Synthesis
Disclaimer: The content of this publication is based on the state of knowledge and the regulatory framework in force at the time of publication of the documents.
Introduction and objectives
Context
Combatting climate change is one of the key priorities of current governmental policies, in the public debate, as well as in the strategic considerations of many companies. Companies play a crucial role in providing technical, business, and consumer solutions to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. These innovative solutions often require significant investments, e.g. in the form of R&D and capital. Recycling and energy recovery are crucial activities to decrease environmental impacts of products and services. To justify investments in these technologies, to facilitate the implementation of the solutions on the market, and to formulate needs for supportive policy frameworks, it is important for companies to be able to quantify and communicate their contribution to GHG emissions reduction, to policymakers, to investors, to their suppliers and clients, and to the wider society.
Several documents have been developed to provide guidance to support company’s assessments of avoided emissions. These recommendations highlighted important considerations regarding methodological choices and transparency of communication, while a range of methodological options remains open for application by the company or LCA practitioner.
In a technical note, ADEME underlined that this lack of consensus on methodological choices will result in a lack of credibility and comparability of avoided emission claims (ADEME 2020). ADEME emphasised the need for a calculation method that is homogeneous, shared, and acknowledged by companies, public authorities, and stakeholders. Therefore, a logical continuation of earlier reviews and recommendations is the establishment of consensus among actors in the recycling and waste valorisation sectors on the methodological requirements for the evaluation of “avoided emissions”. The calculation and agreement on (avoided) Emission Factors enables to put these requirements into practice.
In response to this need, the association RECORD launched a project in 2021 (further referred to as “V1 of the RECORD project”) with the following objectives:
- Construct a common methodological framework, based on consensus among actors in recycling and waste valorisation value chains, as well as affiliated stakeholders,
- Collectively validate avoided Emission Factors following the prescribed methodology,
- Collectively validate allocation keys to attribute avoided emissions among value-chain actors,
- Formulate recommendations allowing for a credible and transparent communication of avoided emissions.
The project report contains a comprehensive overview of the state of the art on recommendations on the evaluation of avoided emissions and its application to the waste valorization sector. The resulting guide and emission factors were published by RECORD (2022). Since the finalisation of the first version of the RECORD guide, members of RECORD have had the opportunity to test the guide and the associated Reference Emission Factors. The testing phase provided input for the updating of the guide and certain Reference Emission Factors.
Updates of the RECORD guide
The following updates have been made in V2 of the RECORD guide to assess avoided emissions:
- Additional guidance has been formulated on the modelling of specific types of multifunctional processes.
- A step-by-step procedure has been developed that accompanies a practitioner to calculate avoided emissions of a solution.
- An Excel calculation template is developed, which can be used to calculate avoided emissions, starting from a company’s primary data up to obtaining a result.
- Three Reference Emission Factors (REFs) have been updated: steel, PET, and paper. Data sources have been updated, and the Excel format of the REFs are aligned with the calculation template. These REFs may be used to calculate the impacts of the reference scenario in which these materials are produced.
- The methodology is applied in detail on an illustrative case study (the recycling of PET). Furthermore, it is shown how a study can be set-up in the case of energy recovery, and how REFs may be combined, e.g. in the assessment of avoided emissions of the production of Solid Recovered Fuel.
Guide scope and methodological choices
This chapter focuses on methodological choices that have been made by partners of the RECORD project, in a consensus-building process.
Definition of avoided emissions
Within the guide of V1 of the RECORD project, avoided emissions are defined as "GHG emission reductions resulting from the implementation of the evaluated solution, compared to a reference scenario", as illustrated in Figure 1. They should be assessed over the entire life cycle of the solution.
Figure 1: Assessment of avoided emissions from a solution compared to a reference scenario (RECORD, 2022)
Avoided emissions are systematically reported separately from the emissions induced by the product/process/project/organization and are to be distinguished from a carbon footprint or a GHG balance, in line with international consensus. In the full report, the methodological guide is applied to an illustrative example of a car manufacturer that uses recycled plastic in its cars.
