionally from the GHG Protocol (2011). The ISO standards were
chosen since they are regarded as common practise LCA methodology. The GHG Protocol’s
product life cycle accounting and reporting standard was chosen since both Volvo (2020)
and Polestar (2020) mentioned using the standard for methodological considerations.
15
4 Results
This chapter is a compilation of the results from the literature review, conducted interviews,
industry reports, and consulted standards. The chapter is structured by the different
methodological elements of LCA according to ISO 14040:2006.
4.1 Goal
The goal is the very first stage of LCA methodology, together with the scope (chapter 4.2).
According to ISO 14040:2006, the goal definition should include the following aspects: the
intended application of the study, the reason(s) for carrying out the study, the intended
audience of the study, and whether the results are intended to be used in comparative
assertions intended to be disclosed to the public.
It is imperative to define these topics, as they all have implications for how the study
will/should be carried out.
Intended Application of LCA Studies
The ISO 14040:2006 lists a couple of examples of applications of LCA methodology: product
development and improvement, strategic planning, public policy making, marketing, etc.
But what is LCA being used for in practise?
From the literature review, it seems that academics is focussed on one of the following two
applications. The first being environmental performance evaluation of a component or a
material. E.g., Ribeiro et al. (2007) who intended to improve the environmental
performance of a multi-material car component. Or e.g., Kemp et al. (2020) performed an
analysis of energy and emission impacts of a cooperative connected autonomous vehicle.
Another application being a comparative study between different materials or designs to
evaluate which one is performing better environmentally. E.g., Das (2014) examined and
compared the potential life cycle impacts of two material designs.
One example of an LCA application is hotspot analysis. A hotspot analysis, sometimes
referred to as a screening LCA, is an LCA study that focuses on finding the most impactful
aspects of a product system. Such a study could look at which product life cycle stage could
be the most impactful, or which process within a life cycle stage could be the most impactful.
As the focus is on which aspects are the most impactful, rather than how impactful they are,
this allows for using values from databases based on global/industry averages.
16
The stated intended applications for the Volvo (2020) and Polestar (2020) LCA reports were
to evaluate the carbon footprint of their respective car models. Daimler (2018) defined the
intended application to evaluate and compare different vehicles, components, and
technologies from an environmental performance point of view.
From the interview with Volvo, it became clear that they will require/push their suppliers to
carry out hotspot analysis studies, on environmental performance along the supply chain,
followed by sensitivity analysis studies. They are asking for this so that their suppliers will
become aware of their environmental impacts and hotspots and start working on reducing
their impacts.
Reason(s) for Carrying out LCA Studies
The reason(s) for carrying out an LCA study are at a higher strategic level than the intended
application. There can be many reasons for carrying out LCA studies. The Greenhouse Gas
Protocol (2011) list a few business goals that can serve as reasons for a company to carry out
an LCA study: climate change management, supplier and customer stewardship, etc. These
business goals could be made more specific to serve as a reason for carrying out an LCA
study, for example: Measure and report GHG performance over time, partner with suppliers
or customers to achieve GHG reductions, achieve competitive advantage by pursuing GHG
reduction opportunities and cost savings to create a low-emitting product.
From the literature review it could be concluded that academic LCA studies fall into two
purpose groups. The first being product development and furthering scientific knowledge in
the field. E.g., Gebler et al. (2020), who aimed to provide a base for planning and decisi0n-
making regarding decarbonisation. Or e.g., Zhang et al., (2020) who aimed to propose an
optimisation method for product design based on LCA and Life Cycle Cost (LCC). The second
main reason for carrying out an LCA study was described as contributing to regulations and
policy making. E.g., Lehmann et al. (2018) and Palazzo et al. (2019) who presented
recommendations for policies and regulations.
For the Volvo (2020) and Polestar (2020) LCA reports, the purpose was to develop a
methodology that can be used to produce carbon footprints of their car models. A second
motive they mentioned was to be able to use the complete vehicle carbon footprints to
examine the effects of changes in e.g.: material composition, efficiency of the vehicle or
Polestar manufacturing, or changes in the energy systems. The Daimler report (2018)
mentions that their reason is to evaluate the environmental performance of the car by
integrating the “design for environment” approach.
17
The Intended Audience of LCA Studies
ISO 14040:2006 states that it shall be clearly and unambiguously stated to whom the results
of the LCA study are intended to be communicated. From the literature review it can be
concluded that academic LCA studies mainly address case companies, the automotive
industry, and the scientific community. E.g., Ferreira et al. (2019) and Chen et al. (2020)
who are performing case studies in business. Or e.g., Simboli et al. (2015) who present an
academic conceptual model on eco-innovations.
For Volvo (2020), Polestar (2020), and Daimler (2018) their LCA reports are intended for
both the public and internal use.
Whether the Results are Intended to be Used in Comparative Assertions
Intended to be Disclosed to the Public
Regarding whether the results are intended to be used in comparative assertions intended
to be disclosed to the public, ISO 14044:2006 states that LCI studies should not be used for
comparative assertions that are intended to be disclosed to the public. And it requires the
practitioners to conduct an LCIA in case the results will be used in comparative assertions
that are meant to be disclosed to the public. The GHG protocol (2011) does not support such
a comparison between products' environmental performance.
From the literature review it seems that none of the reviewed articles has committed to the
ISO standards in this regard. However, it is observed that OEMs like Volvo tend more toward
publicly disclosing LCA reports that compare the carbon footprint of its models (Volvo,
2020). Similarly, Daimler conducted LCA to compare the environmental performance
improvements of a new model with its predecessor (Daimler, 2018).
4.2 Scope
The scope is the second part of the first stage of LCA methodology according to ISO
14040:2006. The standard states that the scope should be sufficiently well defined to ensure
that the breadth, depth, and detail of the study are compatible and sufficient to address the
stated goal. The standard lists the following items as part of the scope description: the
product system, the functions of the product system, the functional unit, the system
boundaries, allocation procedures, impact categories selected and methodology of impact
assessment and subsequent interpretation, data requirements, assumptions, limitations,
initial data quality requirements, type of critical review (if any), type and format of the report
for the study.
18
The Product System
ISO 14040:2006 defines the product system as; a system of consecutive and interlinked unit
processes performing one or more defined functions, which models the product life cycle.
Similarly, the GHG protocol (2011) standard defines the life cycle as interlinked stages from
raw materials to the end-of-life profile. In the literature, the product system and its
boundaries were mostly described in text. Some articles presented the product system as
unit processes flow diagrams, an example can be seen in Figure 5. The product systems
studied in the Volvo (2020), Daimler (2018) and Polestar (2020) LCA reports comprise the
different consecutive process units from raw materials extraction and refining to the end-of-
life scenarios.
Figure 5 - Example of a Process Flow Diagram by Silva et al. (2018)
The Functional Unit and Functions of the Product System
ISO 14040:2006 defines the functional unit as: quantified service of a product system for
use as a reference unit for the LCA results and it is called the Unit of analysis in the GHG
protocol standard. The GHG protocol (2011) states that a well-defined functional unit shall
present the magnitude of the function or service, the duration or service life of that function
or service, and the expected level of quality. Similarly, the ISO 14044:2006 states that the
19
functional unit should be clearly defined and consistent with the goal and scope of the study.
The reference flow shall be defined. If additional functions of any of the systems are not
considered in the comparison of functional units, then these omissions shall be explained
and documented.
The papers in the literature review did not seem to strictly follow these guidelines and
requirements set by ISO (2006) or the GHG protocol (2011). However, the functional unit
in the literature review was commonly defined as the function of the product being studied
driving for a certain distance in a specific vehicle. E.g., Das (2014) described the functional
unit as the transportation service over 250.000 km in North America. Koffler et al. (2014)
described it as the function of the component over a vehicle lifetime of 150.000 miles.
Poulikidou et al. (2015) described it as the function of the component over a life cycle
distance of a truck of 1.000.000 km. In the case when the product is a component of a car,
the functional unit is defined as per the distance the respective car is estimated to drive over
its lifetime. Similarly, the distance driven by a specific car is used as functional unit in the
LCA reports of Polestar (2020), Volvo (2020), and Daimler (2018).
The System Boundaries
The system boundaries determine which processes and flows of the product system will be
included in the LCA study. ISO 14044:2006 states that it is important to set the system
boundaries in line with the goal of the study. The standard mentions the following
requirements and guidelines: Decisions shall be made regarding which unit processes,
inputs, and outputs to include in the study and the level of detail to which these unit
processes shall be studied. The criteria that were used to set the system boundaries should
be explained. The deletion of life cycle stages, processes, inputs, or outputs is only permitted
if it does not significantly change the overall conclusions of the study. Any decisions to omit
life cycle stages, processes, inputs, or outputs shall be clearly stated, and the reasons and
implication for their omission shall be explained.
There is some overlap between the GHG Protocol (2011) and the ISO (2006) standard
requirements mentioned above. The GHG protocol standard defines some additional
requirements: The boundary shall include all attributable processes. Companies shall report
the life cycle stage definitions and descriptions. Companies shall report attributable
processes in the form of a process map. Companies shall report any non-attributable
processes included in the boundary. The boundary for final products shall include the
complete life cycle, from cradle-to-grave. The boundary of a cradle-to-gate partial life cycle
inventory shall not include product use or end-of-life processes in the inventory results.
