Int J Life Cycle Assess (2016) 21:1218–1230

DOI 10.1007/s11367-016-1087-8

THE ECOINVENT DATABASE V3

The ecoinvent database version 3 (part I): overview

and methodology
Gregor Wernet 1 & Christian Bauer 2 & Bernhard Steubing 3,4 & Jürgen Reinhard 5 &
Emilia Moreno-Ruiz 1 & Bo Weidema 6

Received: 17 June 2015 / Accepted: 6 March 2016 / Published online: 21 April 2016
# Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Abstract modeling choices, or system models, to the same raw data

Purpose Good background data are an important requirement
in LCA. Practitioners generally make use of LCI databases for
such data, and the ecoinvent database is the largest transparent
unit-process LCI database worldwide. Since its first release in
2003, it has been continuously updated, and version 3 was
published in 2013. The release of version 3 introduced several
significant methodological and technological improvements,
besides a large number of new and updated datasets. The aim
was to expand the content of the database, set the foundation
for a truly global database, support regionalized LCIA, offer
multiple system models, allow for easier integration of data
from different regions, and reduce maintenance efforts. This
article describes the methodological developments.
Methods Modeling choices and raw data were separated in
version 3, which enables the application of different sets of
Responsible editor: Rainer Zah
* Gregor Wernet
wernet@ecoinvent.org
1
Ecoinvent, Technoparkstrasse 1, 8005 Zurich, Switzerland
2 port easier collaboration with other database initiatives, as
Technology Assessment Group, Paul Scherrer Institute,
5232 Villigen, Switzerland
3 project in Québec. Version 3 has set the foundation for
Institute of Environmental Engineering, Swiss Federal Institute of
Technology (ETH) Zürich, Schafmattstr. 6, 8093 Zürich, Switzerland
4 database and offers many new insights beyond the thousands
Institute of Environmental Sciences (CML), Leiden University,
2300, RA Leiden, The Netherlands
5
Department of Informatics, Informatics and Sustainability Research
Group, University of Zurich, Binzmuehlestrasse 14,
8050 Zurich, Switzerland
6
Department of Development and Planning, Aalborg University,
Skibbrogade 5, 9000 Aalborg, Denmark
with little effort. This includes one system model for
Consequential LCA. Flow properties were added to all ex-
changes in the database, giving more information on the in-
ventory and allowing a fast calculation of mass and other
balances. With version 3.1, the database is generally water-
balanced, and water use and consumption can be determined.
Consumption mixes called market datasets were consistently
added to the database, and global background data was added,
often as an extrapolation from regional data.
Results and discussion In combination with hundreds of new
unit processes from regions outside Europe, these changes
lead to an improved modeling of global supply chains, and a
more realistic distribution of impacts in regionalized LCIA.
The new mixes also facilitate further regionalization due to the
availability of background data for all regions.
Conclusions With version 3, the ecoinvent database substan-
tially expands the goals and scopes of LCA studies it can
support. The new system models allow new, different studies
to be performed. Global supply chains and market datasets
significantly increase the relevance of the database outside
of Europe, and regionalized LCA is supported by the data.
Datasets are more transparent, include more information,
and support, e.g., water balances. The developments also sup-
demonstrated by a first successful collaboration with a data
expanding ecoinvent from a mostly regional into a truly global
of new and updated datasets it also introduced.
Keywords Ecoinvent version 3 . Life cycle assessment
(LCA) . Life cycle inventory (LCI) database .
Parametrization . Regionalization . System model

