Journal of Cleaner Production 196 (2018) 997e1006

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Residual biomass as resource e Life-cycle environmental impact of

wastes in circular resource systems
Johanna Olofsson*, Pål Bo
€ rjesson
€- och Energisystem, Lunds Tekniska Ho
Environmental and Energy Systems Studies, Lund University, Miljo €gskola, Box 118, SE-221 00, Lund, Sweden

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Within an envisioned circular bio-based economy, a key component is the valorization of biomass wastes
Received 23 November 2017 and residues into valuable products. If the commonly used method of life-cycle assessment (LCA) is
Received in revised form applied to such products, an update and adaptation of LCA practice is needed regarding potentially
9 April 2018
outdated assumptions of residual resources as free from environmental impact. This paper therefore
Accepted 11 June 2018
presents and discusses LCA approaches to evaluating residual biomass as resources, and implications of
Available online 15 June 2018
different approaches to LCA results and decision-making. Based on an analysis of 31 LCA studies of bio-
based products, and on a model for recycling in LCA, we discuss alternatives to zero-burden assumptions
Keywords:
Life-cycle assessment
for biomass residues. The studied literature shows a variety of approaches to assessing the impacts of
LCA residues, including views of relevant characteristics and causality in primary production systems, and
Zero burden intended use and interpretation of LCA results. In general, acknowledging upstream impacts through a
Circular economy simple model of recycling and allocation entails that the environmental characteristics of primary pro-
Bioeconomy duction systems reflect on by-products and residues. We argue that LCA studies of residue valorization
By-product must recognize the potential value of residues by considering upstream impacts, and thereby avoid both
misconceptions of residues as per default environmentally preferable resources, and unintentional
support for high-impact primary production systems. Residues as resources require this adaptation in
LCA practice in order to avoid misguided decisions for a low-impact, bio-based and circular economy.
© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction low or no value is a key part (Murray et al., 2015).

With limited natural resources globally and increasing pressure
on ecosystems, one potential strategy to mitigate anthropogenic
environmental impacts is to make better use of available resources.
Based on this idea, a popular concept is that of the circular economy
(Geissdoerfer et al., 2017) which refers to a society where resource
flows are circular rather than linear and implies that all resources
are used efficiently, materials are recycled, and little end waste is
created. Another popular term is bioeconomy, or bio-based econ-
omy, which refers to a widespread use of biomass replacing fossil
resources, and where efficient utilization of organic material and
cascading use (Keegan et al., 2013) can play an important role
(Bugge et al., 2016). In working with these ideas towards more
efficient and circular biomass resource flows, the utilization and
valorization of resources that were previously considered to be of
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: johanna.olofsson@miljo.lth.se (J. Olofsson), pal.borjesson@
€rjesson).
miljo.lth.se (P. Bo
As another expression of the aspiration to mitigate environ-
mental pressure, life-cycle assessment (LCA) has become a popular
tool to assess and compare the environmental impacts of products.
The LCA method quantifies the use of resources and the emissions
that arise throughout a product's life cycle, commonly referred to as
from cradle to grave and defined by system boundaries. In LCA
studies of waste and low-value residues, the practitioner must set
the upstream system boundary, deciding where the study of the
waste life cycle starts (Finnveden, 1999). One potential approach to
this is a zero-burden assumption in which the activities that
occurred prior to the generation or collection of the waste material,
and consequently their environmental impacts, are left outside the
system boundaries (Clift et al., 2000; Ekvall et al., 2007; Nakatani,
2014). The underlying logic requires the comparison of systems
with identical amounts of waste, because then the upstream pro-
cesses can be considered equal in the two systems, and their
environmental impacts will not affect the intended comparison
(Finnveden, 1999).
Though they do not necessarily follow the same logic, similar

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.115
0959-6526/© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
998 €rjesson / Journal of Cleaner Production 196 (2018) 997e1006
J. Olofsson, P. Bo
assumptions of zero-burden resources are present in LCA studies of
waste and residue utilization today. One example in the area of
biofuels is the EU renewable energy directive (2009/28/EC), which
states that for calculations of biofuels' greenhouse gas emissions,
waste raw materials “shall be considered to have zero life-cycle
greenhouse gas emissions up to the process of collection of those
materials.” Here, the assumption of zero burden refers to burden-
free residual or waste biomass that is used as raw material in a
product life cycle, and not to a comparison of waste treatment
options for a certain amount and type of waste. Thus, it appears that
another type of “zero-burden assumption” is present in practice (as
is also pointed out by Oldfield and Holden, 2014; Oldfield et al.,
2018; Pradel et al., 2016), and as can be exemplified by a number
of recently published LCA studies (see e.g. Esteve-Turrillas and de la
Guardia, 2017; Etxabide et al., 2016; Hajjaji et al., 2016; Husgafvel
~ arrubia Fernandez et al., 2017;
et al., 2016; Koller et al., 2013; Pen
Ramirez et al., 2012; Summers et al., 2015).
The logic and applicability of zero-burden assumptions may
however be affected by a shift towards circular resource systems,
where waste is increasingly considered, utilized and studied as a
resource with an economic value. In a recent study, Oldfield et al.
(2018) discussed zero-burden assumptions for waste resources,
and through examples of garden and food waste the authors
showed that this is one of several method aspects in LCA which may
be crucial to decisions regarding waste resources in a circular
economy. As a similar example, Pradel et al. (2016) studied the
paradigm shift in the waste status of wastewater sludge, and its
implications to LCA. The authors concluded that the zero-burden
assumption becomes debatable when sludge is no longer consid-
ered a waste material, and that it is not valid when sludge provides
further functions in other product systems, e.g. by means of
nutrient or material recovery. Similarly, Oldfield and Holden (2014)
showed that the zero-burden assumption is prevalent but rarely
discussed in studies of food-waste valorization, and argued that the
assumption is not compatible with a recognition of the economic
value of food waste. Further, in their LCA study of fuels made from
residual fat, Seber et al. (2014) showed parallel calculations where
tallow was considered burden-free, and where it was considered
accountable for a small percentage of upstream GHG emissions
from animal husbandry. Though only briefly addressed by the au-
thors, the assumed environmental impact of tallow substantially
affected the resulting GHG emissions of biodiesel fuel.
In order to avoid misguided decisions based on improper
method choices in a growing circular economy, a clarification of the
applications and implications of zero-burden assumptions in LCA is
necessary. Where zero-burden assumptions are not valid nor use-
ful, such as when the waste status of a material is uncertain or
changing, an alternative approach for dealing with upstream im-
pacts of residual biomass as resources is needed. The main purpose
of this paper is therefore to present and discuss approaches in LCA
for evaluating residual biomass as resources. Such approaches and
method choices have implications to LCA results and decision-
making, and the discussion is especially important in light of a
potential future circular resource system which aims to mitigate
anthropogenic environmental impact.
To this end, we discuss different LCA approaches to multi-
functionality and wastes as resources, followed by a literature
study and analysis of evaluation of residual biomass in LCA. The
literature study comprises existing LCA studies on seven biomass
processing industry sectors and an analysis regarding their
methods for handling the multi-functionality of production sys-
tems, and more specifically their assigning of environmental im-
pacts to residues. Findings from these studies are also discussed in
relation to additional LCA literature which focuses explicitly on
general method development and multi-functionality. By showing
how previous studies of main products and production systems
assign environmental impacts to residues, compared also to ideas
from more methods oriented literature, we aim both to develop an
understanding of the choices made by LCA practitioners concerning
valuation of different residual materials, and to provide a first data
inventory for upstream environmental impacts of residual biomass.
The purpose is thus to discuss implications across a range of po-
tential LCA applications and rationales.
2. Life-cycle assessment methods for residues and recycling
First, the definition of important terms such as waste and res-
idue are introduced (2.1), followed by a review of potential lines of
reasoning behind assumptions of burden-free resources within LCA
(2.2).