20
Companies shall report the time period of the inventory. Companies shall report the method
used to calculate land-use change impacts, when applicable.
From the literature review it is estimated that approximately 45% of the papers describe a
cradle-to-grave boundary of their LCA studies (e.g., Palazzo et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2020;
Ji et al., 2020). For cradle-to-gate, this is also approximately 45% of which the end-of-life
phase and in some cases the use phase is excluded (e.g., Gebler et al., 2020; Ferreira et al.,
2019; Cecchel et al., 2018). The remaining 10% describe other boundaries, such as, gate-to-
gate or cradle-to-cradle.
The Volvo (2020), Polestar (2020), and Daimler (2018) LCA reports all considered cradle-
to-grave system boundaries. A cradle-to-grave will give a holistic picture of the
environmental performance of a product. Both Volvo and Polestar have confirmed in their
interviews that they are interested in receiving LCAs from their suppliers. The interviews
with Volvo, Polestar and CLEPA unanimously conclude that the LCA studies they would
potentially ask from their suppliers would be cradle-to-gate. However, all three interviews
also acknowledged the fact that including the use phase and end-of-life phase identifies areas
of interest about product performance for the use and end-of-life phase. Polestar stated in
the interview that indirect emissions from activities (such as e.g., R&D, business travel, etc.)
is something that is likely to be excluded in LCA reports.
ISO 14044:2006 states that it is helpful to describe the system and the system boundaries
using a process flow diagram showing the unit processes and their inter-relationships. As
mentioned above, the GHG Protocol (2011) demands it.
Allocation Procedures
According to the ISO 14044:2006 standard, the inputs and outputs for unit process shall be
allocated to the different products according to clearly stated procedures. Step one of those
procedures is to, whenever possible, avoid allocations. This can be achieved by dividing the
unit process into two or more sub-processes and then collect data about these processes, or
by expanding the product system to include the additional functions related to the co-
products. Step two of the procedures describes that in the case that the allocation cannot be
avoided, the inputs and outputs of the system should be partitioned between its different
products and functions in a way that reflects the underlying physical relationships between
them. The third step of the procedures describes that when the physical relationships alone
cannot be established, other means of partitioning can be used e.g., the economic value of
the products. GHG protocol (2011) suggests using allocation procedures similar to what ISO
21
14040:2006 mentions. Additionally, it suggests a way of performing the allocation by
redefining the functional unit of analysis to include the co-products (additional functions)
in the functional unit.
The papers in the literature review, most of the articles have not disclosed the procedures
they used for allocations. However, it is mentioned that the allocation of flows and releases
is done. Some papers have mentioned some procedures. E.g., Alonso et al. (2007) mention
that they have used an incremental approach for fuel consumption and Ribeiro et al. (2007)
who have used mass-related allocation approaches for low-mass components.
Daimler (2018) did not clearly mention the used allocations procedures. However, it is
mentioned that the LCA report used the default allocation methods in the GaBi software.
Both Volvo (2020) and Polestar (2020) used an allocation method that follows the “polluters
pay principle”. Which means that if there are several product systems sharing the same
material, the product causing the waste shall carry the environmental burden. The reports
state that this approach is recommended by the EPD system as well.
Impact Categories Selected and Methodology of Impact Assessment and
Subsequent Interpretation
ISO 14044:2006 stated that the selection of impact categories, category indicators and
characterisation models shall be justified. GHG protocol (2011) focuses solely on climate
change as an impact category. In the literature review, mainly the midpoint impact
categories were considered. In the literature review GWP was the dominant impact category
which was used in all articles but one. This specific article, by Baumann et al. (2013), looked
at the damage to human health as a solo endpoint impact category (disability adjusted life
years; DALY). The LCA reports from Volvo (2020), Daimler (2018) and Polestar (2020)
considered only GWP as an impact category. The interviews with OEMs reveal that there is
no preferable framework for conducting the impact assessments as the date of the interview,
however Polestar is considering the inclusion of ReCiPe 2016 when expanding the LCA’s
impact categories scope.
The ReCiPe method is made up of indicators that fall into two levels; 18 midpoint indicators
and three endpoint indicators (Huijbregts et al., 2017). The Midpoints categories represent
the pressure (emissions and resources extractions) caused by human activities and the
Endpoints represent the damage to the human health, ecosystems and resources availability
caused by this pressure (see Figure 6). This pressure can be translated into environmental
impact scores using characterisation factors. The characterization factors show the
22
environmental impact per unit of pressure e.g., Damage occurred per kg of material
extracted or emitted (Huijbregts et al., 2017).
Figure 6 - ReCiPe 2016 Methodology (Huijbregts et al., 2017)
Data Requirements
From the system boundaries, it becomes clear on which parts of the system data is required.
However, data can be collected from many places in many ways. Therefore, it needs to be
decided how data will be collected on each respective part of the studied system. ISO
14044:2006 mentions that data can be collected from production sites or obtained and/or
calculated from other sources. The standard argues that in practice, all data may include a
mixture of measured, calculated or estimated data. From the literature review, this argument
seems to hold up. Since the studied literature uses either measured, calculated, or estimated
data, but often a mixture. The Volvo (2020) and Polestar (2020) LCA reports have also used
a mixture of measured (themselves or by suppliers), calculated (from LCA databases) and
estimated data.
23
The GHG protocol (2011) lists a set of requirements for data in a life cycle inventory:
Companies shall collect data for all processes included in the inventory boundary.
Companies shall collect primary data for all processes under their ownership or control.
During the data collection process, companies shall assess the data quality of activity data,
emission factor, and/or direct emissions data by using the data quality indicators. For
significant processes, companies shall report a descriptive statement on the data sources,
the data quality and any efforts taken to improve data quality.
Data quality requirements are mentioned in 4.2.9.
Assumptions
ISO 14044:2006: stated that the cut-off criteria for the initial inclusion of inputs and outputs
and assumptions on which the cut-off criteria are established shall be clearly described. GHG
protocol (2011) requires the practitioners to make assumptions about the specific
attributable processes involved in creating, distributing, and selling the studied product as
they develop their processes flow map. When estimating the emissions for a process, an
upper limit should be used and then benchmarked against a threshold to determine its
significance. These assumptions should be transparently disclosed in the report. In the
literature review, most of the articles described their assumptions. Some of those have
dedicated a whole chapter to explain their assumptions.
The Daimler (2018) LCA report has not elaborated on any assumptions made in the LCA
study. Both Volvo (2020) and Polestar (2020) stated that general assumptions have been
made in a conservative fashion following the precautionary principle, in order to not
underestimate the impact from unknown data. Additional processes have been added to the
model when needed to represent actual emissions more accurately. The Polestar (2020) and
Volvo (2020) studies did not include indirect emissions, e.g., the impact from the charging
or fuel infrastructure, which means that only the cars themselves were assessed. Das (2014)
made assumptions such as driving patterns, end-of-life recycling rate, and recycling yield.
Limitations
Assumptions, allocation methods, selection of impact categories, data accuracy and chosen
system boundaries may affect the accuracy and credibility of the LCA results. Therefore, ISO
14044:2006 requires the disclosure and assessment of the potential effect the cut-off criteria
have on the LCA outcome. Similarly, the results from GHG-only inventory should not be
communicated as an overall environmental performance indicator for a product (GHG
Protocol, 2011). For instance, potential impacts such as ecosystem degradation, resource
24
depletion and negative human health impacts are not covered by the GHG protocol (2011).
In the literature review, most of the reviewed articles did not discuss the limitations of the
conducted studies. On the other hand, the articles that discussed the limitations, did it from
a data availability and system boundaries perspective.
OEMs like Volvo and Polestar disclosed their LCA study limitations caused by the cut-off
criteria applied on the product system (Volvo, 2020; Polestar, 2020). The carbon footprint
in the LCA report is calculated based on data and assumptions on high levels of the product
system, therefore, the results should not be broken down to the component level without
reassuring that an acceptable level of detail is also reached on the studied sub-system. The
Daimler (2018) LCA report did not discuss the limitations of LCA results in their report. The
OEMs’ studies did not take rebound effects into consideration.
Initial Data Quality Requirements
Data quality requirements shall be specified, according to iso 14044:2006, to enable the goal
and scope of the study to be met. The quality requirements should cover the following
attributes:
• Time-related coverage: age and the minimum length of the data.
• Geographical coverage: the area from which the data originates.
• Technology coverage: specific technology or technology mix.
• Precision; allowed variability of the data values.
• Completeness: percentage of data that is available of a unit process.
• Representation: qualitative assessment of the degree to which the data set reflects the
true population of interest.
• Consistency: qualitative assessment of whether the study methodology is applied
uniformly to the various components of the analysis.
• Reproducibility: qualitative assessment of the extent to which information about the
methodology and data values would allow an independent practitioner to reproduce the
results reported in the study.
• Source of data.
• Uncertainty of information (e.g., data models and assumptions).
• How missing data will be treated.