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Int J Life Cycle Assess (2016) 21:1218–1230
1 Introduction
Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a very data-intensive method-
ology. A typical life cycle of a product or service covers thou-
sands of human activities, each of which needs to be under-
stood and documented in terms of environmentally relevant
material and energy flows. This information can usually not
be gathered within each specific LCA project due to the high
cost of primary data collection. It is therefore common prac-
tice to focus data collection efforts on selected activities that
reflect the immediate space for action—these activities are
together called the foreground system—and to use generic
data from Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) databases to model the
remaining activities, called the background system (Bourgault
et al. 2012; Tillman 2000). We estimate that the background
system usually covers up to 99 % of the unit processes in the
product system; we believe that only in rare cases do the
number of unit processes modeled explicitly in the foreground
system exceed 5 %, for example in large-scale studies of the
energy sector (Hertwich et al. 2014; Laurent and Espinosa
2015; Treyer and Bauer 2013; Treyer et al. 2014). Bearing
this in mind, background LCI databases can be considered
the backbone of any LCA study. They provide the dominant
share of the building blocks required for any LCA: aggregated
and/or disaggregated unit process data. Therefore, the avail-
able quantity and quality of unit process data provided by LCI
databases are of utmost importance.
The ecoinvent LCI database was first published in 2003 with
its version 1 (Frischknecht et al. 2005). It represented the results of
many person-years of work and built on top of several existing
LCI data collection efforts in Switzerland of the 1990s. The com-
mon goal of the ecoinvent project partners was to facilitate the
application of LCA through the availability of consistent generic
background LCI data. Lack of background data can severely im-
pact the quality of LCA studies, and there was a general interest
among both research institutions and Swiss government offices to
applyLCAmoreconsistently.Theprojectscopewasintentionally
limited to Life Cycle Inventories. While life cycle impact assess-
ment (LCIA) methods were applied to the cumulative inventory
results to support users, LCIA method development was and is
still outside of the scope of ecoinvent. While developed for appli-
cation in Switzerland and with Swiss supply chains in mind, ver-
sion 1 was also frequently applied in studies with a primary scope
outside of Switzerland.
With the release of version 2 in 2007, the data basis was sig-
nificantly expanded and enriched, adding several new economic
sectors such as biofuels, consumer electronics, and others to the
database. In addition, the geographical coverage increased, with
more data covering areas outside of Europe. Sectors such as elec-
tronics were covered with data of production in Asia. Version 2
has been used over the years in many relevant LCA studies (Amor
et al. 2014; Arvesen and Hertwich 2015; Bauer et al. 2015;
Bouman et al. 2015; Henriksson et al. 2015; Hertwich et al.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1219
2014; Masanet et al. 2013; Scharlemann and Laurance 2008;
Simons and Bauer 2012; Sternberg and Bardow 2015; Treyer
et al. 2014; Turconi et al. 2014; Volkart et al. 2013; von der
Assen et al. 2013; Wernet et al. 2010, 2012, 2011; Yue et al.
2014), setting precedence in the environmental assessment of
different product groups and economic sectors. Additionally, first
policy instruments were designed based on LCA and referred to
ecoinvent as standard background data (Swiss Confederation
2014). Increasingly, it was also used beyond its original intended
scope of Switzerland and Europe and has become a reference
database for studies and LCA work in North and South
America, Asia, Africa, and Australia (Hou et al. 2015).
Due to this increasing international and global use, it was de-
cided to further develop the database into the direction of a glob-
ally valid database instead of simply maintaining its status as a
Swiss database. The increasingly international use of the database
conflicted with some decidedly Swiss supply chains in the data-
base. Users were found to commonly apply Swiss or European
datasets to other regions due to lack of geographically appropriate
data. This led to inconsistencies on several levels: first of all,
conditions and supply chains for important factors, such as elec-
tricity mixes, vary with geography for many activities and, sec-
ondly, with the increasing evidence of the importance of region-
alized impact assessment (Mutel et al. 2013, 2012; Mutel and
Hellweg 2009; Pfister et al. 2009; Potting and Hauschild 1997,
2006; Wegener Sleeswijk and Heijungs 2010), these localized
supply chains would not be appropriately modeled with Swiss
or European data.
At the same time, the continued growth of the database and its
user base challenged some aspects of the technical foundation of
the database in terms of the required maintenance effort in the long
term. First of all, the management of the database and updating
required a significant amount of manual work, which was man-
ageable during the early days of the database, but grew to be pro-
hibitive as the database expanded in size and scope. Secondly, it
wasbecomingmoreandmoreobviousthat,asLCAdevelopedasa
tool, its use in policy and standards was increasing, and such ap-
plications often require specific modeling rules to be applied. The
approach of having all modeling choices fixed within the datasets
therefore restricted the usefulness of the data to a limited applica-
tion range. There was a need for a system that harmonizes some set
modeling rules, allows a choice between different sets of rules, and
applies them to the whole database consistently. Such an approach
would also simplify some aspects of data entry, as data providers
would no longer have to apply system modeling rules themselves.
Finally, several options for improvements in functionality and data
coverage had been identified and a new technological foundation,
including an update of the established ecospold data format
(Meinshausen et al. 2014) was required for further development
of the database. Several of these features were developed specifi-
cally to facilitate the collaboration and integration of international
data and to facilitate cooperation with a broader range of data
providers.
1220
Therefore, the plan for ecoinvent version 3 was developed,
with the ambition to provide a technological and methodological
foundation for an LCI database with modern capabilities, flexi-
bility and room for future developments as well as the structure
necessarytogrowintoatrulyglobaldatabase.Thispaperprovides
an overview of the most important new developments introduced
with version 3, focusing on new dataset categories and the differ-
ent system models used for linking the unit processes.
2 Developments
2.1 From multi-output activities to single product datasets
One major change introduced with version 3 is that the data-
base no longer stores data and modeling choices intertwined.
Data is stored first as raw, Bundefined^ datasets, which contain
unit process data without influences of, e.g., allocation
choices. This version of the database is best suited for under-
standing a process or activity in its original isolated state since
it shows all exchanges, i.e., inputs, co-products, and emissions
as originally collected, in one overview. However, calculation
of aggregated LCIs and LCIA results requires the application
of system modeling, i.e., linking and allocating the unit pro-
cesses according to a distinct set of rules. Version 3 offers the
choice of more than one system model, and the application of
these models results then in several system model databases,
each in the form of fully linked unit processes. Aggregated
LCI and LCIA results are also available for each system model
database. Thus, version 3 is available as a primary database
with an Bundefined^ system model and, currently, three sys-
tem model databases, which have different LCIA results due
to the different modeling choices, despite being based on the
same unlinked, raw unit process data (Fig. 1).
System Model X System Model Y
LCIA results
Applicaon of
LCIA factors
Aggregated LCI data
Calculaon
Single output unit processes
Model X Model Y
Physical process descripons Undefined
(mul-output) system
Fig. 1 Flowchart of generating system model results out of the primary
raw unlinked data
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Int J Life Cycle Assess (2016) 21:1218–1230
2.2 Global background data
The decision to support regionalized assessment with version
3 brought with it the consequence that impacts needed to be
adequately distributed globally. In versions 1 and 2, the data-
base was focusing on Swiss and European production, while
datasets from other regions were often lacking (Steubing et al.
2016). Therefore, users commonly applied the European
datasets also to other regions. In these cases, local conditions
(e.g., in terms of technologies used) were often inappropriate-
ly reflected by the LCI data used and—in this context more
important—direct and upstream impacts were thus caused in
inappropriate geographies. To introduce a more appropriate
representation of global supply chains, to support regionalized
impact assessment, and to support a more international user
base, global coverage for activities was consistently intro-
duced in version 3. There exists a global dataset for all activ-
ities in version 3, and in addition, there may be one or more
local (non-global) datasets representing the production activ-
ities for specific regions. Geographies in version 3 are de-
scribed in the KML format (OGC 2014) to support interaction
with other machine-readable spatial data, but are also de-
scribed using country names and codes to simplify human
interactions with the geography data.
All activities include data on annual production volume,
and in the system model databases, the global datasets are
used to approximate the activities in regions not covered by
local data. For this, the global dataset is used as the basis for a
BRest-of-the-World^ (RoW) dataset applicable to the areas not
covered by local data. As the local geographical coverage
differs from one activity to another, RoW datasets do not
always describe the same geography. Using the KML geogra-
phies, the geography of each RoW dataset can be described
individually. This geography is then also used to determine the
suppliers for the inputs of the dataset. In versions 3.0 and 3.1,
RoW datasets were generated by using a production-volume-
weighted average of all local datasets and calculating a differ-
ence dataset to the global average available in the global
dataset. The RoW dataset was then created as a difference
dataset so that the weighted sum of all datasets resulted in
the values of the global average. However, the chosen imple-
mentation of this procedure demanded significant extra effort
from data providers, and results were generally not affected
much compared to a simpler approach, which has now been
implemented with version 3.2. In this new approach, the RoW
datasets are identical in flow values to the global dataset, albeit
still with supply chains adapted to its geography. A sensitivity
analysis of the change in approach revealed generally minimal
changes in results due to the transition.
A RoW dataset is only generated if the sum of all local
production volumes is lower than the global production vol-
ume. Therefore, a RoW dataset is not created if: first, all re-
gions of the world are adequately covered with regional
Int J Life Cycle Assess (2016) 21:1218–1230
datasets (i.e., full geographical coverage), or second, an activ-
ity takes place in only parts of the world (i.e., the complete
global production is localized in one region, which is covered
by a local dataset). In both cases, the sum of the local produc-
tion volumes is equal to the global production, and no RoW
dataset is generated.
The inclusion of consistently available, global datasets fa-
cilitates the expansion of the database into different regions.
The global datasets mean that the existence of background
supply chains can always be relied on, no matter for which
region a dataset is created. Datasets can therefore be created
without requiring local supply chain data to also be available
immediately. Such supply chains may still become available
later and will then be utilized through the linking algorithm
(see below).