LCA modelling choices
This section provides an overview of key methodological choices that were determined via the consensus-building process, which form the basis of the step-by-step protocol to assess avoided emissions.
LCA approach
This guide applies an attributional approach to quantify the avoided emissions.
Multifunctional processes
Consideration of recycling or energy recovery as a multifunctional process
The waste recycling and recovery processes are multifunctional: they perform the function of a waste treatment service and the function of material/energy production. In accordance with the priority strategy of ISO 14044, system expansion is applied in this guide. This has the following consequences:
- The functional unit of the evaluated solution covers the two functions of the recycling/recovery process: the treatment of a product at the end of its life and the recovery of materials/energy
- Avoided emissions from a recycling/recovery solution represent a reduction in emissions in two life cycles: the life cycle in which recovered waste is supplied and the life cycle in which recovered materials/energy are used.
Other multifunctional processes
Once system expansion is applied to the analysed solution, other cases of multifunctionality may still be present. This may be the case in the following examples:
Figure 2: Examples of multifunctional processes within the analysed solution and reference scenario (RECORD, 2024)
The following steps ensure that the analysed solution and the reference scenario have the same quantified functional outputs. Further guidance in the application of the modelling methods is provided in the full guide.
Figure 3: Strategies to model multifunctional processes in the analysed solution and reference scenario (RECORD, 2024)
* This approach corresponds to the use of Module D in EN 15804 (CEN 2012), which is a consensual multi-material approach to model end-of-life valorization of waste.
Other methodological choices
Methodological choices that are not further specified in this guide (e.g. the modelling of biogenic CO2 emissions) shall be transparently described and justified and applied consistently to the analysed solution and the reference scenario.
Solutions covered by the scope of the guide
This guide was developed to provide methodological guidance in the analysis of "avoided emissions" from waste recycling and recovery systems. Avoided emissions are GHG emission reductions that are made possible by implementing a solution (such as production from recycled materials or end-of-life recycling), compared to a reference scenario.
Avoided emissions can be calculated for a solution implemented in the past, for a solution implemented in the same year as the analysis, or for a solution that is envisaged to be implemented in the future. This guide focuses on the analysis of solutions implemented "today", which means in the recent past or in the near future.
Reference scenario
Avoided emissions are calculated by comparing the scenario with the implementation of the analyzed solution with a reference scenario. The reference scenario is the most representative situation possible for the market without implementing the solution based on the following considerations:
- The reference scenario refers to the life cycle of the same type of material that is processed at the end of its life and/or is produced, where the distinction is made between the recycling/recovery solution and generic material flows.
- The processes included in the reference scenario reflect the market-weighted combination of processes implemented during the reference year (i.e., this mix includes recycling/recovery processes that already existed prior to the implementation of the solution).
- The smallest possible market is considered (for example, if the waste treated by the recycling/recovery sector is collected in France, then the French market must be considered for alternative waste treatment. If the recycled material is sold in Europe, then the European market for the consumption of the generic material is considered).
- The reference scenario considers the market at the time of implementation of the solution, as well as future regulations confirmed at that time provided that they are put in place in the near future, which is compatible with the avoidance period considered. Apart from the evolution of regulations in the near future, the market is considered "static". Potential changes in technology and market composition, as well as external factors (e.g. climate, demographics, human behaviour) are not taken into account in the development of the reference scenario, as the calculation is restricted to the recent and near future.
Period of validity of "emission factors"
The validity of the emission factors calculated in this guide is 5 years, reflecting a balance between rapidly changing and relatively stable sectors, and delays in the availability of data sources used in the development of these emission factors. After 5 years, the relevant parameters (e.g. the energy mix) must be updated to ensure the representativeness of the emission factors.
Impact Categories
This guide focuses on assessing avoided GHG emissions. However, to comply with ISO 14044, potential trade-offs with other impact categories should also be assessed.
