A comparative analysis of recent life cycle assessment guidelines and frameworks: Methodological evidence from the packaging industry

In recent years, a number of new guidelines and frameworks for Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) have emerged, trying to support analysts in dealing with certain methodological issues and “gaps” of the ISO 14040-44, that are still the main LCA reference standards. This trend can be considered as positive, because the lack of shared, standardised and more detailed rules regarding LCA has affected for years the consistency of LCA analyses and their potential comparisons. However, the proliferation of guidelines and frameworks can also have negative consequences, first of all related to the potential resulting confusion and the lack of a clear reference for LCA analysts. These potential risks are particularly accentuated for multinational companies, which deal with many clients, in different markets, countries and sectors, and have to conform their analyses to different requirements each time. Focusing on the plastic packaging industry, this study compares six LCA guidelines and frameworks to highlight their similarities and differences. The documents selected to be analysed were: three documents applicable to products in general (ILCD, PAS 2050 and PEF), two packaging-specific guidelines (Pathfinder Framework and SPICE Methodological Guidelines) and a product specific standard for the packaging industry (PCR 2013:19). The methodological aspects analysed and compared, grouped according to the LCA stages, are: units of analysis; system boundaries; allocation methods; cut-off criteria; end-of-life; packaging; storage; biogenic CO2 emissions; carbon removals and carbon content; land use; offsets; impact categories and indicators; LCA methods and models; normalisation and weighting; data quality; sensitivity analysis. The aim is to understand to what extent potential differences may impact on companies and LCA analysts who conduct the assessments. Results highlight that the six guidelines and frameworks analysed are not always aligned and that, although some misalignments can be easily addressed, others could negatively affect the reliability of the analyses conducted.