2.3 Market datasets
When a product is produced by more than one activity (i.e., by
different production technologies or by one technology, but in
more than one region each covered by an individual dataset), it
is important in activities consuming the product to know
which production contributes how much to the supply chain
of the consumer. For this reason, versions 1 and 2 of ecoinvent
contained a number of production, supply, and consumption
mixes, but only for a selected number of products. Version 3
introduces independent product names, which are no longer
tied to specific process names. The aim is to more easily iden-
tify activities with the same product as output. With version 3
also aiming to introduce more geographical coverage, an in-
creased need for geography-specific consumption mix
datasets was foreseen. For this reason, version 3 introduces
market datasets representing the consumption mixes for a giv-
en region and product (so that consumption is supplied by the
production within the given geography plus imports minus re-
export). Market datasets also contain additional exchanges
related to the transport of the good from the producer to the
consumer, as well as losses of goods and emissions during
transport (e.g., in the case of perishable fruit and vegetables,
leaking natural gas pipelines, or transmission and distribution
losses for electricity). For most other datasets, the market
datasets only reflect a generic model for supply and transport
of the products. A market dataset can be used as an input by
consuming activities that are lacking more specific supply
chain information. However, while market datasets represent
a useful and convenient option in the building of a consistent
network structure across the ecoinvent database, LCA practi-
tioners should consider using inputs directly from production
activities whenever more specific knowledge is available re-
garding product sourcing, losses and transport distances.
In ecoinvent, a data provider who has sufficient specific
information may link an input directly to specific activities
or markets. Without such specific information, the data
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1221
provider will leave the dataset unlinked, in which case the
linking is carried out by the database service layer during the
linking of the unlinked activities into system model databases.
The input is then linked to the geographically appropriate
market or markets. In this Bindirect^ linking, a dataset can at
first always rely on the existence of a global market providing
a global supply chain. Should more local markets be present,
or be added to the database for a future calculation, the same
dataset would then link to this more specific market, or even to
a set of markets within its region, without requiring any mod-
ification of the dataset itself. In this way, data providers can
ensure that their supply chains will be updated to the most
appropriate data available in the database in the future, thus
reducing the updating and maintenance work between data-
base versions.
In a similar fashion, market datasets themselves are only
completed during the linking of the unlinked activities into
system models. One reason is that different system models
have different rules for the composition of consumption mixes
(see below). Another reason is that, in this approach, con-
sumption mixes are updated whenever new producers are
added to the database. Markets are completed using annual
production-volume-weighted averages of the relevant pro-
ducers and importers in the geography covered by the market.
The annual production volumes therefore determine the shares
of different activities providing the same product to a certain
market. Production output that is already used specifically for
a particular consumer and for export does not contribute to
markets (Fig. 2). The approach of completing market datasets
during linking was chosen on the basis that by default, a new
production activity should contribute towards the average
consumption mix in a region. The impacts of new datasets
on existing market datasets therefore need to be observed
and reviewed.
With version 3 and the introduction of market datasets, the
standard estimations for transport within the database (default
values used to estimate transport distances when no specific
data were available) were also updated and expanded to cover
more forms of transport consistently and with sector-specific
data based on global transport statistics (ecoinvent 2014).
With these statistical data, market datasets describe the aver-
age transport modes and distances for each product, including
shipping, road, and rail transport as well as, if appropriate, air
transport and other, specialized transport methods, e.g.,
pipelines.
Together with RoW datasets, market datasets represent the
central building blocks for a more realistic representation of
global supply chains. Market datasets and the consistent con-
sumption mixes represent a useful tool both for users of the
database and for the operation of the ecoinvent database itself.
However, it should be noted that in foreground systems, built
on top of ecoinvent data, it is not necessary to use market
datasets or a structure based on consumption mixes.
1222
Fig. 2 An illustration of linking via market datasets using animal feed
production as a theoretical example (** PV stands for production
volume). At the bottom of the graph, electricity markets supply
electricity mixes without the need for choosing between individual
producers such as coal or hydropower. Soybeans, one of the
components of animal feed, are produced in two local datasets (USA
and Brazil). A RoW dataset covers the remaining global production of
soybeans that is not covered by the two local datasets. The local datasets
2.4 System models in version 3
Versions 1 and 2 of ecoinvent applied one system mod-
el to the database, which largely followed a recycled
content or Bcutoff^ approach (Frischknecht et al.
2005). Modeling choices were directly integrated into
the datasets by the authors of datasets. Therefore, the
consistent application of this modeling choice needed
to be reviewed in each dataset individually, and some
inconsistencies remained in the database despite the re-
view efforts. With the option of separating inventory
data and modeling choices, version 3 allows for more
than one system model and is indeed so far currently
available in three system models. The modeling rules
are defined once and then applied consistently to all
datasets. The application of the model therefore only
needs to be reviewed once, and inconsistencies are
much less likely to occur. The two system models ap-
plying allocation rules are intended for use as back-
ground data in attributional LCA, and the consequential
system model is intended for application in consequen-
tial LCA (Earles and Halog 2011; Ekvall and Weidema
2004; Weidema et al. 2009; Zamagni et al. 2012).
2.4.1 Allocation and cutoff by classification
This model follows the same recycled content approach as
versions 1 and 2. At the database level, all intermediate ex-
changes (i.e., exchanges within the technosphere) are
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Int J Life Cycle Assess (2016) 21:1218–1230
are supplied by their local electricity markets, the RoW dataset by all
other electricity markets using a production-volume-weighted average
for their contributions. All three soybean datasets supply the global
market for soybeans. However, the US production does not supply all
of its production to the market, as some of it is specified as directly linked
by the US production of animal feed. This direct consumption does not
contribute to the global market share of US soybeans, as the market is a
consumption mix, not a production mix
classified into either Ballocatable byproducts,^ Brecyclable
materials,^ or Bwastes.^ The classification is based on expert
judgment of an exchange’s value, use potential, and predicted
fate. Depending on this classification, byproducts (i.e., prod-
ucts that are not the reference flow) in multi-functional activ-
ities are handled differently (Figs. 3 and 4): Allocatable
byproducts are allocated against other products based on the
allocation factors specified for the specific system model, e.g.,
on physical relations, exergy, price, or mass.
Recyclable materials are cut off from the producing
product system, i.e., they are removed burden-free from
the producing activity, and no impacts or benefits are al-
located to them. They are then available burden-free to
any consuming activities, e.g., recycling activities.
Secondary materials thus bear only the burden of the
recycling process and no burdens from the primary pro-
duction of the material. To introduce the cutoff, the system
model introduces special datasets which are named
Bexchange name, recycled content cutoff^ and which con-
tain no flows besides the reference product of the ex-
change itself. These are used to show that the cutoff is
happening in the dataset and to maintain mass balances.
The cutoff is taking effect through the lack of inputs or
outputs to these special datasets (Fig. 4).
Wastes on the other hand are disposed of in a treatment
activity, and the burden of the disposal is completely at-
tributed to the activity producing the waste. This is
achieved by first listing the produced wastes as a negative
process input in the producing activity using the logic that
Int J Life Cycle Assess (2016) 21:1218–1230
Fig. 3 The cutoff process in the Bcutoff by classification^ system model
for waste treatment byproducts. The treatment byproduct is available
burden-free in the database, while the inputs and emissions of the waste
a positive output is equal to a negative input. Waste treat-
ment activities have the reference product of removing
wastes, which is recorded as a negative product. The pro-
cesses are therefore linked correctly: The burdens of waste
treatment increase the burdens of the producing activity
(Fig. 3). This approach is identical in results to the ap-
proach of versions 1 and 2, where disposal of wastes was
an input to datasets. Listing the wastes as negative inputs
maintains the mass balance of the dataset, an important
validation tool and helpful in understanding the physical
reality of the activity. As the burdens of waste treatment
are to be fully attributed to the producing activity of the
waste, any non-waste byproducts of waste treatments
(e.g., heat from waste incineration) are available burden-
free in this system model.
Fig. 4 The upper half shows how Recyclable Materials are cut off in the
Bcutoff by classification^ system model in the producing activity (labelled
BActivity^) through the use of the special, empty cutoff dataset (dotted
arrows indicate additional inputs and emissions that are not relevant to the
allocation process, as in Fig. 3). The producing activity lists the cut
byproduct as a negative input to make the cutoff process explicit and to
respect mass balances. Within the scope of the producing activity, Wastes
and Recyclable Materials are therefore treated the same way. The
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1223
treatment fully contribute to the burdens of the reference product of the
waste-producing activity
2.4.2 Allocation at the point of substitution
The allocation at the point of substitution (APOS) system
model is based on the premise that allocation of materials that
require further treatment before they can be of immediate val-
ue is fundamentally challenging. Neither the price, mass,
exergy, nor any other physical property is a useful allocation
parameter, e.g., waste glass. The APOS model is therefore
performing an expansion of the allocation system to include
all treatment processes required for any byproducts (Fig. 5),
be they wastes or recyclable, and in fact, the system model
makes no such distinction (please note that this is unlike the
process some refer to as Bsystem expansion^ that is used in
consequential LCA, a process we refer to as Bsubstitution^ in
this article). All products, which are not produced as a positive
difference is whether disposal of the material brings with it additional
burdens, as in Fig. 3, or no additional burdens, as in this case. In the
bottom half, it can be seen how consumers of recyclable materials
receive the material burden-free at the site of the producer. Therefore,
transport and collection are already contributing to the supply chain of
the secondary material. They are then consumed in other activities which
describe the recycling process and produce secondary goods or products
that are partially based on recyclable materials
1224 Int J Life Cycle Assess (2016) 21:1218–1230