Even though the ISO mentions this step clearly, in the scope in ISO 14040:2006 and
explained as above in ISO 14044:2006, the LCA reports from Volvo (2020), Polestar (2020)
and Daimler (2018) did not report any initial data quality requirements. Similarly, in the
25
literature review only Gebler et al. (2020) talk about classification of data in terms of
accuracy (High, Medium, and Low data quality based on uncertainty, assumptions,
calculations, etc.). None of the other papers discussed (initial) data quality requirements.
Type of Critical Review
The purpose of the critical review is to ensure the credibility of the LCA results. ISO
14040:2006 requires that the scope and type of the critical review to be defined in the scope
phase of an LCA. It divides the possible critical review into two types based on the
practitioners of the review process, by internal/external expert or by a panel of interested
parties. In case of a review by an expert it is important that the expert is independent of the
study. In the case of appointing a panel for the critical review, an external independent
expert should be selected as chairperson of a review panel of at least three members.
ISO 14040:2006 requires that review statements, comments, and the response to them shall
be documented in the LCA report and the review shall cover the following aspects: That the
methods used are consistent with the standard, That the methods used are scientifically and
technically valid, That the data used are appropriate and reasonable in relation to the goal
of the study, That the interpretation reflects limitations identified in the goal of the study,
That the report is transparent and consistent.
In the literature review some of the articles have undergone a critical review. (Koffler et al.,
2014) was critically reviewed by an external independent panel. (Alonso et al., 2007) was
reviewed by an ISO14040 expert. The GHG protocol standard is in line with ISO standards
regarding the importance of the critical review for LCA credibility assurance. Daimler (2018)
utilised a third party (TÜV) to carry out the critical review of its LCA report. Volvo (2020)
and Polestar (2020) did not mention any type of critical review being carried out for their
LCA results.
Type and Format of a Report for the LCA Study
ISO 14044:2006 states that the results of an LCA study shall be completely and accurately
reported without bias to the intended audience. The results, data, methods, assumptions,
and limitations shall be transparent and presented in sufficient detail to allow the reader to
comprehend the complexities and trade-offs inherent in the LCA. The ISO standard
14044:2006 lists an elaborate list on topics and steps of the LCA that should be disclosed in
an LCA report, specific to the applicable audience (internal, public or third party, etc.). These
topics and steps cover all the stages of LCA methodology as defined in ISO 14040:2006.
However, this list does not demand to disclose all steps and considerations needed to
26
perform an LCA. For example, “initial data quality requirements” is not included in this list.
Similarly, the GHG protocol (2011) standard requires companies to clearly disclose general
information regarding the studied product, the practitioners who conducted the study, the
unit of analysis, the scope of the study, the boundary settings, allocations, data collection
and quality, and an uncertainty assessment.
From the literature review, nearly half of the articles mention the use of ISO 14040:2006
and/or ISO 14044:2006 as framework for conducting the LCA study (e.g., Simboli et al.,
2015; Delogu et al., 2017; Silva et al., 2018; Chen et al., 2020). The rest of the articles do not
mention which framework is followed for conducting the LCA.
The Volvo (2020), Polestar (2020) and Daimler (2018) LCA reports, all report according to
the ISO methodology. Volvo and Polestar additionally mention that they have used the
Greenhouse Gas Protocol Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting standard (GHG
Protocol, 2011) for additional methodological considerations. However, these reports seem
to be missing some aspects, e.g., description of the data quality, the end-point categories to
be protected, the characterisation models used.
The interviews with CLEPA, Volvo, and Polestar unanimously stated that the ISO
methodology for LCA seems to be standard practise in the automotive industry. This is
confirmed by the literature review in which nearly all papers stated ISO 14040:2006 as LCA
methodology, for the papers that did disclose their LCA methodology standard. Occasionally
ISO 14044:2006 was mentioned in addition.
In addition to LCA study reports that directly follow ISO 14040:2006 and ISO 14044:2006,
other forms of reporting life cycle impacts exist, such as an Environmental Product
Declaration (EPD). An EPD is a third-party verified document that assesses the LCA study,
and therefore provides more credibility to the results. An EPD assessment bases the audit
on ISO 14040:2006 and ISO 14044:2006. PEF is a methodology proposed by the European
commission that serves as an alternative to ISO 14040:2006 and ISO 14044:2006. It can be
characterised as aiming to increase comparability between products, as it decreases some of
the flexibility that ISO facilitates. Even though PEF is a different LCA methodology than ISO
14040:2006, it is partly based on ISO standards. PEF, similarly to EPD, requires an
independent audit.
4.3 Inventory Analysis
The inventory analysis is the second phase of LCA methodology according to ISO
14040:2006. The standard defines this stage in three steps: data collection, data calculation,
27
and allocation of flows and releases. The methodology of inventory analysis, as defined by
ISO 14040:2006, is iterative. As more data is collected, more will be known about the
system. This may initiate a revision of the data collection procedures so that the goal and
scope of the study are achieved. Issues may arise that require a revision of the goal and/or
scope definitions.
Data Collection
ISO 14040:2006 requires that for each unit process within the systems boundary data
should be mapped under major headings, these data should cover the energy inputs, raw
material inputs, ancillary inputs, and other physical inputs. It should also cover products,
co-products, and waste. Additionally, it should cover emissions to air and discharges to
water and soil. Other applicable environmental aspects should also be covered.
The standard mentions that the data collection step can be a resource-intensive process. It
also states that it is important to consider practical constraints on data collection in the
scoping stage of the study. The methodology of inventory analysis, as defined by ISO
14040:2006, is iterative. The standard states the following: “As data are collected and more
is learned about the system, new data requirements or limitations may be identified that
require a change in the data collection procedures so that the goals of the study will still be
met. Sometimes, issues may be identified that require revisions to the goal or scope of the
study.”
The GHG protocol (2011) has similar requirements to what ISO stated and it additionally
requires companies to collect primary data for all the processes under the companies’
ownership or control. In the literature review roughly half of the reviewed articles do not
mention where the data is collected from or how it has been done. The other half of the
articles mention that the data comes from database averages, assumptions, or empirical
data. By far, most of these articles have used a mix of database averages, assumptions,
and/or empirical data.
The main data that are needed for the environmental validation are the bill of materials,
geometries, masses, and the manufacturing process map (Delogu et al., 2018). The
accounting LCA inventories typically reflect global or national averages of the involved unit
processes (Ekvall and Andrae, 2006 as cited in Palazzo and Geyer, 2019). The lack of
information and high degree of uncertainty hinder the use of traditional sustainability
evaluation tools such as LCA during the early phases of product development (Shöggl et al.,
2017).
28
Daimler’s (2018) LCA data is mainly collected from an in-house database about materials
type, weight and other location and process specific data e.g., energy consumption during
the production. The International Material Data System (IMDS) and Gabi databases are
used as a source of data as well. Data regarding the use phase is retrieved through WLTP
(Worldwide Harmonized Light Vehicles Test Procedure). End-of-life phase data is collected
by Daimler (2018) itself in accordance with ISO 22628 Road vehicles — Recyclability and
recoverability — Calculation method. In the Volvo (2020) and Polestar (2020) LCA reports
mention several sources of data (see Figure 7). Primary data from operations run by Volvo
or Polestar, such as factories and logistics. Data provided by the supplier for the battery
modules, with guidance and support from Volvo and Polestar. Data constructed from LCA
databases EcoInvent 3.6 and GaBi. Data constructed from IMDS databases, containing
specifications on material compositions.
Figure 7 - Example Diagram of LCA Data Sources (Polestar, 2020)
From the interviews with Polestar, Volvo, and CLEPA, the suggested approach is that a first-
tier supplier can start by performing a hotspot analysis by using the available generic data.
The assessed hotspots in that model could then replace the generic data with collected
specific data. Over time, more and more data would be collected resulting in a model with
as many collected data sets as possible along the whole supply chain.
29
Data Calculation
ISO 14040:2006 defines the following procedures for data calculation: validation of data,
relating of data to unit processes, and relating of data to the reference flow of the functional
unit. These procedures apply for all the unit processes included in the system boundaries,
thereby, inventory results are generated for these processes. The GHG protocol (2011) states
that companies should apply a GWP-100 factor to the emissions and removals data to
calculate the inventory results represented by CO2eq. GWP-100 means the global warming
impacts from the emissions over a time period of 100 years. The source of data of the GWP
factors shall be reported. Weighting factors for delayed emissions, offsets and avoided
emissions shall not be included when quantifying inventory results.
None of the articles in the literature review explained their calculation procedures, save for
one. The LCA reports from Volvo (2020), Polestar (2020) and Daimler (2018) did not report
how data is calculated.
Allocation of Flows and Releases
The need for allocation arises when a process within the product system has multiple input
and/or outputs. Methodology of allocation is explained in 4.2.4. For instance, in the Daimler
(2018) LCA report the practitioners have allocated cables and batteries used in the
electronics according to their materials composition and considered the electronics
components as only circuit boards. In the LCA report from Polestar (2020), 100% of the total
emissions from scrap were allocated to the vehicles. That means the emissions from
aluminium and steel production are included in the calculations from both scrap and actual
mass used in the final product.
4.4 Impact Assessment
The impact assessment is the third phase of LCA methodology according to ISO 14040:2006.
