The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Avoiding Co‐Product Allocation in Life‐Cycle Assessment
Abstract
Abstract: In a life‐cycle assessment (LCA) involving only one of several products from the same process, how are the resource consumption and the emissions associated with this process to be partitioned and distributed over these co‐products? This is the central question in co‐product allocation, which has been one of the most controversial issues in the development of the methodology for life‐cycle assessment, as it may significantly influence or even determine the result of the assessments. In this article, it is shown that in prospective life‐cycle assessments, co‐product allocation can always be avoided by system expansion. Through a number of examples, it is demonstrated how system expansion is performed, with special emphasis on issues that earlier have been a focus of the allocation debate, such as joint production (e.g., of chlorine and sodium hydroxide, zinc and heavy metals, and electricity and heat), the handling of “near‐to‐waste” by‐products, processes simultaneously supplying services to multiple product systems, and credits for material recycling and downcycling. It is shown that all the different co‐product situations can be covered by the same theoretical model and the same practical procedure, and that it is also possible to include the traditional co‐product allocation as a special case of the presented procedure. The uncertainty aspects of the presented procedure are discussed. A comparison is made with the procedure of ISO 14041, “Life‐cycle assessment—Goal and scope definition and inventory analysis,” the international standard.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Rebitzer, G., Ekvall, T., Frischknecht, R., Hunkeler, D., Norris, G., Rydberg, T., Schmidt, W.-P., Suh, S., Weidema, B. P., & Pennington, D. W. (2004) · Environment International · doi:10.1016/j.envint.2003.11.005 · Cited by 2,753
Self-citationA review of life cycle assessment of recycled aggregate concrete
Zhang, Y., Luo, W., Wang, J., Wang, Y., Xu, Y., & Xiao, J. (2019) · Construction and Building Materials · doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.03.078 · Cited by 294
The ecological impact of biofuels
Fargione, J. E., Plevin, R. J., & Hill, J. D. (2010) · Annual Review of Ecology Evolution and Systematics · doi:10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-102209-144720 · Cited by 260
Weiss, F., & Leip, A. (2012) · Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment · doi:10.1016/j.agee.2011.12.015 · Cited by 256
Cherubini, F., Strømman, A. H., & Ulgiati, S. (2011) · Resources Conservation and Recycling · doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2011.06.001 · Cited by 180
Metadata
- Authors
- Weidema, B.
- Venue
- Journal of Industrial Ecology
- Published
- 2000-07
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 11-33
- ISSN
- 1088-1980 (ISSN-L)
- 1530-9290
- OpenAlex
- W2053999210
- Cited by
- 398
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 9.88
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Avoiding Co‐Product Allocation in Life‐Cycle Assessment. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1162/108819800300106366
- The paper
- Weidema, B. (2000). Avoiding Co‐Product Allocation in Life‐Cycle Assessment. Journal of Industrial Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1162/108819800300106366
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.