2.1. Definition of by-products, wastes and residues
Defining materials as main, co- or by-products, or residues or
wastes, is not straightforward, and depends on context. The
concept of waste is defined in the European Union's Waste
Framework Directive (2008/98/EC) as “any substance or object
which the holder discards or intends or is required to discard“. The
directive also states criteria that define by-products and end-of-
waste, the latter describing when a waste material ceases to be
waste after recovery. Offering an alternative definition of waste in
the context of LCA, Weidema (2001) suggested that “a waste is an
output that does not displace any other product”. This definition
builds on, but offers a more precise distinction than, an economic
basis where a waste is simply an output that does not provide
economic value to the process from which it arose (Weidema,
2001), or an output that has a negative economic value (Guine e
et al., 2004). Avoiding a focus on economic value, the definition
of waste based on the potential further use of the material can be
viewed as consistent with the ISO 14044 standard, where wastes
are “substances or objects which the holder intends or is required to
dispose of” (ISO, 2006; Pelletier et al., 2015).
In accordance with the definition of waste as an output material
that is disposed of and not further utilized, we consider all biomass
outputs that can potentially be further utilized as potential non-
waste products. This starting point lets us investigate upstream
environmental impacts for any biomass that could be, or has been,
argued to be burden-free due to a perceived waste status, which is
in line with the idea of circular economy where wastes to a greater
extent should be considered resources for further use. Therefore
the term residual biomass as used in this paper includes any bio-
logical material that originates from processing of biomass, except
for main products which are originally intended to be produced.
While this definition does not say which particular materials are
wastes and which are not, it provides guidance within a certain
context. As wastes and residues are not defined by physical prop-
erties or chemical composition but rather by process economics,
trade and markets, or even perception, what constitutes residual
biomass changes over time and across space e a product can be
both a co-product and a waste in different places, and it can go from
being residual biomass to being one of several desirable, market-
able co-products. As a complement to residual biomass, by-
products and residues is used here to indicate a span of potential
valuation, waste status and utilization of the biomass investigated.
2.2. Zero-burden assumptions and recycling
As mentioned in the introduction, the original definition and
application of a zero-burden assumption was for comparisons of
waste management options in systems with identical waste
 €rjesson / Journal of Cleaner Production 196 (2018) 997e1006
J. Olofsson, P. Bo
streams, where identical upstream processes can be left outside the
system boundaries of a comparative study (Clift et al., 2000; Ekvall
et al., 2007; Finnveden, 1999; Nakatani, 2014). This is the principle
normally referred to when mentioning zero-burden (illustrated in
Fig. 1). As a look into recent LCA literature showed, there can
however be other grounds for assuming that a waste or residual
material is assigned zero burden from activities prior to its
collection.
While the zero-burden assumption in Fig. 1 only applies under
specific circumstances, residues can be assigned zero impact from
upstream processes based on models of recycling. LCA literature
commonly distinguishes between models of open-loop and closed-
loop recycling, where open-loop refers to a situation where a ma-
terial arising in one product life cycle is used as raw material in a
different subsequent product life cycle, while closed-loop refers to
a material being recycled in the “same” product life cycle (ISO,
2006). The importance of such a distinction between closed- and
open-loop recycling is however debated (Finnveden, 1999; Geyer
et al., 2016; Nakatani, 2014). For the purpose of this paper, valori-
zation and recycling of residual biomass in subsequent product
systems is considered a case of open-loop recycling. With this
definition we view recycling of residual biomass as an exchange
between two subsequent life cycles or product systems, which al-
lows the study of the intersection between the two systems and the
use of residual biomass as a raw material in the second system.
Further distinction between the terms of open and closed-loop
recycling is, for all intents and purposes, not relevant to this
analysis.
2.2.1. Cut-off method
The case of open-loop recycling, involving several subsequent
product life cycles (Fig. 2), can be described as a multi-functionality
problem to which there are several potential solutions within the
LCA method. The problem is that “the system boundary between
products 1 and 2 is not clear-cut”, and it can in principle be solved
either by expanding system boundaries to include all products, or
by allocating environmental impacts between them in order to
study only one product (Finnveden, 1999). Both Ekvall and Tillman
(1997) and Finnveden (1999) present a selection of potential allo-
cation approaches, out of which a so called cut-off method is
considered easily applicable to the extent that users may not
perceive it as an allocation (Finnveden, 1999). The underlying idea
is that “Each product should only be assigned the environmental
Raw material extraction Raw material extraction
Production Production
Use Use
Waste management Waste management
option A option B
System boundaries
Fig. 1. The zero-burden assumption for comparison of waste management options.
Processes prior to the waste management are considered equal in the two systems to
be compared, and are thus left outside the system boundaries.
999
Raw material
extraction
Processing
System B
Product A Residue A
Processing
System A
Product B Residue B
Fig. 2. Schematic illustration of open-loop recycling between two product systems (A
and B).
impacts directly caused by that product”, and as a consequence
impacts from raw material extraction is assigned to the first
product life cycle (Ekvall and Tillman, 1997). This cut-off allocation
approach effectively leaves the second product cut-off from the
environmental impacts related to the primary raw material
extraction, and as such it results in a type of burden-free assump-
tion for the second product life cycle that does not correspond to
the original zero-burden assumption as defined by Clift et al.
(2000); Ekvall et al. (2007); Finnveden (1999).
The cut-off method could be disqualified by the definition of a
multi-functional system in the sense that if a system is to be
considered multi-functional, it must provide more than one valu-
able function or material. The cut between two subsequent product
life cycles as in the cut-off method could principally be viewed as a
specific case of allocation (or partitioning), where the first product
system is assigned 100% of the environmental impacts from raw
material production. Subsequently, the allocation of 100% to the
primary product system and 0% to the second product system could
be valid under certain circumstances but invalid under others. As an
example, Schrijvers et al. (2016) consider the cut-off approach as a
possible case of economic allocation, applicable when the recy-
clable material leaving the first product system has a market value
of zero. In this case however, the authors argue that if the recycled
material has no economic value, the system under study could be
seen as not in fact being multi-functional (Schrijvers et al., 2016).
Using a similar logic, Pradel et al. (2016) conclude that wastewater
sludge can be assigned zero-burden only if it is not considered a
valuable output of the system, and that the assumption of burden-
free sludge is “strongly questionable when a ‘waste-to-product’
sludge is used as an input in an open-loop recycling LCA”. The very
definition of multi-functionality could thus be interpreted as dis-
qualifying an allocation of zero environmental impact to residues
that are of some value.
The cut-off allocation approach (meaning 100-0 allocation be-
tween product systems) could also be disregarded due to other
inconsistencies and issues. Schrijvers et al. (2016) identify a po-
tential problem in considering recycled material cut-off from up-
stream impacts since it is possible that the very same material was
already considered to provide a reduced impact in the study of the
main product, which would result in impacts getting “‘lost’ between
product life cycles”. This is in line with the idea that the sum of
attributional (or accounting, as opposed to consequential) LCA
studies should correspond to all observed environmental impacts
(Sonnemann et al., 2011).
1000 €rjesson / Journal of Cleaner Production 196 (2018) 997e1006
J. Olofsson, P. Bo
2.2.2. Alternatives to zero burden
Overall, there are several potential lines of reasoning for
assuming burden-free resources in LCA, but the original zero-
burden assumption is not necessarily well-founded in studies
that do not compare treatment alternatives for a certain amount of
waste. Instead, assumptions of burden-free resources in such
studies could be derived from a principle of open-loop recycling
under specific circumstances and assumptions which lead to an
allocation of zero impact to residues. This principle of recycling,
however, can yield a different outcome under circumstances where
or when a 100-0 allocation between main product and residue is
not justified. In such cases, the allocation between product and
residual material must be investigated and based on physical or
other relationships between them. This type of allocation in open-
loop recycling can thus be an alternative to assumptions of burden-
free resources in cases where residues are utilized and valorized,
such as when the study focus changes from comparisons of waste
treatment options to residue valorization. Therefore, this type of
allocation is chosen in this paper as the basis for evaluating the
environmental impacts of residual biomass as resources.