Fig. 5 Overview of the expanded

allocation system in the APOS
model. While the cutoff model
allocates the production process
only to its allocatable byproducts,
the APOS model expands the
allocation system to include both
the production and the treatment
processes. Impacts of both are
combined and allocated to both
the product A and the treatment
byproduct E

reference product by any other activity, are defined as mate-
rials for treatment (MFT). The MFTs are largely equal to the
products classified as recyclable materials and wastes in the
cutoff model. Allocation systems are expanded to include all
treatment steps necessary for conversion of the MFTs into
products that are not MFTs. The expanded system is then
allocated to all its co-products based on the allocation factors
in the database. Thus, the exchanges of both production and
treatments are combined and then allocated to both the pro-
duction products and the treatment byproducts (Fig. 5).
As the allocation system is expanded to cover the whole
treatment process, any allocation within the treatment pro-
cess(es) can be avoided in this system model. Therefore, the
distinction between wastes and recyclable materials is not
required in this system model. Allocation on wastes and waste
products is often a controversial topic in LCA studies
(Cherubini et al. 2009; Finnveden 1999; Heijungs and
Guinée 2007), so avoiding this issue is a benefit of the
APOS model. To allow an analysis of the unit process contri-
butions, the byproducts are allocated in the main producing
activity, and the treatment functionality of the treatment pro-
cesses is part of the supply chain with all the impacts of the
treatment (Fig. 6). The allocation then results in datasets for
treatment byproducts that are specific to the activity producing
the MFT. To simplify the database and the use of such prod-
ucts, all instances of a specific byproduct from a specific treat-
ment are aggregated into one dataset. For example, the
datasets for electricity from incineration of municipal solid

Fig. 6 Modeling of joint

production activities in the APOS
system model (adapted from
Weidema et al. 2013). The upper
half shows the original process
structure. To allocate all 3
products X, Y, and Z against each
other, they need to be grouped in
one place at the end of the
expanded product system. The
bottom half shows how the
process structure is rearranged
after MFT byproducts are
considered as negative inputs and
how the non-MFT recycling
byproduct is moved to the joint
production activity to allow
allocation within a single activity