The purpose is stated to evaluate the significance of potential environmental impacts using
the LCI results. In general, this process assigns inventory data to specific environmental
impact categories and category indicators, thereby providing better understanding for these
impacts. The Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) phase also provides information for the
life cycle interpretation phase. Issues such as choice, modelling and evaluation of impact
categories can introduce subjectivity into the LCIA phase. Therefore, transparency is critical
to the impact assessment to ensure that assumptions are clearly described and reported. The
impact assessment as prescribed by GHG protocol (2011) only accounts for GHG emissions.
30
According to the methodology of ISO 14040:2006 there are three steps in the impact
assessment phase. Firstly, the selection of impact categories. This choice is decided upon in
the scoping phase of the study. Secondly, the assignment of LCI results, also referred to as
classification. Finally, the calculation of category indicator results, also referred to as
characterisation. On completing these steps, the results will show an LCIA profile. After
these mandatory steps are completed, ISO 14040:2006 mentions some optional steps;
normalisation, grouping, and weighting. Normalisation is the calculation of the magnitude
of category indicator results relative to the reference information. Grouping is the sorting
(and possibly ranking) the impact categories. Weighting is the conversion (and possibly
aggregation) of indicator results across impact categories using numerical factors based on
value choices. However, the ISO 14044:2006 recommends not performing any of the
optional elements of LCIA, as it easily can introduce subjectivity. Weighting is discouraged
by ISO 14044:2006 as different individuals, organisations and societies have different
preferences. Therefore, it is possible that different parties reach different weighting results.
Only a few papers in the literature review have normalised, grouped, or weighted results.
Zhang Lei et al. (2020) argue however that not all impact categories have the same
harmfulness. Therefore, they justify that assigning weights to impact categories by an
expert’s judgement may give a clearer indication of the severity of the impacts. Similarly, to
most of the papers in the literature review, the Volvo (2020) and Polestar (2020) LCA
reports have not performed any of the optional elements of LCIA.
The LCIA phase also encounters some limitations. ISO 14040:2006 states that LCIA cannot
always demonstrate significant differences between impact categories and the related
indicator results of alternative product systems. The standard states the following aspects as
possible causes to the phenomenon. Limited development of the characterization models,
sensitivity analysis, and uncertainty analysis for the LCIA phase. Limitations of the LCI
phase, such as setting the system boundary or inadequate LCI data quality.
4.5 Interpretation
Interpretation is the final phase of the LCA methodology according to ISO 14040:2006.
Here, the findings from the inventory analysis and the impact assessment are considered
together or, in the case of an LCI study, the findings of the inventory analysis only (ISO
14040:2006). According to the GHG protocol (2011) standard, in this phase performance
tracking is conducted alongside uncertainty assessment and reporting of the findings. The
interpretation phase answers questions regarding process contribution analysis,
advantages, and disadvantages of the use of a material/product compared to another
31
material/product (Curran, 2015). In this phase sensitivity analysis is required to deal with
uncertainties (Curran, 2015). Koffler et al. (2014), for example, performed an uncertainty
analysis. Life cycle interpretation is also intended to provide a readily understandable,
complete, and consistent presentation of the results of an LCA, in accordance with the goal
and scope definition of the study (ISO 14040:2006). In the literature review, the
interpretation took the form of drawing conclusions from the LCA results.
In the LCA reports from Volvo (2020) and Polestar (2020), The results were shown in
graphical and numerical terms, and they are taken from the LCA study to showcase the
environmental performance of the car models.
4.6 Sustainability and LCA
Traditionally, LCA has only considered the environmental aspects of sustainability (ISO
14040:2006). However, this neglects the other two pillars (economic and social) of
sustainability.
Regarding environmental sustainability, reviewing the articles included in this thesis,
indicates that academic studies mainly focus on GWP.
Attempts have been made to create tools and methods to include social sustainability into
LCA methodology. Karlewski et al. (2019) address how the automotive industry can
conceptualise and conduct SLCA. Pastor et al. (2018) propose a "social risk assessment"
model for connecting midpoints with social consequences (endpoints), for water
consumption. Zanchi et al. (2018) developed a structured approach to guide practitioners in
the critical application of Social LCA (SLCA), specific to the automotive industry. They
analysed the most important elements affecting the “goal and scope” and “inventory phase”
of an SLCA. Baumann et al. (2013) conducted a case study on comparing the lives that
airbags save against the lives it takes by the production of airbags.
Attempts have also been made to include economical sustainability aspects into LCA. For
example, Life Cycle Costing (LCC) and Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA). Hoogmartens al. (2014)
have provided a framework that clarifies the relations between LCA, LCC, and CBA. They
also elaborate on key aspects for these methodologies to adapt to “full sustainability
assessments”. Zhang et al. (2020) included LCC in their LCA study on optimising design
choices. Alonso et al. (2007) provide a case studies where LCC is being applied in electronic
components in the automotive sector, to reach products that are both eco-efficient and cost-
effective.
32
In addition to addressing one or two pillars of sustainability, Gmelin and Seuring (2014)
present six case studies where they investigate how products in the automotive industry can
be developed sustainably with the help of product life-cycle management. By taking
considerations from all three pillars of sustainability.
33
5 Discussion
This chapter is structured by the topics in the results chapter. These topics are derived from
the LCA methodology as described in ISO 14040:2006.
5.1 Goal
In this section, the topics of the goal description are discussed.
Intended Application of LCA Studies
There are many intended applications of LCA studies. A hotspot analysis might be a good
first LCA study, to find out which processes, materials, and flows to direct optimisation
efforts on. Such a study relies on industry averages rather than actual representative data.
Thereby it circumvents the most resource intensive parts of LCA methodology. Such a study
might later be followed with a more in-depth LCA study to provide a more representative
image of impacts on the chosen impact categories. Volvo has signalled in the interview that
they will focus on carbon neutrality and circular economy.
The Reason(s) for Carrying out LCA Studies
There can be many reasons for carrying out an LCA study, as presented in section 4.1.2.
There seems to be an opportunity of supplier and customer stewardship with Volvo Cars, as
they are pushing and collaborating with their suppliers to move towards performing LCA.
Even other OEM customers, or even potential customers, most likely consider performing
LCA as a competitive advantage over competitors who do not.
Additionally, companies who have committed to any form of environmental targets need a
way of following up on them. LCA could aid in providing an indication of current
environmental performance. Environmental performance tracking that does not include all
life cycle stages will not give a complete or correct picture.
The Intended Audience of LCA Studies
The main audience for an LCA study conducted by a first-tier supplier to automotive OEMs
would be two parties: the company itself (for internal use) and the OEMs, including current
customers and potential customers. The LCA studies can be used internally for
environmental performance optimisation through product and production development.
The general public may not be too interested in a first-tier supplier’s products, since they are
connected to the end product, the automotive vehicle.
34
However, disclosing LCA studies publicly, might have positive effects on the company as an
employer. This might give the company a greater pull for talent and this provides all the
benefits of good employees.
Whether the Results are Intended to be Used in Comparative Assertions
Intended to be Disclosed to the Public
In the case that results are intended to be used in comparative assertions intended to be
disclosed to the public, greater efforts should be made to demonstrate objectivity and
transparency in the report.
There is no scientific basis for reducing environmental performance into a single score (ISO
14040:2006), e.g., CO2-equivalent. This stems from two issues. Firstly, that there is no
scientific basis for how a complex relationship of impacts could/should be reduced into a
single score. Secondly, there is no scientific basis for if such a reduction is representative of
the performance of the complex relationship of impacts. Therefore, one should be careful
with making assertions on environmental performance based on single scores. In terms of
making the report objective, normalisation, weighting, and grouping should be avoided.
5.2 Scope
The topics of Assumptions and Limitations in the scoping phase of LCA studies are not
covered in the discussion. Any assumptions and limitations made in an LCA study should be
discussed, justified, and reported on.
The Product System
Unit processes that comprise the product system (subject of study) need to be selected in
alignment with the LCA objectives. The importance of clearly presenting the product system
as unit process flow diagrams comes from the need of assigning physical flows and releases
to these unit processes in next steps of defining the LCA scope. This way of describing the
product system seems to be underestimated by most of the articles reviewed in this study.
In addition to helping the practitioner assign physical flows and releases to the unit
processes through visualisation, the reader of the final report will more easily understand
the study and the studied system.
The Function of the Product System and Functional Unit
The purpose of a functional unit is to relate all the inputs and outputs of the product system
to this unit. So that the function of the product system can be quantified. For the OEMs in
the automotive industry, the functional unit is commonly defined as a distance driven by the
studied vehicle. But how could a supplier to these OEMs define their functional unit? How
35
could the function of e.g., an airbag be translated into a practical functional unit? From the
results, the functional unit boils down to the following: The service of the component over a
defined driven distance of a car. For a camera unit in a car this could mean: The service of
the camera unit over 200.000 km in a Volvo XC40. It makes a difference to define the actual
car model that the component will be a part of. Since all car models have different weight,
efficiency, type of engine, etc. A supplier to the automotive industry might supply to different
OEMs and many different car models, each car will influence the use-phase impact
differently. The purpose of such a camera unit is delivered in the use-phase of a car, but the
camera unit’s purpose is not the same as the purpose of the car. Still, the inputs and outputs
of the product system of the camera unit can be related to this functional unit. For instance,
the camera’s weight and electricity consumption will be the main impactors in the use-phase
which can be attributed to the total weight and energy-usage of the car. Similarly, the
burdens and impacts of the other life-cycle stages can be related to the same functional unit.