In a more general context, allocation is one method option to
deal with multi-functional systems as is also the method of system
expansion (ISO, 2006). The idea of system expansion has created an
LCA practice of substitution (Pelletier et al., 2015; Vadenbo et al.,
2017) in which by-products are considered to replace other com-
parable products and thereby offer environmental benefits to the
main production system. Consequently, substitution can deal with
the multi-functionality of additional products or residues so as to
produce results for the main product or product system, as opposed
to expanding the system and hence also the studied function. In
terms of valuation of residues as resources, substitution indicates
which products are considered substitutable by a certain residual
biomass type, thus pointing to a potential value of the residue.
While there may be value to such information, no explicit
connection to LCA calculation approaches for recycling or cascading
use of materials can be derived from the literature.
3. Literature analysis
Based on the principle of allocation in open-loop recycling,
previous LCA studies can provide an estimation of the environ-
mental impacts related to residual biomass. First, previous studies
of main products or production systems can provide an insight into
the relationships between products and residues which have been
considered in establishing the allocation ratio, in other words the
basis for allocation. Second, the same studies can provide a quan-
titative inventory of the upstream environmental impacts which is
allocated to residues. This is illustrated in Fig. 2, where the envi-
ronmental impacts allocated to residual biomass from system A
constitutes the upstream impacts of residual biomass which enters
system B. For the purpose of investigating such upstream impacts
of residual biomass, we studied published LCA studies in which the
method choices for handling multi-functionality were described, as
were the resulting environmental impacts associated with by-
products and residues. The literature studied thus provides basis
for both a qualitative analysis for valuation of residues, and a
quantitative assessment of the upstream environmental impacts of
residues.
Connections between upstream environmental impacts of res-
idues and the use of substitution in previous studies are not as clear.
In the context and logic of recycling as stated above, the method of
substitution is not directly applicable: it can deal with a residual
material from the point of view of system A and its main product as
in Fig. 2, but it cannot provide a quantitative estimation of up-
stream impacts of residual material from the point of view of
system B. Therefore we focus mainly on the perspective of residual
biomass utilization as a case of open-loop recycling with allocation,
as described above. On the other hand, an important aspect of the
presented approach is the investigation of relevant bases and re-
lationships for which to value and assign (allocate) environmental
impacts to residues, and a basis for substitution should indicate a
relevant characteristic for valuation of a residual material. In order
to include and illustrate such potentially valuable characteristics of
residues, LCA studies which apply substitution to deal with multi-
functionality are also included in the literature analysis.
In order to delimit the literature and focus on the circular bio-
based economy, seven industry sectors using biomass feedstock
were chosen as basis for the literature analysis. The seven sectors of
brewery, bakery, dairy, fishery, slaughterhouse, sawmill and pulp
mill were chosen to represent common existing sectors of interest
for developing circular, bio-based economies in the Nordic coun-
tries. With the limited selection of these seven biomass processing
sectors, the literature analysis does not aim to provide a compre-
hensive account of multi-functionality issues and their conse-
quences, but to present sufficient material to illustrate the general
ideas and conclusions of this paper. This is not to say that utilization
of residues and development of circular bio-economy is not of in-
terest, occurring or relevant in other sectors (see e.g. Maina et al.,
2017; Zabaniotou, 2018). As delimiters to the scope for the pur-
pose of this study, primary production systems such as forestry and
agriculture were excluded due to the additional complexity when
soil systems and functions are taken into account (Goglio et al.,
2015), as was the biorefinery type of biomass processing, since
relevant multi-functionality issues and resulting environmental
impacts for co-products are widely studied for this specific sector
(Ahlgren et al., 2015; Cherubini et al., 2011; Sandin et al., 2015). As
an additional delimiting factor, only more recent studies (from 2010
and onwards) were considered.
For the literature analysis of the seven industrial sectors, data-
bases including Scopus and Web of Science were searched for
relevant studies. For studies to be considered relevant, the
following criteria had to be met:
i. Application of life-cycle assessment method
ii. Study of biomass within one of the chosen industrial sectors
iii. Handling of by-products or residues by allocation or
substitution
iv. Published between 2010 and mid 2016 (when retrieval of
literature was completed)
Studies which met these criteria were analyzed regarding
method choice for handling by-products and residues, both in
terms of which method was chosen and regarding the resulting
environmental impacts associated with each residual biomass
stream. As complementing information, claims to follow certain
method guidelines were noted, as adherence to guidelines can
potentially explain method choices in the studies. In order to
broaden the analysis and discussion, findings from the literature
retrieved according to the above criteria were also discussed in
relation to additional LCA literature which focuses explicitly on
method development and multi-functionality.
4. Results and discussion
The literature analysis of the 31 studies (Table 1) included both
the underlying relationships used for assigning impacts to residues
(4.1), and the quantification of the environmental impacts associ-
ated with residues (4.2). See Appendix for the full inventory.
The limited number of studies identified did not allow for a
generalization regarding method choices for residues and by-
 €rjesson / Journal of Cleaner Production 196 (2018) 997e1006
J. Olofsson, P. Bo 1001

Table 1
LCA studies included in the literature analysis. Allocation of upstream impact to residual biomass based on mass (M), energy content (En), economic value (Ec), or by other
means.

Sector Reference Residual biomass Allocation

Bakery Jensen and Arlbjorn (2014) Barley sharps, malt sprouts

Brewery Williams and Mekonen (2014) BSG
Mattila et al. (2012) “Mash”
Dairy Finnegan et al. (2015) Co-products. E.g. whey and buttermilk powders. Physico-chemicala
Chalmers et al. (2015) Co-product. Milk fat
Kristensen et al. (2015) Whey Ec
Briam et al. (2015) Whey M: milk solids, total
Gonza lez-García et al. (2013a) Whey Ec, M
Gonza lez-García et al. (2013b) Whey M: fat
Gonza lez-García et al. (2013c) “Residual stream” M
Verge et al. (2013) Co-products: buttermilk, buttermilk powder and whey powder Physico-chemicalb
€ et al. (2014)
Flysjo Co-products: whey protein concentrates, whey based products Ec: raw milk, product revenue,
M: milk solids
Aguirre-Villegas et al. (2012) Dry whey, whey cream Ec, M: milk solids, En: nutrition
€ (2011)
Flysjo Buttermilk, skim milk and cream Ec
Fishery Pelletier and Tyedmers (2010) “Trimmings” En: gross chemical
Vazquez-Rowe et al. (2014) Offal and fat residues Ec, En: protein
Cooper et al. (2014) Offal (viscera, heads, tails, trim wastes)
Trang Thuy et al. (2015) Fish meal, fish oil, other Ec, Exergy
Ziegler et al. (2013) Fish residues M
Svanes et al. (2011) Skin, bones, fins, other M, En, Ec, Hybrid
Slaughter-house Gonza lez-García et al. (2015) Viscera, bones, blood
Wiedemann et al. (2015a) Raw hides, tallow, meat and blood meal Ec, Hybridc
Wiedemann and Yan (2014) Hides, pet food, protein meal, tallow, blood meal Ec, En: protein, Hybridd
Thevenot et al. (2013) Viscera, sludge, blood, feathers
Teixeira et al. (2013) Liver, throat, breast, skin Ec, M
Desjardins et al. (2012) Hide, offal, fat, bones Ec, M
Sawmill Leino et al. (2016) Sawdust, bark
Ramasamy et al. (2015) Off-cuts, shavings, sawdust, splinters “Physical”
Murphy et al. (2015) Wood chips, sawdust, bark M
Kayo et al. (2015) Residues (sawdust)
Pulp mill Culbertson et al. (2016) Co-products: lignin, (soap) Ec, M
a, b
Allocation of raw milk based on mass (milk solids), followed by industry-specific data for “average resource use” (e.g. energy, water) (Feitz et al., 2007).
c, d
Hybrid model combining allocation (based on protein energy) and substitution.