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Int J Life Cycle Assess (2016) 21:1218–1230
waste is listed in the APOS model as one dataset. However, as
explained above, each instance of municipal solid waste
(MSW) output results in an individual dataset for electricity,
e.g., one from treatment of MSW from farming, one from
treatment of MSW from machinery production, or one from
treatment of MSW from other waste treatments. All of these
datasets are aggregated into one production-volume-weighted
average of all such treatment datasets. This dataset then rep-
resents the production of electricity using the average waste
origins within the database.
The two allocation models only differ in the approach to-
wards allocating recycling and waste treatment products. The
differences between the two system models in terms of LCA
results are therefore strongest for such products and often
negligible otherwise (Steubing et al. 2016).
2.4.3 Consequential, long-term, small scale
The consequential system model follows a substitution-based
approach and is intended to serve as a background database in
consequential LCA studies (Earles and Halog 2011; Ekvall
and Weidema 2004; Pehnt et al. 2008; Reinhard and Zah
2009; Suh and Yang 2014; Tonini et al. 2012; Weidema
et al. 2009; Zamagni et al. 2012). In this system model, sub-
stitution is used to resolve multi-functionality in datasets in-
stead of allocation. A reference product for an activity is al-
ways burdened with the full impacts of all inputs and emis-
sions, but is credited with benefits for any byproducts it pro-
duces that can substitute other productions. Byproducts are
recorded as negative inputs in the datasets and are linked to
the production of the good or service they are substituting. The
negative sign results in an environmental credit if the
substituted activity has an environmental burden. As previ-
ously stated, the term Bsystem expansion^ is also sometimes
used for this approach; this article uses the term Bsubstitution.^
In the consequential model, only unconstrained suppliers
(those who can respond to changes in demand by adapting
their production) are taken into account.
Byproducts are always constrained in the Consequential
system model. The model defines that, as they are not the
driver for an activity, they cannot react in an unconstrained
way to changes in demand. That means that, in this system
model, market datasets generally only have inputs from activ-
ities where the product is the reference product. Any direct
links to such byproducts are also substituted with the input
from the corresponding unconstrained market.
Furthermore, activities can be constrained due to the tech-
nology level as defined in the dataset: only the most up-to-date
technologies are considered unconstrained. The electricity
sector (i.e., the markets) can be regarded as an example for
the implementation of these constraints (Treyer and Bauer
2014). Constraints are therefore mostly based on current con-
ditions and not the result of specific forecasting projects.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1225
Conditions can vary over time, and this may become relevant
especially if data are directly used in foreground modeling.
The current implementation of consequential modeling is
rather basic since many datasets only exist as averages, and
constraints are determined in a basic way but the implemen-
tation is sufficient to fulfill the purpose of a background data-
base in many consequential studies, as it offers the core con-
cepts of a consequential model, i.e., use of substitution to
avoid allocation completely and use of marginal suppliers
instead of average suppliers, and as individual processes can
be adapted if needed to include more specific data, e.g., from
forecasting studies.
When all suppliers to a market are constrained, for example
when the market product is exclusively produced as a
byproduct, the consequential model applies the concept of
constrained markets (Fig. 7). An example is sodium hydroxide
(NaOH), which is currently only produced as a byproduct
(NaOH is a byproduct of chlorine production, which drives
the demand of their joint production). Activities in the data-
base that require NaOH therefore depend on a product that is
constrained by the demand for chlorine. A marginal consump-
tion activity is then determined, which reduces its consump-
tion of NaOH when consumption is increased elsewhere.
Therefore, the production of chlorine as an activity receives
a credit for the production of NaOH corresponding to this
reduction in marginal consumption. In the case of NaOH,
the actual credit is given for a reduction of production of
sodium carbonate (which can substitute for NaOH as a neu-
tralizing agent), which does not need to be produced due to the
increased availability of NaOH. Similarly, consumers of
NaOH are burdened with the increase in sodium carbonate
production resulting as the indirect consequence of their
NaOH consumption.
Fig. 7 Example of a BConstrained market^; modeling according to the
BConsequential, long-term, small scale^ system model (adapted from
(Weidema et al. 2013))
1226
2.5 Other developments
Several other changes were introduced with ecoinvent version
3. First of all, the data format was updated to ecospold 2
(Meinshausen et al. 2014). The new format improves the de-
scription of exchange data independent of process data. It also
includes significantly increased options for documentation di-
rectly in the dataset, such as additional documentation fields
or the option to include images in dataset documentation
fields. In this way, more of the documentation of a dataset
can be included directly with the data. The format also in-
cludes fields for exchange properties. Each exchange can be
defined and described by a number of properties, e.g., fuels
can have a heating value property. All exchanges in version 3
have at least the following properties: wet and dry mass, water
content, and carbon content (fossil and non-fossil). The con-
sistent availability of these properties also allows a simple
calculation of an activity’s wet and dry mass balance, its water
balance, and its carbon balance. These balances are an impor-
tant validation and review tool and are also reported for each
activity in the online database. With the release of version 3.1,
the database has achieved a water balance sufficient for de-
tailed and accurate water use and consumption assessments
(Levova 2013). The new data format also allows for specifi-
cation of parameters and for direct integration of mathematical
relations within the dataset. For example, the carbon dioxide
emissions of an incineration can be calculated from a fuel
input, the carbon content of the fuel, and any alternative car-
bon fates such as soot or carbon monoxide. The fuel input
itself can be calculated from the required demand for energy
and the heating value of the fuel. In this way, calculated values
can be easily reviewed as well as understood and reproduced
by practitioners; modifications to datasets can be carried out
faster, and datasets can be updated more consistently.
Price data was also collected for numerous products to
improve the allocation basis for many datasets. This has re-
sulted in a significant improvement in results for many
datasets (Steubing et al. 2016). While not all products within
the database have price data available, most do, and this is
another useful tool for validation purposes within the data-
base. The existing price data is also provided to the users for
any other uses they may see in it.
Version 3.0 also introduced many new datasets and updates
to many sectors in the database. For example, the electricity
sector was updated and expanded substantially (Treyer and
Bauer 2013, 2014). Emissions in agriculture were likewise
updated to reflect an improved understanding of emission
profiles (Nemecek et al. 2014). Road passenger transport
was completely updated and expanded with modern technol-
ogies, such as electric mobility and alternate fuel sources (Del
Duce et al. 2014; Simons 2013), and many datasets for various
North American regions were added, with a focus on Québec
(Lesage and Samson 2013; Suh et al. 2013). Fruits and
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Int J Life Cycle Assess (2016) 21:1218–1230
vegetables were added as well (Stoessel et al. 2012). Version
3.1 introduced, e.g., global data on aluminium production,
new road freight transport data, forestry data, and tap water
production. Version 3.2 included among other data another
update and expansion of the electricity and heat sectors, data
on refrigerated transport, updated cement and concrete data,
and data on European aluminum production.
3 Discussion
Much of the development work for version 3 aimed to prepare
the database for continued growth in the following years. This
resulted in new conceptual designs that are visible in the da-
tabase structure. At the same time, version 3.0 was not re-