Attribution to actors in the value chain
The proper functioning of a recycling value chain requires the contribution and significant efforts of multiple actors, which could be overlooked via an allocation of avoided emissions to specific actors in the value chain. Thus, this guide does not recommend attributing avoided emissions to individual actors. Instead, each actor can communicate that "our participation in the recycling/recovery sector contributes to a cumulative reduction in the GHG emissions of the actors involved of X tonne of CO2 equivalent per year".
For this reason, the calculation of avoided emissions as defined in this guide is not intended to be used in potential certification/labelling schemes or the distribution of potential costs/credits of GHG emissions among actors in the value chain.
Communication
Avoided emissions can be assessed in different contexts, such as the GHG assessment of a project, process, or portfolio of solutions. They are systematically reported separately from the emissions induced by the product/process/project/organization and are to be distinguished from a carbon footprint or a GHG balance, in line with international consensus.
Formulation of avoided emission claims
The claim of "avoided emissions" should clarify that the avoided GHG emissions refer to the whole recycling/waste valorisation chain, and that it is this chain of actors that benefit from reduced GHG emissions. Only emissions attributed to the value-chain actors in the solution scenario are accounted for, and emissions/benefits beyond these system boundaries are excluded.
The claim of "avoided emissions" must be accompanied by an overview of the limitations of the study, which provides an interpretation of the robustness of the results. Additional sensitivity analyses may be conducted to support the robustness of the avoided emission claim.
Communication of avoided emission claims
All audiences should be given access to the full report of the analysis, in which the functional unit, relevant assumptions, and the applied LCA approach and its corresponding limitations are described. However, the initial information provided to non-expert audiences can be reduced to a minimum level of communication requirements:
- Total amount of avoided emissions
- Description of the analysed solution
- Description of the reference scenario
- Reference year
Furthermore, a reminder must be communicated that avoided emissions are not to be subtracted from a carbon footprint.
If the communication is targeted to LCA experts, more information should be provided up-front to allow the audience to determine the relevance of the study results. The full report provides a communication template that summarizes the most relevant study parameters required for the interpretation of the results. It is recommended to present this template in the executive summary of the full report, for all audiences.
It must be noted that, to be compliant with ISO 14044, all communication with a third party requires a critical review by an independent panel. A critical review by external experts is recommended to evaluate the correct implementation of the methodology, which could protect the commissioning company against potential external allegations regarding the study results.
A company can communicate about avoided emissions in the context of corporate reporting under the following conditions:
- A critical review of the study report is conducted by an independent review panel
- To avoid a confusion with the corporate GHG balance:
• Avoided emissions may never be subtracted from the company's GHG balance
• Avoided emissions must be presented in a separate chapter or section than the company's GHG balance
- The minimum communication requirements for non-expert audiences must be followed, and access to the full report and critical review must be provided
If the company aggregates the avoided emissions of multiple solutions, an overview must be provided of the solutions included in the aggregation. The total avoided emissions may be communicated as "the solutions 1, 2, and 3 implemented by this company contribute to a total avoided emission of X tons of GHG emissions within their respective value chains."
Step-by-step procedure to evaluate avoided emissions
Figure 4 presents a step-by-step procedure to evaluate avoided emissions, comparing an analysed solution with a reference scenario.
Figure 4: Overview of the step-by-step procedure to evaluate avoided emissions (RECORD, 2024)
Formulate the objective and target audience(s) of the assessment
A non-exhaustive set of potential objectives and target audiences that can be foreseen in a study on avoided emissions is presented in Figure 5.
Figure 5: Presentation of the different possible objectives and target audiences for an assessment of avoided emissions (RECORD, 2022)
Describe the analysed solution
Define the functional unit of the assessment
The functional unit (FU) is the quantified basis for comparison between the analysed solution and the reference scenario. The functional unit is quantified based on the implementation of the analysed solution by the value-chain actor that evaluates its avoided emissions for one year. This allows for the inclusion of variability in electricity consumption, waste streams, etc. at an annual level. However, the results can be expressed "per kg" of waste treated or material produced, specifying that the results represent an annual average. Avoided emissions are therefore expressed over a period of one year.
