A LCA Emission Factor (EF) is a ratio that can be used in any activity module. It is linked to a specific product and is computed by measuring its environmental impact through every phase of its life (kgCO2e / unit).
🧮 How are LCA EFs computed?
To compute a LCA EF, we collect information disclosed by the company. It can be in a report published by the company on its website, via a public disclosure platform (e.g. EPD, PEP Ecopassport, FDES), or via a survey or LCA carried out by Greenly.
Depending on the boundaries of the LCA and how they overlap with the reporting company's organizational boundaries, the EF includes either all life stages or partial life stages of the product (e.g. cradle-to-gate, gate-to-grave, or cradle-to-grave).
🤔 When should a LCA EF be used?
Using an LCA EF for a specific product increases the accuracy of calculations compared to an average EF, as it is computed based on the specific characteristics of that product. It should be prioritised when available.
The LCA EF is also systematically compared to a benchmark value to ensure consistency and reliability (similar LCAs or average EF provided by a renowned database).
📌 Minimum Requirements
Mandatory Data
Mandatory Data
Product Name
LCA Report
Functional Unit
Perimeter, system boundaries and life cycle stages included in the study, including a description of the stages where the reporting company intervenes (i.e. has operational control)
GHG emissions (kgCO2e)
Highly Recommended Data
Highly Recommended Data
Breakdown of emissions per LCA phase (e.g. raw materials, manufacturing, transport, use, end-of-life)
Done by Greenly
Done by Greenly
Report Audit Check
Benchmark Quality Check
Validation?
Justification if not validated
✅ Quality Checks
A confidence index will be computed and provided for each LCA EF.
Step 1: Validate LCA
Step 1: Validate LCA
Quality of the study
Who undertook the study? (e.g. internal computations, consulting company, LCA software)
Are the results audited? Is there a third party verification?
Is the LCA ISO compliant? (or any other renowned methodology, e.g. EPD, FDES, PEP)
Were the results published on a public website?
Transparency, accuracy and methodology details
Are the assumptions and methodology choices detailed and disclosed?
Is the perimeter disclosed? (cradle-to-grate or cradle-to-grave)
Are the system boundaries disclosed?
Is the functional unit disclosed?
In what year was the study conducted?
Is the source of the data disclosed and reliable?
Primary or secondary data?
EFs accuracy?
Result details
Is the Climate Change impact category included (kgCO2e)
Are other impact categories included in the study?
What life stages are included in the study?
Are cradle-to-grave emissions disclosed? Are cradle-to-gate emissions disclosed?
Are emissions by life cycle stage also disclosed?
Step 2: Validate EF - Benchmark Comparison
Step 2: Validate EF - Benchmark Comparison
Compare EF to other similar LCAs or to an average EF of a similar product.
If the characteristics of the product doesn't significantly differ from the benchmark product (e.g. similar manufacturing process, same geography, etc.), the LCA EF must be included in the interval
[Average generic EF * 80% ; Average generic EF * 120%]If the product is eco-produced, a decrease of 50% to 80% of the LCA EF value is accepted.
Step 3: Create EF
Step 3: Create EF
Create the EF when it is validates the benchmark check and compute the confidence index
If not validated, justify why the EF wasn't created.
🧪Adding the LCA to the GHG Report
Key challenges include:
Avoiding double counting or missing GHG emissions.
Allocating GHG emissions to the correct regulatory category.
To achieve this, we need to understand the overlap between the LCA boundaries and the organizational boundaries of the GHG inventory. If all the information detailed in the sections above is provided, this should not be an issue.
In general, we exclude emissions calculated in the LCA when they arise from activities that fall within the organizational boundaries of the GHG inventory (Scope 1 & 2).
🧩 Example
Example 1 - Accepted LCA
Example 1 - Accepted LCA
Company X provided a LCA for laundry bio-capsules.
The system boundaries are as follows, the red rectangle is the overlap with the organizational boundaries of the reporting company.
The total cradle-to-gate impact was 0.302 kgCO2e/capsules. A breakdown per life cycle stage was also included:
Sourcing and manufacturing of chemical ingredients
Sourcing and manufacturing of packaging
Transport to processing plant for chemicals
Transport packaging for manufacturing site
Detergent manufacturing
Transport, retail and distribution
Product use
End-of-life water management
Packaging waste management
A benchmark of similar LCAs provided an average of 0.347 kgCO2e per capsule. Hence, this LCA was within an acceptable range.
Using the breakdown per life stage, double counting was prevented and GHG emissions were easily allocating to the relevant Scope 3 categories: purchase of goods and services, upstream and downstream transportation, use of sold products and end-of-life of sold products.
Example 2 - Rejected LCA
Example 2 - Rejected LCA
Company Y provided a LCA for a natural cork stopper
The cradle-to-gate GHG emissions were equal to -4.4 kgCO2e/1000 stoppers (-7.7 kgCO2e/1000 stoppers of stored carbon and 3.3 kgCO2e/1000 stoppers emissions of emitted carbon)
The issue here was that in the raw material phase, the oak trees were modelled as a carbon sink. However, these biogenic emissions are released during the end-of-life stage, but this was not included in the study (-1/+1 method)
This EF was not created, as the -1/+1 method cannot be used for GHG inventories