products in LCA, but it allowed for a first assessment of the envi- large fractions of the total biomass ending up in by-products and
ronmental impacts of the residues and by-products included. The wastes (e.g. slaughterhouse and fishery).
uneven distribution of studies across the different industrial sectors
(Fig. 3) could potentially be explained by the amount of LCA 4.1. Method choices for multi-functionality and residues
research in general within the sectors in combination with the
scope and method of this paper (see 2.2). Further explanation for a 4.1.1. Allocation and cause of production
low number of identified studies could be a dominating focus on While allocation was the most common method choice, applied
main products (e.g. brewery and bakery sectors, as opposed to by 70% of the identified studies, the basis for allocating environ-
dairy), or by internal use of residues (e.g. pulp mill). Contrastingly, a mental impacts to by-products and residues differed between
higher number of studies and a more explicit focus on multi- studies and between sectors (Fig. 3). Among the 22 studies applying
functionality issues could potentially be explained by relatively allocation, 12 used more than one basis (e.g. mass, economic value)
for allocating between biomass streams. The most common
grounds for allocating environmental impacts were related to total
or specific mass fraction (13 of 22 studies), economic value (13
Bakery studies) or total or specific energy content (7 studies). The
Brewery reasoning for choosing or recommending a certain basis for allo-
cation differs between studies and as allocation in general is a
Dairy widely studied and debated part of LCA, it is not likely that the 31
Fishery
studies identified here provide an answer to this debate. The
studies included can however provide an insight into common or
Slaughterhouse contrasting reasons to choose a certain type of allocation over
another in relating a share of environmental impacts to residual
Sawmill
biomass. Some general patterns and conflicting arguments in and
Pulp mill across different industrial sectors are discussed below.
Number of studies
0 3 6 9 12
4.1.1.1. Causes and characteristics. General issues in identifying
Only allocation Only substitution Both allocation and substitution relevant bases for allocation appear to be the question of what can
Fig. 3. Distribution of studies included in the literature analysis. The differently
be considered the main driver or cause of production, and the
colored sectors of each bar show the number of studies applying a certain method for connection between the main desired function of production to the
dealing with multi-functionality of by-products and residues. € et al. (2014)
characteristics of residues. For the dairy sector, Flysjo
1002 €rjesson / Journal of Cleaner Production 196 (2018) 997e1006
J. Olofsson, P. Bo
argued that the farmer is paid differently for different types of milk
solids, and therefore a weighted economic relationship better “re-
flects the economic value of the raw milk and ‘the driver’ behind pri-
mary production” than the basis of total milk solids content. Similar
reasoning is found in Flysjo € (2011). For the slaughtering process,
Gac et al. (2014) instead recommend an allocation approach based
on dry matter content, meaning dry mass in general, based on the
idea that “most of the co-products generated are used for their
physicochemical characteristics: for their content in protein (human
food, pet-food) and/or in fat (gelatine, fats)”. Similar ideas are pre-
sented by Pelletier and Tyedmers (2010) for fish by-products, as
“satisfying human needs for food energy is the root cause of all food
production activities”, but here the authors suggest an allocation
based on the gross chemical energy content (higher heating value)
of the by-product streams to reflect a similar idea. Agreeing with
the nutritional value of food as the main cause of production,
Desjardins et al. (2012) instead recommend an economic approach:
“Conversely, the economic approach better reflects the market driver of
the whole beef industry, whose main function is to provide food.”. It is
thus possible not only to see conflicting ideas about the actual
cause of production being the need for protein, fat or energy, as
opposed to the cause effect relationship being explained by eco-
nomics and market transactions, but also about the conclusions
drawn regarding suitable bases for allocation to represent causes or
drivers of production.
4.1.1.2. Allocation from the point of residues' utilization. The idea of
main cause of production is also mirrored by the finding that
allocating more environmental impacts to residues and by-
products than to main products is rejected. The reason for deem-
ing such allocation unreasonable could potentially be explained by
the previously mentioned notion that main products drive pro-
duction, which cannot be completely disregarded. As an example,
Ziegler et al. (2013) did not choose energy allocation “due to the
counterintuitive result” that by-products with high fat content
would be assigned a larger share of environmental impact than
low-fat fillets. Similarly, and also for fish, Vazquez-Rowe et al.
(2014) disregarded mass allocation for the same principal reason.
For slaughtering processes, Wiedemann and Yan (2014) did not find
allocation based on protein and energy content suitable since it
resulted in more environmental impact being allocated to a kg of
co-product than to a kg of main product. The authors did not
consider such results meaningful due to the “minor importance” of
by-products. Although the results in this specific case were also
distorted by the different moisture contents of the flows, the
argument that it is unreasonable to allocate higher environmental
impacts to by-products and residues than to main products seems
to be considered valid standing on its own.
Viewing economic signals as the main cause of production,
economic bases for allocation can be an attractive, but not uncon-
tradicted, alternative. Pointing out drawbacks of the approach,
Murphy et al. (2015) disregard economic allocation for a sawmill
process because it is considered too difficult to estimate future
economic value of by-products, “especially in the face of rising de-
mand due to renewable energy targets." Not settling the debate but
providing an illustrative example, Ziegler et al. (2013) argue against
an economic allocation in their study with an example of a
collapsed fish stock. The authors point out that while the revenue
made from by-products to the fishery may be comparably low to
other products, it still increases the overall profitability of an un-
sustainable practice, and may increase demand. Due to this
connection, the authors suggest to use mass based allocation in
order to make visible the potential consequences of choosing fish
meal stemming from collapsed stocks. It appears that both physical
and economic bases for allocation are criticized and disregarded in
cases where they are not considered to fairly depict dynamics of the
industrial sectors, their markets and their environmental impacts.
4.1.2. Substitution
While allocation was the most common method choice for
handling multi-functionality in the reviewed studies, substitution
was applied in roughly half of the identified studies. Since the ISO
standard for LCA prioritizes system expansion and recommends the
allocation approach for by-products but not for wastes (ISO, 2006),
claims to adhere to ISO could potentially explain the choice of
substitution (as equivalent to system expansion) to deal with
wastes. The investigated literature, however, shows no pattern of
substitution being more common among studies which claim to
follow ISO standards (see Appendix).
Similarly to the analysis of allocation in the studied literature,
the most common basis for applying substitution is mass (total
mass or mass of e.g. solids or protein, used in 8 out of 14 studies)
and energy content (used in 6 out of 14 studies). According to these
data, most of the studies which apply substitution to deal with
multi-functionality use the same bases for relating residues to
environmental impacts as do studies which apply allocation.
A few studies, however, illustrate the possibility to tailor the
basis for substitution to reflect the residues' characteristics of value
in substituting other products. For instance, Jensen and Arlbjorn
(2014) assume that bakery by-products can substitute pig feed on
a basis of digestible energy content, and Cooper et al. (2014)
investigate substitution by fish offal on a basis of gelatin strength.
Such characteristics could potentially have been used also as a basis
for allocation, but they may not describe a relevant relationship
between product and residue. Instead, when substitution is
applied, the chosen material to be substituted and its function
decide the relevant basis and relationship, more so than any rela-
tionship between product and residue. In this way, the basis for
substitution can reveal potentially valuable characteristics in
biomass residues which are not considered the driving processes of
the main production system, and thus not a suitable basis for
allocation. Therefore, the basis for substitution by residues in pre-
vious studies could potentially add guidance for acknowledging the
value of residual materials, especially within the industrial sectors
where no previous studies have applied allocation.
4.2. Inventory for upstream impacts of residual biomass
4.2.1. Inventory
The studies included in the literature analysis were all scanned
for potential inventory data in the form of environmental impacts
allocated to, or through substitution avoided by, residues and by-
products. Notably, only 9 studies out of the 22 applying allocation
clearly presented the environmental impacts allocated to residues
(see Table 2). Out of the 14 studies applying substitution, only three
presented the impacts avoided through substitution.