Draw a process flow diagram
A process flow diagram must be drawn of the analysed solution:
- Include at a minimum the processes and flows indicated in Figure 6.
- Highlight the processes that are within the boundaries of the organisation that conducts the assessment.
- If needed, extend the diagram to include the processes that are within the organisational boundaries of the organisation that conducts the assessment (e.g. manufacturing of a product that is recyclable at its end of life).
- Include the functional unit at the relevant location in the diagram.
Provide information on each flow and process within the flow diagram
Information must be provided for each element within the process flow diagram. Figure 7 provides a list of the required information.
To facilitate the subsequent evaluation of avoided emissions, the required information can be directly entered into the Excel template provided as Annex to the guide.
Figure 6: Processes and flows to be included in the process flow diagram of the analysed solution (RECORD, 2024)
Figure 7: Overview of required information for each element in the process flow diagram of the analysed solution. *The flows “Waste”, “Sorted material” and the valorized outputs are expressed relative to the Functional Unit. (RECORD, 2024)
To collect the required information, data sources are suggested in Figure 8. The data sources are presented in order of priority, meaning that process and flow-specific information must be provided where possible.
Figure 8: Potential data sources (in order of priority) for the collection of information for each element in the process flow diagram of the analysed solution (RECORD, 2024)
Describe the reference scenario
Draw a process flow diagram
Draw a process flow diagram of the reference scenario. At a minimum, the processes and flows mentioned in Figure 9 are to be included.
Figure 9: Processes and flows to be included in the process flow diagram of the reference scenario (RECORD, 2024)
Provide information on each flow and process within the flow diagram
Similar to the analysed solution, information must be provided for the processes and flows included in the process flow diagram of the reference scenario. The information that must be provided at a minimum is listed in Figure 10.
Figure 10: Overview of required information for each element in the process flow diagram of the reference scenario (RECORD, 2024)
Potential data sources
Figure 11 lists potential sources that may be used to provide the requested information (in no specific order). Indicate the sources for all information provided. If no information is available, assumptions may be made. Indicate which information is based on assumptions and provide sources that justify these assumptions.
Figure 11: Potential data sources for information of the processes and flows within the reference scenario (RECORD, 2024)
Ensure comparability of the two scenarios
Define the system boundaries of the assessment
In this step, the system boundaries of the avoided emission assessment are defined. System boundaries define which processes are included in the scenarios of the analyzed and reference solution. The boundaries of the system of the two scenarios must be comparable.
All the processes that are different between the analysed solution and the reference scenario must be included within the system boundaries of the assessment. Any process that is exactly the same, may be omitted from further quantification steps, after justification.
The quality of recycled materials may be lower than the quality of substituted primary materials, which is often the case for recycled plastics and paper. This can impact the stages of use (e.g. by a shorter lifetime) and end of life (e.g. by reduced end-of-life recyclability, which could be illustrated by a reduced number of recycling loops). Ideally, such differences between the two scenarios are represented by the inclusion of the affected processes within the system boundaries. If this is not possible, a quality correction factor can be applied. The full report provides further recommendations in the selection and use of this quality factor.
Ensure equal functional outputs of the defined systems
It must be considered whether all functional outputs of the analysed solution and the reference scenario are equal. Functional outputs include the treatment of waste, the production of (secondary) raw materials, and recovered electricity and heat. Whereas earlier steps have been focussing on the waste treatment and the recycled raw materials or recovered energy that are the main outputs of the recycling/recovery process, additional flows of recovered energy, among others, may be present in one or both of the scenarios, due to the existence of additional multifunctional processes. These may include recycling in the reference scenario, or recovery of energy from the treatment of reject materials.
Via the Excel template, the total quantities of functional flows can be tracked (which is needed for the application of system expansion and system reduction).
Collect data
Identify data needs
Data need to be collected for the following elements:
- Technology market ratios
- Secondary Emission Factors
- Quantities of inputs and outputs of processes
EFs represent the Scope 1-3 emissions of a process per unit of input (for waste treatment processes) or output (for production processes). The EFs include direct emissions, emissions related to the production of energy, and emissions related to the production and supply of raw materials, the provision of services, auxiliary goods, equipment, capital goods, and infrastructure.