The System Boundary
It is important to map all system flows and processes. However, it might be overwhelming
or perhaps in some cases even impossible to account for every single flow and process,
especially for a first time LCA study. The absence of clear guidelines from ISO for how to
define the scope seems to lead to variations in the defining of the system boundaries in LCA
studies by different practitioners. Even for different studies with the same product category.
Thus, any comparisons between the environmental performance claims of different studied
products are not credible.
Cradle-to-gate excludes the end-of-life stage and can additionally exclude the use stage of
the life cycle. Excluding these stages from an LCA study risks down the line not taking into
account factors that are important to the environmental performance of what is studied.
The interviewed OEMs have indicated that they would ask for cradle-to-gate LCA studies
from their first-tier suppliers, but this does not mean that a first-tier supplier cannot provide
valuable insights and performance in the use and end-of-life stages. Typically, in the case of
automotive vehicles, the use phase is the largest contributor of impacts. As well, the end-of-
life treatment holds the key to battling issues like resource scarcity and circularity.
From the perspective of environmental performance evaluation, the picture is not complete
if any of the life cycle stages are not included. It is therefore important to consider cradle-to-
grave as a scope for the system boundaries in an LCA study if possible. A cradle-to-gate
36
report can be constructed from a cradle-to-grave study to be provided to the OEM customer,
accompanied with use phase and end-of-life phase characteristics.
Allocation Procedures
ISO 14040:2006 and GHG protocol recommend avoiding allocations when it is possible,
otherwise, partitioning means can be used to conduct the allocation. Whether allocation
procedures are used or avoided, documentation of the approach is important.
Default allocation procedures embedded in LCA software and allocation procedures that
follow “the polluter pays principle” are commonly used in industry and also referred to as
the simple cut-off principle. In the end-of-life phase, using “the polluter pays principle”
could discourage manufacturers from investing in more recyclable designs/materials for
their products. Since the party that invests in recyclable materials does not receive any
benefits compared to using non-recyclable materials. Therefore, the 50/50% allocation
approach could be considered, where both the producer and re-user of the recyclable
primary product material share the credits and burdens. However, this approach becomes
tricky when the material gets recycled for a second time, what would be the burdens for the
third user? Even though the 100/0%, or the simple cut-off principle, is easier to implement,
there might be a benefit in putting some burden on the party that uses recycled material,
since that will incentivise them still to be efficient with that material.
For a first-tier supplier to OEMs, using any approach other than the 100/0% method
becomes hard to implement. If a first-tier supplier uses materials that are recyclable and
applies e.g., a 50/50% approach, then whoever will use that material should account for 50%
of the burdens and credits. That information needs somehow to follow the material. For a
first-tier supplier it then seems easier to apply a 100/0% principle, as the OEMs in this study
have done, and instead present the degree of recyclability to the OEM customers as a
competitive advantage.
Impact Categories Selected and Methodology of Impact Assessment and
Subsequent Interpretation
When defining the LCA study scope, impact categories should be wisely selected to fulfil the
LCA goal. For example, if a company has committed to the Paris climate agreement, then
including GWP in the LCA study would be imperative. Similarly, if a company has ambitions
to become more circular, impact categories like mineral resource use should be included in
the LCA study. The right selection of multiple impact categories will portray a more accurate
image of potential environmental performance than just a few impact categories.
37
When conducting e.g., a hotspot analysis on life cycle environmental performance, such a
study could consider a wide range of impact categories, e.g., by using the ReCiPe 2016
methodology. Then, in a more in-depth LCA study, the initial focus could be on a selection
of most impactful impact categories. Iteration and improvement of that study could then
seek to add more impact categories as more data is collected over time.
Some impact categories have their own inherited inaccuracy, as is the case with e.g., GWP.
In this category the impact from selected GHG emissions is calculated into a total CO2-
equivalent value. The equivalence calculations are not completely accurate compared to a
real-world scenario because of made simplifications and assumptions. Things like this must
be kept in mind, when claiming e.g., carbon neutrality. From these simplifications,
assumptions, and other limitations, an LCA study will always result in potential impacts, not
accurate impacts.
Data Requirements
The system boundaries dictate what processes and flows to collect data on. Data can be
collected in many ways; from actual/estimated data from operations, estimated from global
averages from LCA databases, etc. The GHG protocol (2011) dictates that primary data is to
be collected for all processes under the company’s ownership or control. This seems
reasonable since it promotes aiming to perform more representative LCA studies. If possible,
such primary data could, or perhaps should, be collected from processes not under direct
control in the supply chain. Depending on the goal of the study, database averages could be
used or as much primary data as possible.
Initial Data Quality Requirements
As the literature studied in this thesis do not report on this topic, not much information has
been found. Setting initial data quality requirements is however imperative for ensuring that
the quality of the obtained data will be sufficient for fulfilling the goals of the study.
Type of Critical Review
Even though according to ISO (2006) methodology, a critical review is optional, it does
provide credibility to the study. A critical review could also be used as an opportunity for
inexperienced practitioners to learn from an independent expert. It can also be used as an
opportunity to let a panel of interested parties ensure that the study is in line with their
requirements and needs. It is also important to document the critical review process in the
LCA report.
38
Type and Format of the Report Required for the LCA Study
The industry and academic standard for reporting seems to be rooted in ISO 14040:2006
and ISO 14044:2006. While it might be beneficial for practitioners to see eye to eye on what
approach to take, perhaps the approach that ISO defines is not sufficient. The descriptions
of LCA methodology in the ISO standards are formulated in a general way. This results in
practitioners having different interpretations of the methodological aspects.
Some aspects of LCA methodology could not be extracted from reports and research in this
study, because they did not report on it. Even on aspects that ISO 14044:2006 states as
requirements for reporting. For example, data quality or initial data quality requirements
are under-reported. However, studies do need to define it while carrying out the study. This
gives rise to the question; why not report it? Presenting data quality and efforts made on
ensuring data quality surely would improve the credibility and transparency of the study.
By the practitioner not reporting on all aspects of LCA methodology, the reader will not be
able to understand and learn from some aspects of the study. The reader is then left to guess
on how it was implemented, and how to implement it themselves in their own LCA studies.
For these reasons, it should be encouraged to be transparent in all aspects of LCA
methodology in a report.
5.3 Inventory Analysis
The topics of Data Collection and Allocation of Flows and Releases for the Inventory
Analysis phase in LCA studies are not covered in the discussion, as any calculations and
allocations made in an LCA study should be discussed, justified, and reported on.
Collecting data on all the processes included within the system boundaries might be resource
intensive, practical constraints can be considered to ease the process. These constraints need
to be discussed in the sense of their implications on the LCA results and the whole process
should be clearly documented. Using global average data from GaBi and/or EcoInvent
databases seems to be common practice among LCA practitioners in both academia and
industry. Even though taking such an approach cuts much of the resource intensity of an
LCA, the LCA results do not accurately represent the actual environmental performance of
the studied product system. Therefore, using these available averages should be limited to
conducting a hotspot analysis LCA. The results from this analysis then can be used as an
indication to focus the data collection efforts for more proper LCA studies.
39
Data can be collected from manufacturing and logistics operations that a company has
ownership or control over. Ideally, all actors in the supply chain would provide this data to
the LCA study. If all the actors along the supply chain supply accurate empirical data, one
could define an overview of most impactful processes and materials of the product system.
However, this requires companies to be transparent with how they are working, thus
requiring trust from the supplier on the receiver. As mentioned before, starting with all
suppliers at the same time might be overwhelming. One could start with gathering data from
the supplier with the biggest environmental performance improvement potential or the
supplier with the best relationship. Such a collaboration with a supplier could focus on
formulating a harmonised and standardised way of sharing the data between the supplier
and the receiver, so that other actors in the supply chain have a lower barrier to step in.
5.4 Impact Assessment
Impact assessment is the process of translating the data from the LCI into its potential
environmental impacts. It shows the significance of these potential impacts. The outcome
quality of this step depends heavily on the previous steps in the LCA, such as the defined
system boundaries, allocation procedures, data quality, etc.
In this stage the assessment is done by the LCA software and involvement of the LCA
practitioners is limited to the methodological choices (the characterization models,
timeframe etc.) they made during the study setup. Thus, different methodological choices
will lead to a difference in the assessment results.
ISO methodology defines normalisation, grouping, and weighting as optional steps of LCIA.
Normalisation seems to be overlooked in academic and industry practise, perhaps since it is
defined as an optional step. However, the magnitude and implication of the absolute results
from an LCIA study on their own might be difficult to understand without a reference.
Normalization could make it easier to understand the significance of LCIA results as it aims
to present the results in relation to a reference value of choice on the industry, national or
global levels. Thus, evaluating the impact share that the studied product/service has in
relation to the total impact on these levels. The issue with this approach is that relating the
results to a reference value introduces value-choices and therefore risks introducing
subjectivity.
Grouping the LCIA results could take different forms in alignment with the goal of the study;
It can be done based on the location of occurrence of the emissions (global, national, or local
scale), based on the ambience to which the emissions are released (e.g., air, soil, water), or
40
based on the importance of the indicator from the practitioner's perspective. Grouping
procedures are based on value-choices, therefore the documentation and justification of the
procedures is important, for the sake of transparency.