Based on the GHG emissions data in Table 2, it is apparent that
different studies, as well as different allocation methods within
studies, yield different results. This is expected, but nevertheless
adds complexity to the principle of including upstream environ-
mental impacts in environmental assessments of residues as re-
sources. As for differences due to the allocation methods applied,
which can be seen within studies, this methodological issue is not
likely to be resolved. Regarding differences between studies,
naturally the same type of product may be produced causing
different environmental impacts, and different method choices can
further explain differences in results. As an example, physical or
mass-based approaches to allocation appear to result in upstream
GHG emissions of whey which vary by a factor of 10. This variation
can partly be derived from the inclusion or exclusion of raw milk
 €rjesson / Journal of Cleaner Production 196 (2018) 997e1006
J. Olofsson, P. Bo
Table 2
GHG emissions allocated to by-products and residues based on the literature study. For each result, the type of allocation is indicated in parenthesis: M: mass, Ec: economic, En:
energy content, Ph: physico-chemical based on (Feitz et al., 2007). Note that not all of the seven studied industrial sectors are represented in Table 2.
Sector Reference
Dairy Finnegan et al. (2015)
lez-García et al. (2013b)
Gonza
Verge et al. (2013)
€ et al. (2014)
Flysjo
Aguirre-Villegas et al. (2012)
Fishery Svanes et al. (2011)
Slaughter-house Desjardins et al. (2012)
Pulp mill Culbertson et al. (2016)
production in studies of dairy products. Further complicating the
possibility of relying on previous studies is the fact that the status as
by-product or residue is not static for any one material, and thus
attention to both current and potentially future situations should
be paid by LCA practitioners. In general, when considering up-
stream impacts of residual biomass based on other studies, it be-
comes important to be aware of the different method choices made
upstream, and to adapt relevant data to the requirements and as-
sumptions of new studies.
4.2.2. Transparency and visibility of upstream impacts of residues
In this approach for including upstream impacts of residues,
transparency in LCA studies is required so as to clearly state the
chosen methods and relationships for dealing with multi-
functionality. As for transparency in the studies included in the
literature analysis, remarkably, a majority of the studies identified
neither state nor provide sufficient information to facilitate a
calculation of allocated or avoided environmental impacts. Out of
the 31 studies identified, only 12 stated the environmental impacts
allocated to, or avoided by, by-products and residues. Although
some additional studies provide information that could be used to
perform further calculations, we find the overall result not only a
substantial lack in the general aim for transparency in LCA, but
particularly problematic from the point of view that by-products
and residues may be facing increasing utilization and valoriza-
tion. Such a development would lead to outdating assumptions in
previous LCA studies regarding the use and value of residual
biomass, and potentially outdating results based on such
assumptions.
Because LCA does not provide absolute truths, but rather give
method-dependent results that need interpretation and critical
examination, transparency throughout studies is important. We
argue that this need for transparency is increasingly important
regarding the chosen method for handling multi-functionality, and
regarding the environmental impacts either allocated to by-
products and residues, or avoided through substitution. Both
method choices affect final results, and their bases and results
should therefore be made openly available.
4.3. General discussion
In striving to avoid issues of seemingly burden-free resources,
different approaches to handle upstream impacts of by-products
and residues can be derived from the literature. The literature
analysis performed in this paper showed that an appropriate basis
for allocating impacts to residues is considered one that reflects
1003
1
Biomass and allocated GHG emissions (kg CO2-eq. kg )
Milk powders: 12.4 (Pc)
Whey powders: 13.1 (Pc)
Whey powder: 4.36 (M)
Buttermilk: 0.9e1.2 (Pc)
Powders: 8.3e10.8 (Pc)
Whey-based products: approximately 5 (Ec: product revenue) or 7.4 (Ec: raw milk)
or 10 (M: milk solids)
Dry whey: 1.2 (M: milk solids) or 0.67 (En: nutrition) or 0.23 (Ec)
Whey cream: 0,4 (M: milk solids), 0.6 (En: nutrition), 0.5 (Ec)
Skin, bones, fins, other: 0.2 (Ec) or 1.1 (Hybrid) or 1.7 (M) or 1.8 (En)
Hide: 12.9 (M) or 12.3 (Ec)
Offal: 12.9 (M) or7 (Ec)
Fat and bones: 12.9 (M) or 2 (Ec)
Lignin (dry): 0.55e0.70 (M) or 0.18e0.19 (Ec)
Soap: 0.55e0.70 (M) or 0.088e0.099 (Ec)
valuable characteristics of residues as also an underlying cause of
the whole primary production system e demand for nutrient and
energy, or economic demand. Physical allocation can be considered
to run the risk of allocating more impacts to residues than to main
products, which is perceived as intuitively unreasonable from the
point of view that the economic demand for main products drives
production. Conversely, allocation based on low economic values of
residues risk neglecting the support from residue valorization to
potentially unsustainable production systems.
4.3.1. Causes and rationales
While several of the identified studies provide a motivation for
choosing one approach to allocation over another, the arguments
more often appear to build on the specific situation and by-product,
and less often on a general underlying rationale for LCA. None-
theless, the motivations for choosing or disregarding a certain
allocation approach resemble those found by Pelletier et al. (2015)
who, based on a mapping of the field of LCA, put forward two
general rationales for LCA based either on a focus on natural science
and physical flows, or on socio-economic relationships. For
instance, regarding the underlying cause of production, the idea of
economic incentives as cause for activity was explicitly stated by
Desjardins et al. (2012) and Flysjo € (2011) as a motivation for eco-
nomic allocation. Not necessarily aligning fully with the natural-
science rationale, Gac et al. (2014) and Pelletier and Tyedmers
(2010) motivated the choice of a physical approach by referring to
the need for energy (protein, fat) as the cause of activity, which
could be argued to reflect either the “value” of the production
system, or a strictly physical relationship. Representing ideas from
both the two rationales, Ziegler et al. (2013) dismiss energy allo-
cation due to a counterintuitive result e a principle of fairness
which Pelletier et al. (2015) argue to be central to a socio-economic
rationale e and instead choose mass allocation in order to make
visible a relationship stemming from market dynamics. From the
point of view of basing LCA studies on coherent rationales, such a
motivation could be difficult to accept.
The suggested physical and socio-economic rationales are gen-
eral for LCA, but have certain implications in situations involving
by-products. For instance, a criticism towards economic allocation
is that it effectively equates low economic value to low environ-
mental impact regardless of the origin of a material (Pelletier et al.,
2015) e a principle which was exemplified by Ziegler et al. (2013) in
the mentioned example of a collapsed fish stock. Conversely,
Svanes et al. (2011) provide an example of the idea that LCA results
can be used to incentivize a certain desired behavior (Pelletier et al.,
2015), such as allocating a low relative share of environmental
1004 €rjesson / Journal of Cleaner Production 196 (2018) 997e1006
J. Olofsson, P. Bo
impact to by-products in order to incentivize their further use.
Clearly, the different understandings and ideas of what LCA results
reflect and are used for, motivate directly opposing approaches for
allocation to by-products and residues.
4.3.2. Physical relationships: characteristics and origins
While a variety of physical approaches to allocation were
exemplified in the 31 identified studies, in the general LCA litera-
ture, several studies have focused on identifying system- or
industry-specific biophysical relationships between co-products
(see e.g. Thoma et al., 2013; Wiedemann et al., 2015b). In pre-
senting such an approach, Brankatschk and Finkbeiner (2014) argue
that the allocation basis should reflect the “functionalities” of all
considered co-products, an idea which is also supported by
Pelletier et al. (2015) who consider it the essence of a relevant un-
derlying physical relationship.
Furthering the idea of biophysical approaches to allocation,
models which reflect the underlying biophysical causality of a
system could be argued to correspond to the ISO standards' second
step of priority (underlying physical relationships) more than an
arbitrary choice of physical parameter such as total mass. As ex-
amples, Chen et al. (2017) suggest to base allocation to animal
products on the modeled metabolic energy requirements of
different body-tissue growth, and van der Werf and Nguyen (2015)
suggest the physiological construction cost of plant compounds as
basis for allocation. Both studies argue that a relevant relationships
between outputs of a system is their common origin, which the
models supposedly reflect, more so than the physical characteris-
tics of the materials produced. As pointed out by Mackenzie et al.
(2017), however, a thorough motivation to how and why the sug-
gested models succeed to depict underlying physical relationships
is lacking. The authors conclude that the question of whether such a
model could actually be produced remains an open question.
