| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Ekvall, Tomas, et al.
(författare)
-
Attributional and consequential LCA in the ILCD handbook
- 2016
-
Ingår i: The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. - : Springer. - 0948-3349 .- 1614-7502. ; 21:3, s. 293-296
-
Tidskriftsartikel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- This discussion article aims to highlight two problematic aspects in the International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook: its guidance to the choice between attributional and consequential modeling and to the choice between average and marginal data as input to the life cycle inventory (LCI) analysis. We analyze the ILCD guidance by comparing different statements in the handbook with each other and with previous research in this area. We find that the ILCD handbook is internally inconsistent when it comes to recommendations on how to choose between attributional and consequential modeling. We also find that the handbook is inconsistent with much of previous research in this matter, and also in the recommendations on how to choose between average and marginal data in the LCI. Because of the inconsistencies in the ILCD handbook, we recommend that the handbook be revised.
|
|
| 3. |
- Weidema, Bo, et al.
(författare)
-
Life Cycle Assessment : Theory and Practice
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Journal of Industrial Ecology. - : WILEY. - 1088-1980 .- 1530-9290. ; 24:3, s. 726-730
-
Recension (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)
|
|
| 4. |
- Weidema, Bo, et al.
(författare)
-
Relevance of attributional and consequential information for environmental product labelling
- 2019
-
Ingår i: The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 0948-3349 .- 1614-7502. ; , s. 1-5
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- PurposeConsidering the general agreement in the literature that environmental labelling should be based on consequential modelling, while all actually implemented environmental labelling schemes are based on attributional modelling, we investigate the arguments for this situation as provided in the literature, and whether a dual label, representing on the same label the attributional and consequential results for the same product, can be a relevant solution or at least contribute to a more informed discussion.MethodsWe developed a dual label for three hypothetical, comparable products and presented this for a small test audience, asking three questions, namely “Which product would you choose?”, “Was the attributional information useful?” and “Would you accept to have only the attributional information?”Results and discussionFrom this small pilot exercise, it appears that informed consumers may have a strong preference for consequential information and that the main problem in communicating consequential results is that they are perceived as less trustworthy and more uncertain due to the fact that the consequences are located in the future. It thus appears important to build into a consequential label some increased level of guarantee of future good behaviour.ConclusionsWe propose to apply the above questions to a more statistically representative audience to confirm or refute the findings of this little test exercise.
|
|