leased with the ambition to be a complete database, and the
database remains far from being complete. This is apparent in
several ways. One is that the global datasets are very often not
reflecting truly global data collection but are often extrapolat-
ed from regional data for one or a few regions only. While
clearly not the best option, this can be an adequate approach to
approximate inventories. Extrapolation from single regions, or
even single locations, to larger or other geographies has been
an established practice within the database since its inception
and is a common practice in LCA in general. The benefits of
the global datasets are nevertheless apparent in several ways.
Firstly, due to the geography-specific linking of activities,
such datasets have supply chains appropriate for their regions,
be it local, global, or RoW datasets. Secondly, the pedigree
information for geographical representativeness is adapted in
such datasets, which increases the uncertainties in the dataset
(Ciroth et al. 2013; Muller et al. 2014), thus revealing the
importance of further improvements in these data. Finally,
emissions and resource uses are correctly located for region-
alized impact assessment. The main drawback of such extrap-
olated datasets is that they can be misinterpreted as actual
global data. Good and transparent documentation of the ex-
trapolation process and the associated limitations is therefore
important. The documentation of datasets includes comments
on the data origin, and the datasets contain an explicit
BExtrapolations^ field. In addition, the pedigree for geograph-
ical representativeness communicates the adequacy of data
sources. As the database is increasingly filled with regional
data, extrapolated global background datasets will decrease in
relevance.
As described above, the method for generating the RoW
datasets out of global datasets was changed for version 3.2.
The reason was that the weighted-average calculation used at
first was putting significant strain on data providers for activities
where processes vary between regions. The consequences of
changing to a simpler algorithm in terms of LCA results were
negligible in most cases, and the new algorithm minimizes
Int J Life Cycle Assess (2016) 21:1218–1230
artifacts and allows for an easier understanding of values in
RoW datasets.
The introduction of consistent market datasets expands on
the already useful mixes present in versions 1 and 2. As the
ecoinvent database grows, the likelihood increases that new
datasets are not necessarily describing a new product, but
rather an alternative production route for an already existing
product, or the production in a different region. The creation
of a distinct product list for version 3 allows users to more
easily understand which activities have the same products. At
the same time, practitioners are increasingly required to
choose between several suppliers of a product. Markets as
consumption mix datasets can offer valuable support in cases
where a product is not explicitly sourced from a specific sup-
plier but consumed Bfrom the market^, hence the name market
datasets. At the same time, it is critical to understand that
practitioners should carefully choose between market inputs
and direct inputs from producers, as relevant. When using the
market datasets, the included transport, losses, and emissions
simplify the application of the background data.
Market datasets are also beneficial for the maintenance and
expansion of the database, as they allow for a simple introduc-
tion of new producers into existing supply chains throughout
the database, instead of a time-consuming, manual effort to
introduce new producers into potentially thousands of con-
suming datasets. Similarly, practitioners can adapt or modify
large sections of their background system with relatively little
effort by changing market compositions in a local copy of the
database.
The combination of global supply chains and consistent
mix datasets for centralized updating of supply chains allows
for the integration of regional database projects into the
ecoinvent framework. One example is the Quebec LCI data-
base (Lesage and Samson 2013). Due to the structure of the
version 3 system, a database can be built first on the backbone
of the global supply chains. This avoids one major problem
many new data initiatives face: a critical mass of background
data is needed to complete supply chains for any dataset, and a
project to build an interconnected database will not yield
meaningful results until a core set of background data can be
adequately covered (Bourgault et al. 2012). Later additions to
the database can then substitute the global background data
with local suppliers with little effort, as links to a global mar-
ket can be substituted with local markets if necessary. Such
collaborations between data networks can increase efficiency
and productive use of resources in LCI collection.
With the possibility to apply different modeling choices to
the same background database, version 3 introduces a novel
set of tools for LCA practitioners: being able to use the same
data in different goal and scope situations, the effects of
modeling choices can be observed much more easily. A first
application was carried out in (Steubing et al. 2016).
Practitioners can use the different system models to answer
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1227
different questions, or compare results for sensitivity analyses
towards modeling choices.
The APOS system model, as a new way of looking at
allocation of waste treatment and recycling products, is
differing from the established cutoff model in several ways.
The cutoff model uses a simple but fundamental decision to
separate primary and secondary use stages. The approach
strongly incentivizes the use of secondary materials. It does
not however incentivize waste producers to maximize reuse of
waste materials, as no benefits are given for any useful
treatment products. APOS offers a different perspective, in
which waste producers are incentivized to assess recycling
and reuse possibilities due to the partial allocation of impacts
to useful treatment products. The model can therefore be used
in studies where the question of waste disposal method is a
topic, or as a counterpoint to the cutoff model in a sensitivity
analysis. As Steubing et al. (2016) show, the two allocation
models generally show only insignificant differences in re-
sults, except in the case of waste treatment and recycling
products. Therefore, it is either relatively unimportant which
model is chosen or it is of added value to assess results with
both systems and discuss the difference.
In practical terms, the APOS model is more difficult to
implement in foreground systems than the cutoff model, and
treatment byproduct datasets are more challenging to analyze
and adapt by practitioners than in the cutoff model. This is
partially a consequence of the cutoff’s disconnection of prod-
uct paths—the disconnected systems are easier to assess and
modify than the expanded systems of the APOS model.
Furthermore, the consolidated datasets for treatment products,
while still unit processes, are the result of the merging of
sometimes numerous datasets with diverse supply chains.
They can therefore reach a level of complexity that makes
an assessment of the reasons for impacts challenging. The
complexity is a consequence of the varied supply chains of
many waste materials—the origin of, e.g., municipal solid
waste in an incineration plant is indeed very diverse. At the
moment, a weakness of the model is the fact that waste
streams are not complete within the database, which influ-
ences the impacts allocated to the treatment products: only
waste supply chains recorded in the database are taken into
account. Wastes from activities not included in the database
should have an effect as well but do not. Therefore, the careful
comparison of results between the two allocation models is
recommended when using the APOS model.
The consequential model offers a very different perspective
on the database and is intended for use with goals and scopes
of consequential LCA studies. In its current form, it is correct-
ly reflecting the core consequential principles of substitution
and the use of marginal suppliers. However, the differentiation
between constrained and unconstrained suppliers is limited
and the approach to determine marginal suppliers of electricity
is a basic one. The use of technology levels to determine
1228
marginal producers could be improved upon with, e.g., results
of predictive studies regarding future energy use scenarios. It
is recommended that users of the system model carefully as-
sess the datasets that are significant for their results and deter-
mine whether more detailed information on the predicted sit-
uation within their scope is available to improve the reliability