As an alternative to allocation, substitution allows for relation-
ships between residues and comparable products from other pro-
duction systems to indicate valuation of residues. The identification
of substituted products as well as a representative basis and ratio
for substitution remains crucial method aspects to be thoroughly
considered and studied (Hanserud et al., 2018; Vadenbo et al.,
2017).
In relation to residues' utilization, different views of what LCA
results represent and can be used for e such as their potential role
as governing instrument to incentivize further use e could muddy
the understanding of residues' environmental impacts as resources.
Transparency and clarity regarding approaches, motivations and
intended uses become essential. While we do not aim to conclude
on a superior approach to allocation, further studies could examine
and test the implications of different approaches' to upstream
burdens in decision contexts regarding residues as resources.
4.3.3. Avoiding zero-burden assumptions
While a specific method for dealing with upstream impacts is
not suggested here, acknowledging these difficulties and the un-
derlying complexity calls for studies to investigate the upstream
impacts of residues and by-products, including impacts resulting
from different method choices. As a first step, previous studies can
be used to assess the upstream impacts of residues, but this
approach depends on transparency in the field of LCA, and its
applicability is limited to studied environmental impact categories
and biomass streams. Further difficulties can arise when different
studies use different methods for handling multi-functionality and
different upstream system boundaries, and when the relationships
used become outdated, calling for the LCA practitioner to make
important choices. Nonetheless, there is no support for default
zero-burden assumptions for residues in the LCA literature. The
upstream impacts of residues should be taken into account, and the
chosen method explicitly stated and motivated. Avoiding unwar-
ranted assumptions of burden-free resources may be especially
important in studies of residues generated in primary production
systems with potentially high environmental impacts.
As another potential alternative to avoid unwarranted zero-
burden assumptions, the issue of burden-free residues can be
viewed as a problem of narrow system boundaries which creates
the need to separate residues from upstream processes and to
allocate environmental impacts. Avoiding such separation and
allocation by expanding system boundaries would also eliminate
the problem of seemingly burden-free resources, as each residual
stream and its valorization would be studied in connection to up-
stream processing, main products and other by-products. It is
however unlikely that all environmental assessments will be car-
ried out with expanded system boundaries and functions since it
does not allow for single material or product comparisons. This is
not least the case within the boundaries of regulatory documents
such as the EU renewable energy directive (2009/28/EC) which
does not allow such solutions for biofuel calculations. It is therefore
important to discuss other potential solutions such as the ones
based on allocation of upstream impacts to residues presented in
this paper, and to discuss the potential implications of using LCA
studies with unwarranted assumptions of burden-free resources as
bases for decision-making.
While inclusion of upstream impacts of residues address issues
of seemingly superior materials, identifying the most favorable
uses of a residual material, from different perspectives, requires
consideration of different possible pathways for utilization. This
especially important in the context of emerging valorization pro-
cesses and technologies, as the environmental aspects of such
processes and uses must be compared to current and alternative
uses of materials in order not to suggest changes which undermine
the overall goal of minimizing environmental impacts (see e.g.
Jørgensen et al., 2012; Tufvesson et al., 2013; Welfle et al., 2017).
Therefore the avoidance of unwarranted zero-burden assumptions
is crucial in developing LCA studies for a circular bio-economy, but
other method considerations may be equally important in
addressing answers to different questions.
With further development of technology, industry investments
and policy incentives aimed at valorizing different types of residual
material in a circular economy, residues are likely to be increasingly
utilized and considered to hold some value. Considering this as a
paradigm shift where wastes are increasingly seen as resources,
environmental assessments of residues should move away from
zero-burden assumptions where residual material is free from
upstream environmental impacts, and increasingly consider
including upstream environmental impacts or by other means
broadening the system boundaries. If tools like LCA fail to do so,
they may provide invalid decision support out of line with a new
resource management strategy. More specifically, if residues are
continuously considered burden-free by default, no matter the
system from which they arose, materials from systems causing high
environmental impact can be premiered for their perceived envi-
ronmental performance when compared to other resources. In the
worst case, the premiering and use of such residual materials may
fail to provide the intended environmental benefits, but potentially
add to the profitability and enforcement of high impact primary
production systems. Note that the findings of this paper are not fit
for conclusions regarding whether or not a circular bio-based
economy is a desirable goal for environmental sustainability, but
they point to the risk of failing to realize intended targets if de-
cisions and policies are based on assessments with narrow per-
spectives. The approach for including upstream impacts of residual
biomass presented in this paper is one attempt to address and
 €rjesson / Journal of Cleaner Production 196 (2018) 997e1006
J. Olofsson, P. Bo
prevent such issues, but further research should continue to study
the role of environmental assessments and LCA for decision-
support in an increasingly circular and bio-focused economy.
5. Conclusions
With aims for a circular bio-based economy and increasing
initiatives for valorization of residual biomass, assumptions of
residues as burden-free resources in environmental assessments
become increasingly questionable. Instead the value of residues as
resources, and their potential upstream impacts in LCA, should be
evaluated and assessed.
Different rationales for assigning environmental impacts to
residues in LCA are used and promoted within different bio-based
industrial sectors. As a general observation, the studied literature
indicates that the method chosen should reflect the view of cau-
sality in the primary production system, and also relevant charac-
teristics of the products, by-products and residues. In addition,
allocation should not fail to illustrate potential contributions from
residue valorization to maintaining or driving unsustainable or
high-impact primary production systems, but the intended role of
LCA results to depict physical flows or to provide incentives for
action can vary. Such ambiguity points to the important role of LCA
practitioners and decision-makers both in making relevant as-
sumptions and choices, and in transparently communicating them.
Considering a simple model of recycling and allocation to resi-
dues in LCA, the environmental characteristics of main processes
and primary production systems reflect on by-products and resi-
dues. By taking upstream impacts into account, we argue that LCA
studies are better equipped to avoid unintentional support for
high-impact products and primary production systems. A recon-
sideration of zero-burden assumptions and broadening of
perspective for residues as resources is necessary in order to avoid
misleading decision-support for a low-impact, circular and bio-
based economy.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the Research Council of Norway
through the project Sustainable path creation for innovative value
chains for organic waste products (SusValueWaste, project number
244249). The authors want to thank Andreas Brekke for valuable
comments on previous versions of this article, and the two re-
viewers whose insightful comments helped to further improve it.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data related to this article can be found at
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.115.
References
Aguirre-Villegas, H.A., Milani, F.X., Kraatz, S., Reinemann, D.J., 2012. Life cycle impact
assessment and allocation methods development for cheese and whey pro-
cessing. Trans. Asabe 55 (2), 613e627.
€rklund, A., Ekman, A., Karlsson, H., Berlin, J., Bo
Ahlgren, S., Bjo € rjesson, P., Ekvall, T.,
Finnveden, G., Janssen, M., Strid, I., 2015. Review of methodological choices in
LCA of biorefinery systems - key issues and recommendations. Biofuels Bioprod.
Bioref 9 (5), 606e619.
Brankatschk, G., Finkbeiner, M., 2014. Application of the Cereal Unit in a new
allocation procedure for agricultural life cycle assessments. J. Clean. Prod. 73,
72e79.
Briam, R., Walker, M.E., Masanet, E., 2015. A comparison of product-based energy
intensity metrics for cheese and whey processing. J. Food Eng. 151, 25e33.
Bugge, M., Hansen, T., Klitkou, A., 2016. What is the Bioeconomy? A review of the
literature. Sustainability 8 (7), 691.
Chalmers, N.G., Brander, M., Revoredo-Giha, C., 2015. The implications of empirical
and 1:1 substitution ratios for consequential LCA: using a 1 % tax on whole milk
as an illustrative example. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 20 (9), 1268e1276.
1005
Chen, X., Wilfart, A., Puillet, L., Aubin, J., 2017. A new method of biophysical allo-
cation in LCA of livestock co-products: modeling metabolic energy re-
quirements of body-tissue growth. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 22 (6), 883e895.
Cherubini, F., Stromman, A.H., Ulgiati, S., 2011. Influence of allocation methods on
the environmental performance of biorefinery products-A case study. Resour.
Conserv. Recycl. 55 (11), 1070e1077.