Weighting is an optional step in which the normalized results for each of the impact
categories are multiplied by a weighting factor. The aim is to express the importance of the
particular impact category and present the LCIA results as a single score. However, there is
no scientific basis for reducing environmental performance into a single score (ISO
14040:2006). Therefore, ISO 14044:2006 states that weighting should not be performed if
the comparative assertions are disclosed to the public. Additionally, different interested
parties might weigh differently in the same situations, based on their own preferences.
Ultimately ending up with different results. On the other hand, weighing the results could
provide a clear indication on where the improvement efforts should be focused, based on
what the practitioner deems of importance. The practitioner should perform this step with
caution, as it introduces bias. This could potentially lead to underestimating the impacts of
lower weighted impact categories.
5.5 Interpretation
Interpretation is the last mandatory phase in the LCA methodology. In this phase
conclusions are drawn from the LCI & LCIA phases. This means conducting an analysis on
these results to identify the key takeaways regarding the environmental performance profile
on selected impact categories (e.g., resource consumption, GWP).
However, in order to draw robust conclusions, one should consider performing sensitivity
analysis and completeness checks on the data on these key environmental issues. It is also
important to check if the acquired results are consistent with the defined goal and scope of
the LCA study.
Before drawing final conclusions, the strength and limitations of the study should be
thoroughly discussed, from which recommendations can be made. The results of the
interpretation should be presented understandable, credible, complete, and consistent.
Visualisation of the results can help to ease the understanding of them.
5.6 Sustainability and LCA
LCA studies are generally focused on environmental sustainability. However, those studies
mainly address only GWP in the form of CO2-eq. In order to get a holistic perspective on
environmental sustainability performance, more impact categories need to be included in
41
the LCA study. The concern is that by making decisions based on one impact category only,
the burden might be unknowingly increased on other impact categories instead.
Efforts have been made towards creating methods that include social and/or economic
sustainability aspects. However, no standardised or widely accepted framework seems to
exist for these aspects. Even so, an LCA study could include one or a few indicators picked
by the practitioner based on importance, to explore those social and/or economic aspects of
a product system.
It is important to recognise the value of including all three pillars of sustainability into future
life cycle product system assessments. If the focus is on one pillar only, as seems to be the
case with environmental sustainability in current practise, the decisions being made could
unknowingly increase burdens on the other pillars.
Currently, Volvo and Polestar are not looking into any potential emission “savings”. For
example, emissions saved by active safety systems that aim to prevent accidents. Future
research could address the potential emissions saved through a consequential LCA, looking
into the consequences of (not) utilising safety equipment. The impact categories in such a
study would include more aspects than just emissions, e.g., the DALY index as demonstrated
by Baumann et al. (2013). This would capture the road safety aspect, so that considerations
on emissions and road safety could be explored.
42
43
6 Conclusion
The purpose of this thesis has been to investigate what considerations need to be made for a
customised attributional LCA approach for a first-tier supplier to automotive OEMs. In
order to fulfil this purpose, the objectives of this study were defined as:
1. To explore and investigate prevailing considerations of existing LCA approaches applied
to the automotive sector.
2. To discuss the prevailing considerations of LCA approaches in the automotive industry
and conclude suitable recommendations to aid future formulation of a customised
implementation of LCA for first-tier suppliers.
The first objective was addressed by carrying out of the methodology, as presented in
Chapter 3. A literature review was conducted, interviews with industry were performed,
public reports from industry were read, and LCA standards were consulted. These findings
were presented in Chapter 4, the results, as an inventory of existing LCA tools and
approaches applied to the automotive sector.
The second objective was addressed by discussing (in Chapter 5) the findings presented in
Chapter 4. From these discussions, recommendations are made in section 6.1. on the LCA
methodology topics from the perspective of a first-tier supplier.
6.1 Key Recommendations
This section of the chapter draws conclusions from the results and discussions in the form
of key recommendations for LCA considerations for a first-tier supplier to automotive
OEMs. The order of recommendations follows the LCA methodology as defined by ISO
14040:2006.
Goal Definition
The most relevant application of an LCA study seems to be a hotspot analysis. Later, a more
in-depth follow-up LCA study could be performed to explore the environmental
performance more accurately. The reason for carrying out such studies could be to improve
collaboration on environmental performance both upstream and downstream. Another
reason could be to improving competitiveness through environmental performance. The
relevant external audience for LCA studies from a first-tier supplier to automotive OEMs are
mainly the OEMs, both customers and potential customers. The general public does not
seem to be a relevant audience. It is also not recommended to make any public claims based
44
on comparative assertions. Other relevant audiences are internal departments, e.g.,
management, R&D, and environmental departments.
Scope Definition
The most relevant, and widely used, functional unit can be generalised as follows: the service
of the studied product over X km of driven distance in car model Y. The recommended
system boundary to consider is cradle-to-grave, to ensure a holistic overview of potential
environmental performance. A cradle-to-gate study could be extracted from this, based on
the request of OEMs. It is recommended to create a diagram of the processes and flows in
the system boundaries. Regarding allocation procedures, they should initially be avoided
wherever possible. For the end-of-life allocation procedures, it is recommended to follow the
simple cut-off principle (100/0%) in alignment with the OEMs’ LCA studies. Regarding the
selection of impact categories, it is recommended to consider as many as possible in a
hotspot LCA study. The methodology for this could be ReCiPe 2016. For an in-depth follow-
up LCA study, a select few impact categories can be considered that are most relevant. It is
also recommended to perform a critical review of the LCA study, either conducted by an
external expert or by a panel of interested parties. For the format of the LCA report, it is
recommended to follow the ISO 14040:2006 and ISO 14044:2006 methodology, but to
report on as many of the aspects as possible.
Inventory Analysis
Regarding the data collection for a hotspot analysis, it is recommended to use average values
provided by databases, such as EcoInvent and GaBi databases provided in the LCA software.
An in-depth follow-up LCA study should collect as much primary and specific data as
possible. The focus of this should be on owned operations and identified hotspots. Primary
data not available initially, could later be added to expand and improve the LCA model over
time. Any calculations and allocations made, should be reported on.
Impact assessment
Regarding the impact assessment, the LCA software takes care of classification and
characterisation once the inventory model is created and impact categories are selected. The
optional steps of LCIA could be performed for internal use only. Normalisation could be used
to compare the results to a reference value of choice (national, industry, competition, etc.)
but weighting and grouping can be performed in the future when a certain expertise has been
obtained in the company, to focus efforts.
45
Interpretation
The interpretation phase of LCIA methodology should focus on identifying the key sources
of impacts. It is recommended that a sensitivity analysis (see section 2.4.4.) is performed on
these sources to explore the robustness of the model. It is also recommended to perform a
data completeness check to ensure the quality of the data. The interpretation phase should
also ensure that the study is in line with the defined goals. Finally, the interpretation phase
should discuss the assumptions and limitations, followed by drawing conclusions and
recommendations.
6.2 Limitations of this Thesis
Upon interpreting the result and conclusions of this thesis the following aspects should be
kept in mind.
Because of the delimitations set, as presented in the introduction, the research of this thesis
has not deeply investigated data science aspects of LCA, as this is out of the field of expertise
of the authors. This means however, since data aspects are an important part of LCA, that
some valuable insights are missing. Additionally, the aim of thesis was not to conduct an
LCA study. However, the considerations discussed and recommended have therefore not
been put to the test.
Some aspects (e.g., data quality and allocation procedures) of the LCA methodology were
under-presented in the academic studies and industrial reports. Therefore, key information
for conducting LCA might be missing in the results and discussion of this report.
The methodological choices of the literature review, although substantiated, might result in
lacking valuable considerations. E.g., the papers in the literature review were limited to the
automotive industry. LCA studies from other industries might have valuable insights to
offer. Additionally, the choice of database, search query design, timespan of publication, and
language might have left out papers with valuable insights.
Only two OEMs were interviewed, Volvo and Polestar, who have together created their LCA
reports. This means that the two interviews with these OEMs shared a similar basis. To
complement their shared perspective on LCA in the analysis of this study, the intention was
to conduct an interview with another OEM. These efforts were unsuccessful.
46
The ISO standard itself is from 2006, already 15 years ago. Some considerations etc. might
be outdated. Also, the GHG protocol is 10 years old.
6.3 Future Research and Development
The conclusions from the results and discussions as well as the key recommendations have
not been tested in e.g., a case study. It is therefore strongly encouraged to use the findings
of this thesis in a case study to assess their practicality and utility. This could be a case for a
first-tier supplier, but perhaps the findings of this thesis could be tested in cases outside of
this scope as well.
This thesis considered only the attributional LCA approach. Therefore, future studies could
also take a further look at the utility of a consequential LCA approach in the automotive
industry.
Since the descriptions of topics in the ISO standards are generic and non-specific to any
sector, it seems that the automotive industry could derive utility from developing a unified
and defined approach to LCA. E.g., which impact categories are of importance to the
automotive industry and the creation of custom characterisation factors.
The involvement of social and economic sustainability aspects in LCA is underdeveloped. In
order to get holistic life cycle impact results, it seems imperative to include all three pillars
of sustainability in LCA studies.