of results. Nevertheless, the consequential model can
serve as a background database in many applications,
and this is the first and at the moment only large LCI
database with a consequential perspective. It is hoped
that it will form the core of increased research into
and development of consequential LCI.
In general, the introduction of multiple system models has
increased interest and discussion of system modeling choices
significantly as practitioners now face a real choice of back-
ground data modeling and have to make an informed decision.
There are different opinions on how modeling of systems
should be carried out (EC 2010; ISO 2006a, b), and there
are sometimes conflicting interpretations of the same set of
rules (Weidema 2014). It seems generally agreed that the goal
and scope of the study should affect the system model, e.g.,
the ILCD handbook (EC 2010) acknowledges the need for
different system models in different use cases, and the system
models ecoinvent now provides cover several of the ILCD
scenarios. The consistent separation of inventory data from
modeling choices is beneficial in this context. While only
three system models are provided at the moment, the datasets
before application of any system model choices are also avail-
able, and it is envisioned that eventually practitioners can cre-
ate and modify system models within their LCA software
tools to adapt their data models to specific goals and scopes
for specialized applications. For example, substitution can
also be applied to solve the allocation problem in an
otherwise attributive approach with average suppliers,
and such a system model could be created using the
existing technology and data.
The consistent implementation of flow properties al-
lows for more insight and transparency of the flows in
an LCI, as well as increased validation options during
dataset creation and analysis. Together with the new trans-
parent and systematic review process, these automatized
validations will increase data quality and reduce errors in
LCI data. Mass and content balances, such as water bal-
ances or carbon balances, can be controlled and are report-
ed for the datasets during, e.g., data entry. In this way, the
database has been water balanced within adequate margins for
consistent water footprinting (Levova 2013). Properties also
offer further development possibilities in the future, such as
developing dataset models based on input properties or LCIA
based in part on flow property data. The new option of param-
etrization of unit processes can be regarded as powerful tool
for user-friendly modification of LCI data according to spe-
cific conditions, e.g., creation of processes for new
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Int J Life Cycle Assess (2016) 21:1218–1230
geographies or carrying out sensitivity analysis.
Unfortunately, implementation of the properties and parame-
trization data of version 3 is still missing in most commercial
LCA software tools at the moment.
4 Conclusions
The development of ecoinvent version 3 aimed to establish a
robust, flexible data system for the management of a global
inventory database. Key features envisioned were the support
for regionalized LCI data and regionalized LCIA, application
of multiple system models and the flexibility to introduce new
models, complex supply chain data, increased transparency in
documentation and flow properties, and integration of data
models in datasets among others. While the development of
version 3 was complex and time-consuming, the core goals
were achieved. At the same time, the many changes now need
to demonstrate their benefits in application, and a careful as-
sessment of the value versus the cost for some complex fea-
tures will be carried out. Version 3 was a revolution in the
development of the ecoinvent database, and it will be followed
by a process of gradual evolution and consolidation to capi-
talize on the capabilities and benefits it offers. With multiple
system models, consistent consumption mixes, global supply
chains, support for regionalized LCIA, support for water
footprinting, improved transport modeling, increased trans-
parency through parametrization and improved documenta-
tion in the datasets, and more flow information in the form
of properties, version 3 offers many possibilities on the tech-
nical level that previous versions did not.
Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank Tereza Levova,
Sofia Parada Tur, Thomas Nemecek, Karin Treyer, Carl Vadenbo and
especially Roland Hischier for their many contributions towards the de-
velopment of ecoinvent version 3, as well as Gabor Doka for the original
design of Fig. 5, which is reused here with permission.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of
interest.
References
Amor MB, Gaudreault C, Pineau P-O, Samson R (2014) Implications of
integrating electricity supply dynamics into life cycle assessment: a
case study of renewable distributed generation. Renew Energ 69:
410–419
Arvesen A, Hertwich E (2015) More caution is needed when using life
cycle assessment to determine energy return on investment (EROI).
Energ Policy 76:1–6
Bauer C, Hofer J, Althaus H-J, Del Duce A, Simons A (2015) The envi-
ronmental performance of current and future passenger vehicles: life
cycle assessment based on a novel scenario analysis framework.
Appl Energy
Int J Life Cycle Assess (2016) 21:1218–1230
Bouman EA, Ramirez A, Hertwich E (2015) Multiregional environmen-
tal comparison of fossil fuel power generation—assessment of the
contribution of fugitive emissions from conventional and unconven-
tional fossil resources. Int J Greenh Gas Con
Bourgault G, Lesage P, Samson R (2012) Systematic disaggregation: a
hybrid LCI computation algorithm enhancing interpretation phase in
LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17:774–786
Cherubini F, Bargigli S, Ulgiati S (2009) Life cycle assessment (LCA) of
waste management strategies: landfilling, sorting plant and inciner-
ation. Energy 34:2116–2123
Ciroth A, Muller S, Weidema B, Lesage P (2013) Empirically based
uncertainty factors for the pedigree matrix in ecoinvent. Int J Life
Cycle Assess. doi:10.1007/s11367-013-0670-5
Del Duce A, Gauch M, Althaus H-J (2014) Electric passenger car trans-
port and passenger car life cycle inventories in ecoinvent version 3.
Int J Life Cycle Assess. doi:10.1007/s11367-014-0792-4
Earles J, Halog A (2011) Consequential life cycle assessment: a review.
Int J Life Cycle Assess 16:445–453
EC (2010) International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD)
Handbook—general guide for life cycle assessment—detailed guid-
ance. European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for
Environment and Sustainability, Luxembourg
Ekvall T, Weidema BP (2004) System boundaries and input data in conse-
quential life cycle inventory analysis. Int J Life Cycle Assess 9:161–171
Finnveden G (1999) Methodological aspects of life cycle assessment of
integrated solid waste management systems. Resour Conserv
Recycl 26:173–187
Frischknecht R et al (2005) The ecoinvent database: overview and meth-
odological framework. Int J Life Cycle Assess 10:3–9
Heijungs R, Guinée J (2007) Allocation and ‘what-if’ scenarios in life
cycle assessment of waste management systems. Waste Manage 27:
997–1005
Henriksson P, Zhang W, Guinée JB (2015) Updated unit process data for
coal-based energy in China including parameters for overall disper-
sions. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20:185–195
Hertwich E et al (2014) Integrated life-cycle assessment of electricity-
supply scenarios confirms global environmental benefit of low-
carbon technologies. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. doi:10.1073/pnas.
1312753111
Hou Q, Mao G, Zhao L, Du H, Zuo J (2015) Mapping the scientific
research on life cycle assessment: a bibliometric analysis. Int J
Life Cycle Assess. doi:10.1007/s11367-015-0846-2
ISO (2006a) ISO 14040. Environmental management—life cycle assess-
ment—principles and framework. International Organisation for
Standardisation (ISO)
ISO (2006b) ISO 14044. Environmental management—life cycle assess-
ment—requirements and guidelines. International Organisation for
Standardisation (ISO)
Laurent A, Espinosa N (2015) Environmental impacts of electricity gener-
ation at global, regional and national scales in 1980–2011: what can we
learn for future energy planning? Energy Environ Sci 8:689–701
Lesage P, Samson R (2013) The Quebec Life Cycle Inventory Database
Project. Int J Life Cycle Assess. doi:10.1007/s11367-013-0593-1
Levova T (2013) Water Use Modelling With ecoinvent v3 Opens New
Possibilities. LCA XIII, Orlando, September 30th - October 3rd 2013
Masanet E et al (2013) Life-cycle assessment of electric power systems.
Annu Rev Environ Resour 38:107–136
Meinshausen I, Müller-Beilschmidt P, Viere T (2014) The EcoSpold 2
format—why a new format? Int J Life Cycle Assess. doi:10.1007/
s11367-014-0789-z