Each process in a scenario is assessed either directly by a secondary EF, or the process is modelled in detail, i.e. a “unit process evaluation”, based on the quantities of inputs and outputs, and secondary emission factors that reflect the Scope-3 emissions of these inputs and outputs (which will be generally the case for the analysed solution).
Select data sources
Primary data should be used as much as possible for the calculation of EFs. These data can be supplemented by data from LCA databases, such as ecoinvent (cut-off system model) or Base Empreinte®. Unit process databases should be prioritized over aggregated databases, and recent data over older data.
If available, (Reference) Emission Factors (e.g. as made available in this project) may be used to represent processes either in the analysed solution or in the reference scenario.
Respect cut-off rules
Processes for which data are not available may be excluded from the analysis if their contribution is estimated to be negligible according to the cut-off criteria. The cut-off criteria, taken from EN-15804 (CEN, 2012), are 1% of the consumption of renewable and non-renewable primary energy and 1% of the total mass input of a unit process. Total neglected input flows must be a maximum of 5% of mass and energy consumption. Conservative assumptions combined with plausibility considerations and expert judgment can be used to demonstrate compliance with these criteria.
Assess data quality
The quality of the data influences the level of uncertainty of the assessment. Data quality should be assessed based on the following:
- Reliability
- Completeness
- Temporal representativeness
- Geographical representativeness
- Technological representativeness
The level of uncertainty of the data should be assessed according to the method « Gestion de l’incertitude dans les tableurs du Bilan Carbone® » (Association Bilan Carbone 2017), using the scoring published by (SEDDRe and Crowe Sustainable Metrics 2019). This scoring is based on the data quality categories used in ecoinvent V3 (Weidema et al. 2013).
The evaluation of data quality is integrated into the Excel sheets.
Calculate (Avoided) Emissions
Calculate the emissions of each scenario
The emissions of a scenario (i.e. the analysed solution or the reference scenario) are calculated by Eq.1 – Eq.4.
GHGscenario= GHG emissions per functional unit from all processes within the system boundaries of a scenario (i.e. the analysed solution or the reference scenario)
Qscenario = Quantity of waste treated or quantity of raw materials/energy produced in relation to the functional unit. In the reference scenario, the formula is repeated for both functional flows.
GHGtechnology in scenario = GHG emissions associated with a specific technology within the scenario
MR = Market ratio of technology i within the scenario
EFUP = Emission Factor (GHG emissions per unit) of a specific unit process i (e.g. recycling, incineration, landfilling, or primary production)
GHGactivity = GHG emissions of a specific input or output within a unit process
Qactivity = Quantity of an input or output within a unit process
EFactivity = Emission Factor (GHG emissions per unit) of an input or output within a unit process
Calculate uncertainty ranges
The uncertainty factors established in Section 0 are aggregated via steps based on (Association Bilan Carbone 2017).
The aggregation of uncertainty factors is automatically applied in the accompanying Excel template.
Calculate Avoided Emissions
The avoided emissions with associated uncertainty range are calculated as follows:
With:
GHGavoided = Avoided GHG emissions
GHGsolution= GHG emissions per functional unit from all processes within the system boundaries of the analysed solution
GHGreference= GHG emissions per functional unit from all processes within the system boundaries of the reference scenario
Usolution= the total uncertainty rate of the Emission Factor of the analysed solution
Ureference = the total uncertainty rate of the Emission Factor of the reference scenario
By default, avoided emissions are based on processes that take place within the system boundaries of the value chain under study. This means that loads and benefits beyond these system boundaries (due to waste valorization in the reference scenario) are excluded from this calculation. These loads and benefits are part of the scope of a consequential LCA (as explained in Section 0), but are outside the scope of an attributional LCA, as applied by this guide.