I
References
ALONSO J.C., DOSE J., FLEISCHER G., GERAGHTY K., GREIF A., RODRIGO J., SCHMIDT, W.P., 2007. Electrical and electronic components in the automotive sector: Economic and environmental assessment. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 12(5), 328-335.
ARENA M., AZZONE G., CONTE A., 2013. A streamlined LCA framework to support early decision making in vehicle development. Journal of cleaner production, 41, pp.105-113.
BAUMANN H., ARVIDSSON R., HUI T., YING W., 2013. Does the Production of an Airbag Injure more People than the Airbag Saves in Traffic? Opting for an Empirically Based Approach to Social Life Cycle Assessment. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 17(4), 517-527.
CECCHEL S., CHINDAMO D., COLLOTTA M., CORNACCHIA G., PANVINI A., TOMASONI G., GADOLA M., 2018. Lightweighting in light commercial vehicles: Cradle-to-grave life cycle assessment of a safety-relevant component. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 23(10), 2043-2054.
CHEN C.M., SUN C.H., CHANG H.L., 2020. Environmental impact analysis of an automotive ignition coil in a supply chain. Carbon Management, 11(1), 69-80.
CURRAN M.A., 2015. Life Cycle Assessment Student Handbook. Wiley, New York.
DAIMLER (2018) Environmental Certificate Mercedes-Benz A-Class. Retrieved from https://www.daimler.com/documents/sustainability/product/daimler-environmental-certificate-mb-a-class.pdf [Accessed May 2021]
DAS S., 2014. Life Cycle Energy and Environmental Assessment of Aluminum-Intensive Vehicle Design. SAE International journal of materials and manufacturing, 7(3), 588–595.
DELOGU M., MALTESE S., DEL PERO F., ZANCHI L., PIERINI M., BONOLI A., 2018. Challenges for modelling and integrating environmental performances in concept design: The case of an automotive component lightweighting. International Journal of Sustainable Engineering, 11(2), 135-148.
DELOGU M., ZANCHI L., DATTILO C.A., PIERINI M., 2017. Innovative composites and hybrid materials for electric vehicles lightweight design in a sustainability perspective. Materials Today Communications, 13, 192-209.
EUROPEAN COMMISSION, n.d.. EU Climate action and the European Green Deal. Accessed on 2021-05-18. Link: ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/eu-climate-action_en
FERREIRA V., EGIZABAL P., POPOV V., GARCÍA DE CORTÁZAR M., IRAZUSTABARRENA A., LÓPEZ-SABIRÓN A.M., FERREIRA G., 2019. Lightweight automotive components based on nanodiamond-reinforced aluminium alloy: A technical and environmental evaluation. Diamond and Related Materials, 92, 174-186.
II
GEBLER M., CERDAS J.F., THIEDE S., HERRMANN C., 2020. Life cycle assessment of an automotive factory: Identifying challenges for the decarbonization of automotive production – A case study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 270, 122330.
GMELIN H., SEURING S., 2014. Achieving sustainable new product development by integrating product life-cycle management capabilities. International Journal of Production Economics, 154, 166-177.
GREENHOUSE GAS PROTOCOL, 2011. Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting Standard.
HOOGMARTENS R., VAN PASSEL S., VAN ACKER K., DUBOIS M., 2014. Bridging the gap between LCA, LCC and CBA as sustainability assessment tools. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 48, 27-33.
HUIJBREGTS M.A.J., STEINMANN Z.J.N., ELSHOUT P.M.F., STAM G., VERONES F., VIEIRA F., HOLLANDER A., ZIJP M., VAN ZELM R., 2017. ReCiPe 2016 : A harmonized life cycle impact assessment method at midpoint and endpoint level Report I: Characterization. Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu RIVM.
INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR STANDARDIZATION, 14040:2006. Environmental Management – Life Cycle Assessment – Principles and Framework
INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR STANDARDIZATION, 14044:2006. Environmental Management – Life Cycle Assessment – Requirements and Guidelines
JI C.X., MA X.T., ZHAI Y.J., ZHANG R.R., SHEN X.X., ZHANG T.Z., HONG J.L., 2020. Environmental impact assessment of galvanized sheet production: A case study in Shandong Province, China. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 25(4), 760-770.
KARLEWSKI H., LEHMANN A., RUHLAND K., FINKBEINER M., 2019. A Practical Approach for Social Life Cycle Assessment in the Automotive Industry. Resources (Basel), 8(3), 146.
KEMP N.J., KEOLEIAN G.A., HE X., KASLIWAL A., 2020. Life cycle greenhouse gas impacts of a connected and automated SUV and van. Transportation Research. Part D, Transport and Environment, 83(C), 102375.
KOFFLER C., 2014. Life cycle assessment of automotive lightweighting through polymers under US boundary conditions. The international journal of life cycle assessment, 19(3), 538–545
LEHMANN A., BERGER M., FINKBEINER M., 2018. Life Cycle Based CO2 Emission Credits: Options for Improving the Efficiency and Effectiveness of Current Tailpipe Emissions Regulation in the Automotive Industry. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 22(5), 1066-1079.
PALAZZO J., GEYER R., 2019. Consequential life cycle assessment of automotive material substitution: Replacing steel with aluminum in production of north American vehicles. Environmental impact assessment review, 75, 47–58.
III
PASTOR M.M., SCHATZ T., TRAVERSO M., WAGNER V., HINRICHSEN O., 2018. Social aspects of water consumption: Risk of access to unimproved drinking water and to unimproved sanitation facilities—an example from the automobile industry. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 23(4), 940-956.
PICHERY C., 2014. Sensitivity Analysis, in Encyclopedia of Toxicology (Third Edition), Elsevier (2014), 236-237.
POLESTAR (2020). Life Cycle Assessment – Carbon Footprint of Polestar 2. Retrieved from https://about.polestar.com/news/polestar-2-lca-report/ [Accessed May 2021]
POULIKIDOU S., SCHNEIDER C., BJÖRKLUND A., KAZEMAHVAZI S., WENNHAGE P., ZENKERT D., 2015. A material selection approach to evaluate material substitution for minimizing the life cycle environmental impact of vehicles. Materials & Design, 83, 704-712.
RIBEIRO C., FERREIRA J.V., PARTIDÁRIO P., 2007. Life cycle assessment of a multi-material car component. The international journal of life cycle assessment, 12(5), 336–345.
SCHÖGGL J.P., BAUMGARTNER R.J., HOFER D., 2017. Improving sustainability performance in early phases of product design: A checklist for sustainable product development tested in the automotive industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 140, 1602-1617.
SILVA D.A.L., DE OLIVEIRA J.A., FILLETI R.A.P., DE OLIVEIRA J.F.G., DA SILVA E.J., OMETTO A.R., 2018. Life Cycle Assessment in automotive sector: A case study for engine valves towards cleaner production. Journal of cleaner production, 184, 286–300.
SIMBOLI A., RAGGI A., ROSICA P., 2015. Life Cycle Assessment of Process Eco-Innovations in an SME Automotive Supply Network. Sustainability (Basel, Switzerland), 7(10), 13761–13776.
VOLVO, 2020. Carbon Footprint Report – Battery electric XC40 Recharge and the XC40 ICE. Retrieved from https://group.volvocars.com/news/sustainability/2020/~/me dia/ccs/Volvo_carbonfootprintreport.pdf [Accessed May 2021]
ZANCHI L., DELOGU M., ZMAGNI A., PIERINI M., 2018. Analysis of the main elements affecting social LCA applications: challenges for the automotive sector. The international journal of life cycle assessment, 23(3), 519–535.
ZHANG L., DONG W.F., JIN Z.F., LI X.Y., REN Y.Q., 2020. An integrated environmental and cost assessment method based on LCA and LCC for automobile interior and exterior trim design scheme optimization. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 25(3), 633-645.
IV
Appendices
Appendix 1 – Bibliography of the Literature Review
ALONSO J.C., DOSE J., FLEISCHER G., GERAGHTY K., GREIF A., RODRIGO J., SCHMIDT, W.P., 2007. Electrical and electronic components in the automotive sector: Economic and environmental assessment. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 12(5), 328-335.
ALVES C., FERRAO P.M.C., SILVA A.J., REIS L.G., FREITAS M., RODRIGUES L.B., ALVES D.E., 2010. Ecodesign of automotive components making use of natural jute fiber composites. Journal of cleaner production, 18(4), 313–327.
ANDRIANKAJA H., VALLET F., LE DUIGOU J., EYNARD B., 2015. A method to ecodesign structural parts in the transport sector based on product life cycle management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 94, 165-176.
ARENA M., AZZONE G., CONTE A., 2013. A streamlined LCA framework to support early decision making in vehicle development. Journal of cleaner production, 41, 105–113.
BAUMANN H., ARVIDSSON R., HUI T., YING W., 2013. Does the Production of an Airbag Injure more People than the Airbag Saves in Traffic? Opting for an Empirically Based Approach to Social Life Cycle Assessment. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 17(4), 517-527.
CECCHEL S., CHINDAMO D., COLLOTTA M., CORNACCHIA G., PANVINI A., TOMASONI G., GADOLA M., 2018. Lightweighting in light commercial vehicles: Cradle-to-grave life cycle assessment of a safety-relevant component. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 23(10), 2043-2054.