Muller S, Lesage P, Ciroth A, Mutel C, Weidema B, Samson R (2014)
The application of the pedigree approach to the distributions fore-
seen in ecoinvent v3. Int J Life Cycle Assess. doi:10.1007/s11367-
014-0759-5
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1229
Mutel CL, Hellweg S (2009) Regionalized life cycle assessment: compu-
tational methodology and application to inventory databases.
Environ Sci Technol 43:5797–5803
Mutel C, Pfister S, Hellweg S (2012) GIS-based regionalized life cycle
assessment: how big is small enough? Methodology and case study
of electricity generation. Environ Sci Technol 46:1096–1103
Mutel C, de Baan L, Hellweg S (2013) Two-step sensitivity testing of
parametrized and regionalized life cycle assessments: methodology
and case study. Environ Sci Technol 47:5660–5667
Nemecek T, Schnetzer J, Reinhard J (2014) Updated and harmonised
greenhouse gas emissions for crop inventories. Int J Life Cycle
Assess. doi:10.1007/s11367-014-0712-7
OGC (2014) KML—Keyhole Markup Language version 2.2. Open
Geospatial Consortium, Wayland
Pehnt M, Oeser M, Swider DJ (2008) Consequential environmental sys-
tem analysis of expected offshore wind electricity production in
Germany. Energy 33:747–759
Pfister S, Koehler A, Hellweg S (2009) Assessing the environmental impacts
of freshwater consumption in LCA. Environ Sci Technol 43:4098–4104
Potting J, Hauschild M (1997) Spatial differentiation in life-cycle assess-
ment via the site-dependent characterisation of environmental im-
pact from emissions. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2:209–216
Potting J, Hauschild M (2006) Spatial differentiation in life cycle impact
assessment: a decade of method development to increase the envi-
ronmental realism of LCIA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11:11–13
Reinhard J, Zah R (2009) Global environmental consequences of in-
creased biodiesel consumption in Switzerland: consequential life
cycle assessment. J Clean Prod 17(suppl 1):S46–S56
Scharlemann JPW, Laurance WF (2008) Environmental science: how
green are biofuels? Science 319:43–44
Simons A (2013) Road transport: new life cycle inventories for fossil-
fuelled passenger cars and non-exhaust emissions in ecoinvent v3.
Int J Life Cycle Assess. doi:10.1007/s11367-013-0642-9
Simons A, Bauer C (2012) Life cycle assessment of the European pres-
surized reactor and the influence of different fuel cycle strategies.
Proc Inst Mech Eng, Part A: J Power Energy 226:427–444
Sternberg A, Bardow A (2015) Power-to-What?—environmental assess-
ment of energy storage systems. Energy Environ Sci 8:389–400
Steubing B, Wernet G, Reinhard J, Bauer C, Moreno E (2016) The
ecoinvent database version 3 (part II): analyzing LCA results and
comparison to version 2. Int J Life Cycle Assess. doi:10.1007/
s11367-016-1109-6
Stoessel F, Juraske R, Pfister S, Hellweg S (2012) Life cycle inventory
and carbon and water foodprint of fruits and vegetables: application
to a Swiss retailer. Environ Sci Technol 46:3253–3262
Suh S, Yang Y (2014) On the uncanny capabilities of consequential LCA.
Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:1179–1184
Suh S, Leighton M, Tomar S, Chen C (2013) Interoperability between
ecoinvent ver. 3 and US LCI database: a case study. Int J Life Cycle
Assess. doi:10.1007/s11367-013-0592-2
Swiss Confederation (2014) SR 641.611 - Mineralölsteuerverordnung.
Swiss Confederation, Bern
The ecoinvent LCA database, v3.1, Bcut-off by classification^ (2014) The
ecoinvent center. www.ecoinvent.org
Tillman A-M (2000) Significance of decision-making for LCA method-
ology. Environ Impact Assess Rev 20:113–123
Tonini D, Hamelin L, Wenzel H, Astrup T (2012) Bioenergy production
from perennial energy crops: a consequential LCA of 12 bioenergy
scenarios including land use changes. Environ Sci Technol 46:
13521–13530
Treyer K, Bauer C (2013) Life cycle inventories of electricity generation
and power supply in version 3 of the ecoinvent database—part I:
electricity generation. Int J Life Cycle Assess. doi:10.1007/s11367-
013-0665-2
Treyer K, Bauer C (2014) Life cycle inventories of electricity generation
and power supply in version 3 of the ecoinvent database—part II:
1230
electricity markets. Int J Life Cycle Assess. doi:10.1007/s11367-
013-0694-x
Treyer K, Bauer C, Simons A (2014) Human health impacts in the life cycle of
future European electricity generation. Energ Policy 74:S31–S44
Turconi R, Tonini D, Nielsen CFB, Simonsen CG, Astrup T (2014)
Environmental impacts of future low-carbon electricity systems: de-
tailed life cycle assessment of a Danish case study. Appl Energy
132:66–73
Volkart K, Bauer C, Boulet C (2013) Life cycle assessment of carbon
capture and storage in power generation and industry in Europe. Int J
Greenh Gas Con 16:91–106
von der Assen N, Jung J, Bardow A (2013) Life-cycle assessment of
carbon dioxide capture and utilization: avoiding the pitfalls.
Energy Environ Sci 6:2721–2734
Wegener Sleeswijk A, Heijungs R (2010) GLOBOX: a spatially differ-
entiated global fate, intake and effect model for toxicity assessment
in LCA. Sci Total Environ 408:2817–2832
Weidema B (2014) Has ISO 14040/44 failed its role as a standard for life
cycle assessment? J Ind Ecol 18:324–326
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Int J Life Cycle Assess (2016) 21:1218–1230
Weidema B, Ekvall T, Heijungs R (2009) Guidelines for application of
deepened and broadened LCA. ENEA, The Italian National Agency
on new technologies, energy and the environment
Weidema BP et al (2013) Overview and methodology. Data quality
guideline for the ecoinvent database version 3. The ecoinvent
Centre, St. Gallen
Wernet G, Conradt S, Isenring H, Jiménez-González C, Hungerbühler K
(2010) Life cycle assessment of fine chemical production: a case study
of pharmaceutical synthesis. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:294–303
Wernet G, Mutel C, Hellweg S, Hungerbühler K (2011) The environmental
importance of energy use in chemical production. J Ind Ecol 15:96–107
Wernet G, Hellweg S, Hungerbühler K (2012) A tiered approach to esti-
mate inventory data and impacts of chemical products and mixtures.
Int J Life Cycle Assess 17:720–728
Yue D, You F, Darling SB (2014) Domestic and overseas manufacturing
scenarios of silicon-based photovoltaics: life cycle energy and envi-
ronmental comparative analysis. Sol Energy 105:669–678
Zamagni A, Guinée J, Heijungs R, Masoni P, Raggi A (2012) Lights and
shadows in consequential LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17:904–918
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers and authorised users (“Users”), for small-
scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By
accessing, sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of use (“Terms”). For these
purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal
subscription. These Terms will prevail over any conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription
(to the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of the Creative Commons license used will
apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may also use these personal data internally within
ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not
otherwise disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies unless we have your permission as
detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial use, it is important to note that Users may
not:

1. use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale basis or as a means to circumvent access
control;
2. use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is
otherwise unlawful;
3. falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in
writing;
4. use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
5. override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
6. share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a systematic database of Springer Nature journal
content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a product or service that creates revenue,
royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal
content cannot be used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large scale into their, or any
other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not obligated to publish any information or
content on this website and may remove it or features or functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature
may revoke this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or guarantees to Users, either express or implied
with respect to the Springer nature journal content and all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law,
including merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published by Springer Nature that may be licensed
from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a regular basis or in any other manner not
expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer Nature at

onlineservice@springernature.com