Clift, R., Doig, A., Finnveden, G., 2000. The application of life cycle assessment to
integrated solid waste management. Process Saf. Environ. Protect. 78 (4),
279e287.
Cooper, J., Diesburg, S., Babej, A., Noon, M., Kahn, E., Puettmann, M., Colt, J., 2014.
Life Cycle Assessment of products from Alaskan salmon processing wastes:
implications of coproduction, intermittent landings, and storage time. Fish. Res.
151, 26e38.
Culbertson, C., Treasure, T., Venditti, R., Jameel, H., Gonzalez, R., 2016. Life Cycle
Assessment of lignin extraction in a softwood kraft pulp mill. Nord. Pulp Pap
Res. J. 31 (1), 30eU247.
Desjardins, R.L., Worth, D.E., Verge , X.P.C., Maxime, D., Dyer, J., Cerkowniak, D., 2012.
Carbon footprint of beef cattle. Sustainability 4 (12), 3279e3301.
Ekvall, T., Tillman, A.-M., 1997. Open-loop recycling: criteria for allocation proced-
ures. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2 (3), 155.
€ rklund, A., Eriksson, O., Finnveden, G., 2007. What life-cycle
Ekvall, T., Assefa, G., Bjo
assessment does and does not do in assessments of waste management. Waste
Manag. 27 (8), 989e996.
Esteve-Turrillas, F.A., de la Guardia, M., 2017. Environmental impact of Recover
cotton in textile industry. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 116, 107e115.
Etxabide, A., Leceta, I., Cabezudo, S., Guerrero, P., de la Caba, K., 2016. Sustainable
fish gelatin films: from food processing waste to compost. ACS Sustain. Chem.
Eng. 4 (9), 4626e4634.
Feitz, A.J., Lundie, S., Dennien, G., Morain, M., Jones, M., 2007. Generation of an
industry-specific physico-chemical allocation matrix. Application in the dairy
industry and implications for systems analysis (9 pp). Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 12
(2), 109e117.
Finnegan, W., Goggins, J., Clifford, E., Zhan, X., 2015. Global warming potential
associated with dairy products in the Republic of Ireland. J. Clean. Prod. 163,
262e273.
Finnveden, G., 1999. Methodological aspects of life cycle assessment of integrated
solid waste management systems. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 26 (3e4), 173e187.
Flysjo€ , A., 2011. Potential for improving the carbon footprint of butter and blend
products. J. Dairy Sci. 94, 5833e5841.
Flysjo€ , A., Thrane, M., Hermansen, J.E., 2014. Method to assess the carbon footprint
at product level in the dairy industry. Int. Dairy J. 34 (1), 86e92.
Gac, A., Lapasin, C., Laspiere, P.T., Guardia, S., Ponchant, P., Chevillon, P., Nassy, G.,
2014. Co-products from meat processing: the allocation issue. In: Schenck, R.,
Huizen, D. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Life Cycle
Assessment in the Agri-food Sector. American Center for Life Cycle Assessment,
Vashon, pp. 438e442.
Geissdoerfer, M., Savaget, P., Bocken, N.M.P., Hultink, E.J., 2017. The Circular Econ-
omy e a new sustainability paradigm? J. Clean. Prod. 143, 757e768.
Geyer, R., Kuczenski, B., Zink, T., Henderson, A., 2016. Common misconceptions
about recycling. J. Ind. Ecol. 20 (5), 1010e1017.
Goglio, P., Smith, W.N., Grant, B.B., Desjardins, R.L., McConkey, B.G., Campbell, C.A.,
Nemecek, T., 2015. Accounting for soil carbon changes in agricultural life cycle
assessment (LCA): a review. J. Clean. Prod. 104, 23e39.
Gonza 
lez-García, S., Castanheira, E.G., Dias, A.C., Arroja, L., 2013a. Environmental
performance of a Portuguese mature cheese-making dairy mill. J. Clean. Prod.
41, 65e73.
Gonza lez-García, S., Hospido, A., Moreira, M.T., Feijoo, G., Arroja, L., 2013b. Envi-
ronmental Life Cycle Assessment of a Galician cheese: San Simon da Costa.
J. Clean. Prod. 52, 253e262.
Gonza lez-García, S., Castanheira, E.G., Dias, A.C., Arroja, L., 2013c. Environmental life
cycle assessment of a dairy product: the yoghurt. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 18 (4),
796e811.
Gonza lez-García, S., Belo, S., Dias, A.C., Rodrigues, J.V., Costa, R.R.d, Ferreira, A.,
Andrade, L.P.d, Arroja, L., 2015. Life cycle assessment of pigmeat production:
Portuguese case study and proposal of improvement options. J. Clean. Prod. 100,
126e139.
Guine e, J.B., Heijungs, R., Huppes, G., 2004. Economic allocation: examples and
derived decision tree. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 9 (1), 23.
Hajjaji, N., Houas, A., Pons, M.N., 2016. Thermodynamic feasibility and life cycle
assessment of hydrogen production via reforming of poultry fat. J. Clean. Prod.
134, 600e612.
Hanserud, O.S., Cherubini, F., Øgaard, A.F., Müller, D.B., Brattebø, H., 2018. Choice of
mineral fertilizer substitution principle strongly influences LCA environmental
benefits of nutrient cycling in the agri-food system. Sci. Total Environ. 615,
219e227.
Husgafvel, R., Karjalainen, E., Linkosalmi, L., Dahl, O., 2016. Recycling industrial
residue streams into a potential new symbiosis product e the case of soil
amelioration granules. J. Clean. Prod. 135, 90e96.
ISO, 2006. Environmental Management - Life Cycle Assessment - Requirements and
Guidelines (ISO 14044:2006). International Organization of Standardization.
Jensen, J.K., Arlbjorn, J.S., 2014. Product carbon footprint of rye bread. J. Clean. Prod.
82, 45e57.
Jørgensen, A., Bikker, P., Herrmann, I.T., 2012. Assessing the greenhouse gas emis-
sions from poultry fat biodiesel. J. Clean. Prod. 24, 85e91.
Kayo, C., Noda, R., Sasaki, T., Takaoku, S., 2015. Carbon balance in the life cycle of
1006 €rjesson / Journal of Cleaner Production 196 (2018) 997e1006
J. Olofsson, P. Bo
wood: targeting a timber check dam. J. Wood Sci. 61 (1), 70e80.
Keegan, D., Kretschmer, B., Elbersen, B., Panoutsou, C., 2013. Cascading use: a sys-
tematic approach to biomass beyond the energy sector. Biofuels Bioprod. Bioref
7 (2), 193e206.
Koller, M., Sandholzer, D., Salerno, A., Braunegg, G., Narodoslawsky, M., 2013.
Biopolymer from industrial residues: life cycle assessment of poly(-
hydroxyalkanoates) from whey. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 73, 64e71.
Kristensen, T., Soegaard, K., Eriksen, J., Mogensen, L., 2015. Carbon footprint of
cheese produced on milk from Holstein and Jersey cows fed hay differing in
herb content. J. Clean. Prod. 101, 229e237.
Leino, M., Uusitalo, V., Gronman, A., Nerg, J., Horttanainen, M., Soukka, R.,
Pyrhonen, J., 2016. Economics and greenhouse gas balance of distributed
electricity production at sawmills using hermetic turbogenerator. Renew. En-
ergy 88, 102e111.
Mackenzie, S.G., Leinonen, I., Kyriazakis, I., 2017. The need for co-product allocation
in the life cycle assessment of agricultural systemsdis “biophysical” allocation
progress? Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 22 (2), 128e137.
Maina, S., Kachrimanidou, V., Koutinas, A., 2017. A roadmap towards a circular and
sustainable bioeconomy through waste valorization. Current Opin. Green Sus-
tain. Chem. 8, 18e23.
Mattila, T., Helin, T., Antikainen, R., 2012. Land use indicators in life cycle assess-
ment A case study on beer production. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 17 (3), 277e286.
Murphy, F., Devlin, G., McDonnell, K., 2015. Greenhouse gas and energy based life
cycle analysis of products from the Irish wood processing industry. J. Clean.