CHEN C.M., SUN C.H., CHANG H.L., 2020. Environmental impact analysis of an automotive ignition coil in a supply chain. Carbon Management, 11(1), 69-80.
DAS S., 2014. Life Cycle Energy and Environmental Assessment of Aluminum-Intensive Vehicle Design. SAE International journal of materials and manufacturing, 7(3), 588–595.
DEL PERO F., DELOGU M., PIERINI M., 2017. The effect of lightweighting in automotive LCA perspective: Estimation of mass-induced fuel consumption reduction for gasoline turbocharged vehicles. Journal of Cleaner Production, 154, 566-577.
DELOGU M., MALTESE S., DEL PERO F., ZANCHI L., PIERINI M., BONOLI A., 2018. Challenges for modelling and integrating environmental performances in concept design: The case of an automotive component lightweighting. International Journal of Sustainable Engineering, 11(2), 135-148.
DELOGU M., ZANCHI L., DATTILO C.A., PIERINI M., 2017. Innovative composites and hybrid materials for electric vehicles lightweight design in a sustainability perspective. Materials Today Communications, 13, 192-209.
DIENER D.L., TILLMAN A.M., 2016. Scrapping steel components for recycling—Isn’t that good enough? Seeking improvements in automotive component end-of-life. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 110, 48-60.
DU J.D., HAN W.J., PENG Y.H., CU C.C., 2010. Potential for reducing GHG emissions and energy consumption from implementing the aluminum intensive vehicle fleet in China. Energy (Oxford), 35(12), pp.4671–4678.
V
FERREIRA V., EGIZABAL P., POPOV V., GARCÍA DE CORTÁZAR M., IRAZUSTABARRENA A., LÓPEZ-SABIRÓN A.M., FERREIRA G., 2019. Lightweight automotive components based on nanodiamond-reinforced aluminium alloy: A technical and environmental evaluation. Diamond and Related Materials, 92, 174-186.
FINOGENOVA N., BACH V., BERGER M., FINKBEINER M., 2019. Hybrid approach for the evaluation of organizational indirect impacts (AVOID): Combining product-related, process-based, and monetary-based methods. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 24(6), 1058-1074.
GEBLER M., CERDAS J.F., THIEDE S., HERRMANN C., 2020. Life cycle assessment of an automotive factory: Identifying challenges for the decarbonization of automotive production – A case study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 270, 122330.
GMELIN H., SEURING S., 2014. Achieving sustainable new product development by integrating product life-cycle management capabilities. International Journal of Production Economics, 154, 166-177.
HOOGMARTENS R., VAN PASSEL S., VAN ACKER K., DUBOIS M., 2014. Bridging the gap between LCA, LCC and CBA as sustainability assessment tools. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 48, 27-33.
JI C.X., MA X.T., ZHAI Y.J., ZHANG R.R., SHEN X.X., ZHANG T.Z., HONG J.L., 2020. Environmental impact assessment of galvanized sheet production: A case study in Shandong Province, China. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 25(4), 760-770.
KARLEWSKI H., LEHMANN A., RUHLAND K., FINKBEINER M., 2019. A Practical Approach for Social Life Cycle Assessment in the Automotive Industry. Resources (Basel), 8(3), 146.
KEMP N.J., KEOLEIAN G.A., HE X., KASLIWAL A., 2020. Life cycle greenhouse gas impacts of a connected and automated SUV and van. Transportation Research. Part D, Transport and Environment, 83(C), 102375.
KOFFLER C., 2014. Life cycle assessment of automotive lightweighting through polymers under US boundary conditions. The international journal of life cycle assessment, 19(3), 538–545
KOFFLER C., ROHDE-BRANDENBURGER K., 2010. On the calculation of fuel savings through lightweight design in automotive life cycle assessments. The international journal of life cycle assessment, 15(1), 128–135.
LEE J.Y., CHOI S.S., KIM G.Y., NOH S.D., 2011. Ubiquitous product life cycle management (u-PLM): A real-time and integrated engineering environment using ubiquitous technology in product life cycle management (PLM). International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 24(7), 627-649.
LEHMANN A., BERGER M., FINKBEINER M., 2018. Life Cycle Based CO2 Emission Credits: Options for Improving the Efficiency and Effectiveness of Current Tailpipe Emissions Regulation in the Automotive Industry. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 22(5), 1066-1079.
SILVA D.A.L., DE OLIVEIRA J.A., FILLETI R.A.P., DE OLIVEIRA J.F.G., DA SILVA E.J., OMETTO A.R., 2018. Life Cycle Assessment in automotive sector: A case study for engine valves towards cleaner production. Journal of cleaner production, 184, 286–300.
MA F.W., ZHAO Y., PU Y.F., LI J.H., 2018. A Comprehensive Multi-Criteria Decision Making Model for Sustainable Material Selection Considering Life Cycle Assessment Method. IEEE Access, 6, 58338-58354.
VI
NORDELÖF A., 2019. A scalable life cycle inventory of an automotive power electronic inverter unit—part II: manufacturing processes. The international journal of life cycle assessment, 24(4), 694–711.
NORDELÖF A., ALATALO M., SÖDERMAN M.L., 2019. A scalable life cycle inventory of an automotive power electronic inverter unit—part I: Design and composition. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 24(1), 78-92.
NORDELÖF A., GRUNDITZ E., TILLMAN A.M., ALATALO M., 2018. A scalable life cycle inventory of an electrical automotive traction machine—Part I: Design and composition. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 23(1), 55-69.
PALAZZO J., GEYER R., 2019. Consequential life cycle assessment of automotive material substitution: Replacing steel with aluminum in production of north American vehicles. Environmental impact assessment review, 75, 47–58.
PASTOR M.M., SCHATZ T., TRAVERSO M., WAGNER V., HINRICHSEN O., 2018. Social aspects of water consumption: Risk of access to unimproved drinking water and to unimproved sanitation facilities—an example from the automobile industry. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 23(4), 940-956.
PATALA S., JALKALA A., KERÄNEN J., VÄISÄNEN S., TUOMINEN V., SOUKKA R., 2016. Sustainable value propositions: Framework and implications for technology suppliers. Industrial Marketing Management, 59, 144-156.
POULIKIDOU S., SCHNEIDER C., BJÖRKLUND A., KAZEMAHVAZI S., WENNHAGE P., ZENKERT D., 2015. A material selection approach to evaluate material substitution for minimizing the life cycle environmental impact of vehicles. Materials & Design, 83, 704-712.
PURI P., COMPSTON P., PANTANO V., 2009. Life cycle assessment of Australian automotive door skins. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 14(5), 420-428.
RIBEIRO C., FERREIRA J.V., PARTIDÁRIO P., 2007. Life cycle assessment of a multi-material car component. The international journal of life cycle assessment, 12(5), 336–345.
SCHÖGGL J.P., BAUMGARTNER R.J., HOFER D., 2017. Improving sustainability performance in early phases of product design: A checklist for sustainable product development tested in the automotive industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 140, 1602-1617.
SIMBOLI A., RAGGI A., ROSICA P., 2015. Life Cycle Assessment of Process Eco-Innovations in an SME Automotive Supply Network. Sustainability (Basel, Switzerland), 7(10), 13761–13776.
WEYMAR E., FINKBEINER M., 2016. Statistical analysis of empirical lifetime mileage data for automotive LCA. The international journal of life cycle assessment, 21(2), 215–223.
ZANCHI L., DELOGU M., ZMAGNI A., PIERINI M., 2018. Analysis of the main elements affecting social LCA applications: challenges for the automotive sector. The international journal of life cycle assessment, 23(3), 519–535.
ZHANG L., DONG W.F., JIN Z.F., LI X.Y., REN Y.Q., 2020. An integrated environmental and cost assessment method based on LCA and LCC for automobile interior and exterior trim design scheme optimization. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 25(3), 633-645.
VII
Appendix 2 – Protocol for Semi-structured Interview with Industry
The semi-structured interviews were guided by the following questions.
1. Which phases of a product life cycle are relevant for a first-tier supplier’s LCA study?
a. Cradle-to-gate or cradle-to-grave?
b. In case of cradle-to-gate, what about important impacts from the use and end-
of-life phases?
2. Which impact categories are of main interest?
a. Is an impact category framework used? (e.g., ReCiPe 2016)
b. What about social and/or economic sustainability? Or is the focus purely
environmental?
3. What is the approach to allocation procedures?
a. What happens to burdens and credits from the end-of-life treatment?
b. How would you consider emissions “saved” from safety equipment that avoids
crashes and thus emissions?
c. How are indirect emissions accounted (e.g., R&D), if at all?
4. Is your intention to keep disclosing LCA reports to the public?
5. Should a first-tier supplier’s LCA study collect data from its suppliers? Or are existing
databases with industry averages enough?
6. How should the results of a first-tier supplier’s LCA study be communicated to the OEM?
a. Report? Environmental Product Declaration (EPD)? Product Environmental
Footprint (PEF)? LCA Database asset? Something else?
7. Do you see any conflicts between the interests of the supplier and the OEM, in terms of
LCA study/reporting?
TRITA ITM-EX 2021:389
www.kth.se
Related Documents