Evaluate the robustness of the Avoided Emissions
Even if lower GHG emissions can be attributed to the analysed solution than to the reference scenario, the uncertainty ranges of the reference scenario and the analysed solution may be overlapping. In that case, it cannot be claimed that the analysed solution generates avoided GHG emissions.
Only when the uncertainty ranges show no overlap, as shown in Figure 12, it can be claimed that the GHG emissions of the analysed solution are significantly lower than the GHG emissions of the reference scenario. The full report suggests strategies in case the performance of the two scenarios is not statistically distinguishable.
Figure 12: Example comparison of a solution with a reference scenario, with a statistically significant determination of avoided emissions (RECORD, 2022)
Communicate avoided emission claims
The GHG emissions avoided by the recycling/recovery sector are interpreted as "a reduction in GHG emissions of X ton of CO2-equivalent per year attributed to the recycling/waste valorisation chain", where "the chain" includes both the actors who generate the waste and the users of the recovered materials/energy in the analysed solution.
The stakeholder that conducts the study refers to the avoided emissions related to the functional unit, i.e. the stakeholder’s perspective. Additional information on the study results must provide also the additional functional flows considered in the analysed solution. Also, the uncertainty range of the calculated avoided emissions must be additionally provided.
By default, only GHG emissions attributable to actors involved in the recycling/waste valorization supply chain are included. Benefits and loads beyond the system boundaries (due to waste valorization in the reference scenario) are not included in the evaluation of avoided emissions. However, the net avoided emissions including these benefits and loads must be provided as additional information.
A suggested communication template is provided in the Annex which includes these recommendations.
Reference Emission Factors
Overview of existing REFs
In the first run of the RECORD project, Reference Emission Factors (REFs) (emission factors that can be used in a reference scenario) are developed that can be used in the evaluation of avoided emissions within the value chains. The list of flows for which REFs have been established is provided in Table 1. Within the second run of the project, three Excel sheets of REFs are updated: PET, steel, and paper. The system boundaries have been revised, and data sources have been updated. Furthermore, these Excel sheets are complemented with tabs that serve as a calculation template for the calculation of avoided emissions in a specific study.
Table 1: End-of-life treatment and the supply of flows for which Reference Emission Factors are established (RECORD, 2022)
Conclusions and outlook
This report presents an updated version of a methodological guide to evaluate and communicate avoided GHG emissions generated by the recycling and waste valorisation sector. The guide aims to propose a consensus-based harmonized approach, equally applicable to all actors in the recycling/valorisation value chain, which enhances the credibility, transparency, and comparability of avoided emission claims. Reference Emission Factors are developed that could be used to establish a reference scenario in specific studies.
The methodological guide is time-independent, meaning that the guidance is not expected to become outdated and therefore does not require an inherent updating procedure. However, as this report presents an updated version of the guide (V2), another implementation and refinement trajectory should be foreseen.
The updated Reference Emission Factors may be used in studies evaluation the avoided emissions of a solution with a reference year of 2023-2028, without a modification of the current factors and uncertainty scores. After this timeframe, the emission factors and the corresponding uncertainty scores need to be revised.
References
ADEME. 2020. Les Émissions Évitées, de Quoi Parle t-On ?
Association Bilan Carbone. 2017. Guide Méthodologique Bilan Carbone V8 - Annexes.
CEN. 2012. European Standard NF EN 15804:2012. Brussels, Belgium.
RECORD. 2022. Guide to Accounting for Avoided GHG Emissions in Waste Recovery and Recycling - Good Practices and Application to Different Sectors V1.1.
SEDDRe, and Crowe Sustainable Metrics. 2019. “Empreinte Carbone de La Valorisation Des Déchets Du Bâtiment En France.” 106.
Weidema, Bo P., C. Bauer, R. Hischier, C. Mutel, T. Nemecek, J. Reinhard, C. O. Vadenbo, and G. Wernet. 2013. Overview and Methodology - Data Quality Guideline for the Ecoinvent Database Version 3. Vol. 3. Ecoinvent Report 1 (v3). St. Gallen: The ecoinvent Centre.