Prod. 92, 134e141.
Murray, A., Skene, K., Haynes, K., 2015. The circular economy: an interdisciplinary
exploration of the concept and application in a global context. J. Bus. Ethics 140
(3), 369e380.
Nakatani, J., 2014. Life cycle inventory analysis of recycling: mathematical and
graphical frameworks. Sustainability 6 (9), 6158.
Oldfield, T., Holden, N.M., 2014. An evaluation of upstream assumptions in food-
waste life cycle assessments. In: Schenck, R., Huizenga, D. (Eds.), LCA Food
2014. San Fransisco, USA.
Oldfield, T.L., White, E., Holden, N.M., 2018. The implications of stakeholder
perspective for LCA of wasted food and green waste. J. Clean. Prod. 170
(Suppl. C), 1554e1564.
Pelletier, N., Tyedmers, P., 2010. Life cycle assessment of frozen Tilapia fillets from
Indonesian lake-based and pond-based intensive aquaculture systems. J. Ind.
Ecol. 14 (3), 467e481.
Pelletier, N., Ardente, F., Brand~ ao, M., De Camillis, C., Pennington, D., 2015. Ratio-
nales for and limitations of preferred solutions for multi-functionality problems
in LCA: is increased consistency possible? Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 20 (1), 74e86.
~ arrubia Fernandez, I.A., Liu, D.H., Zhao, J., 2017. LCA studies comparing alkaline
Pen
and immobilized enzyme catalyst processes for biodiesel production under
Brazilian conditions. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 119, 117e127.
Pradel, M., Aissani, L., Villot, J., Baudez, J.C., Laforest, V., 2016. From waste to added
value product: towards a paradigm shift in life cycle assessment applied to
wastewater sludge - a review. J. Clean. Prod. 131, 60e75.
Ramasamy, G., Ratnasingam, J., Bakar, E.S., Halis, R., Muttiah, N., 2015. Assessment of
environmental emissions from sawmilling activity in Malaysia. Bioresources 10
(4), 6643e6662.
Ramirez, A.D., Humphries, A.C., Woodgate, S.L., Wilkinson, R.G., 2012. Greenhouse
gas life cycle assessment of products arising from the rendering of mammalian
animal byproducts in the UK. Environ. Sci. Technol. 46 (1), 447e453.
Sandin, G., Røyne, F., Berlin, J., Peters, G.M., Svanstro € m, M., 2015. Allocation in LCAs
of biorefinery products: implications for results and decision-making. J. Clean.
Prod. 93, 213e221.
Schrijvers, D.L., Loubet, P., Sonnemann, G., 2016. Developing a systematic frame-
work for consistent allocation in LCA. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 21 (7), 976e993.
Seber, G., Malina, R., Pearlson, M.N., Olcay, H., Hileman, J.I., Barrett, S.R.H., 2014.
Environmental and economic assessment of producing hydroprocessed jet and
diesel fuel from waste oils and tallow. Biomass Bioenergy 67, 108e118.
Sonnemann, G., Vigon, B., Baitz, M., Frischknecht, R., Krinke, S., Suppen, N.,
Weidema, B., Wolf, M.A., 2011. The context for global guidance principles. In:
Sonnemann, G., Vigon, B. (Eds.), Global Guidance Principles for Life Cycle
Assessment Databases. A Basis for Greener Processes and Products. United
Nations Environment Programme, UNEP.
Summers, H.M., Ledbetter, R.N., McCurdy, A.T., Morgan, M.R., Seefeldt, L.C., Jena, U.,
Hoekman, S.K., Quinn, J.C., 2015. Techno-economic feasibility and life cycle
assessment of dairy effluent to renewable diesel via hydrothermal liquefaction.
Bio Technol. 196, 431e440.
Svanes, E., Vold, M., Hanssen, O.J., 2011. Effect of different allocation methods on
LCA results of products from wild-caught fish and on the use of such results. Int.
J. Life Cycle Assess. 16 (6), 512e521.
Teixeira, R., Himeno, A., Gustavus, L., 2013. Carbon footprint of Breton pa ^te
 pro-
duction: a case study. Integrated Environ. Assess. Manag. 9 (4), 645e651.
Thevenot, A., Aubin, J., Tillard, E., Vayssie
res, J., 2013. Accounting for farm diversity
in Life Cycle Assessment studies e the case of poultry production in a tropical
island. J. Clean. Prod. 57, 280e292.
Thoma, G., Jolliet, O., Wang, Y., 2013. A biophysical approach to allocation of life
cycle environmental burdens for fluid milk supply chain analysis. Int. Dairy J. 31,
S41eS49.
Trang Thuy, N., Schaubroeck, T., De Meester, S., Duyvejonck, M., Sorgeloos, P.,
Dewulf, J., 2015. Resource consumption assessment of Pangasius fillet products
from Vietnamese aquaculture to European retailers. J. Clean. Prod. 100,
170e178.
Tufvesson, L.M., Lantz, M., Borjesson, P., 2013. Environmental performance of biogas
produced from industrial residues including competition with animal feed -
life-cycle calculations according to different methodologies and standards.
J. Clean. Prod. 53, 214e223.
Vadenbo, C., Hellweg, S., Astrup, T.F., 2017. Let's Be clear(er) about substitution: a
reporting framework to account for product displacement in life cycle assess-
ment. J. Ind. Ecol. 21 (5), 1078e1089.
van der Werf, H.M.G., Nguyen, T.T.H., 2015. Construction cost of plant compounds
provides a physical relationship for co-product allocation in life cycle assess-
ment. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 20 (6), 777e784.
Vazquez-Rowe, I., Villanueva-Rey, P., Hospido, A., Teresa Moreira, M., Feijoo, G.,
2014. Life cycle assessment of European pilchard (Sardina pilchardus) con-
sumption. A case study for Galicia (NW Spain). Sci. Total Environ. 475, 48e60.
Verge, X.P., Maxime, D., Dyer, J.A., Desjardins, R.L., Arcand, Y., Vanderzaag, A., 2013.
Carbon footprint of Canadian dairy products: calculations and issues. J. Dairy
Sci. 96 (9), 6091e6104.
Weidema, B., 2001. Avoiding Co-Product allocation in life-cycle assessment. J. Ind.
Ecol. 4 (3), 11e33.
Welfle, A., Gilbert, P., Thornley, P., Stephenson, A., 2017. Generating low-carbon heat
from biomass: life cycle assessment of bioenergy scenarios. J. Clean. Prod. 149,
448e460.
Wiedemann, S., Yan, M., 2014. Livestock meat processing: inventory data and
methods for handling co-production for major livestock species and meat
products. In: Schenck, R., Huizen, D. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th International
Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-food Sector. American Center
for Life Cycle Assessment, Vashon, pp. 1512e1520.
Wiedemann, S., McGahan, E., Murphy, C., Yan, M.-J., Henry, B., Thoma, G.,
Ledgard, S., 2015a. Environmental impacts and resource use of Australian beef
and lamb exported to the USA determined using life cycle assessment. J. Clean.
Prod. 94, 67e75.
Wiedemann, S., Ledgard, S.F., Henry, B.K., Yan, M.-J., Mao, N., Russell, S.J., 2015b.
Application of life cycle assessment to sheep production systems: investigating
co-production of wool and meat using case studies from major global pro-
ducers. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 20 (4), 463e476.
Williams, A.G., Mekonen, S., 2014. Environmental performance of traditional beer
production in a micro-brewery. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Con-
ference on Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-food Sector (LCA Food 2014), San
Francisco, California, USA, 8-10 October, 2014, pp. 1535e1540.
Zabaniotou, A., 2018. Redesigning a bioenergy sector in EU in the transition to
circular waste-based Bioeconomy-A multidisciplinary review. J. Clean. Prod. 177,
197e206.
Ziegler, F., Winther, U., Hognes, E.S., Emanuelsson, A., Sund, V., Ellingsen, H., 2013.
The carbon footprint of Norwegian seafood products on the global seafood
market. J. Ind. Ecol. 17 (1), 103e116.