# 6. Conclusions

This report presents an updated version of a methodological guide to evaluate and communicate avoided GHG emissions generated by the recycling and waste valorisation sector. The guide aims to propose a consensus-based harmonized approach, equally applicable to all actors in the recycling/valorisation value chain, which enhances the credibility, transparency, and comparability of avoided emission claims. Reference Emission Factors are developed that could be used to establish a reference scenario in specific studies.

## 6.1. Future implementation of the methodological guide

The methodological guide is time-independent, meaning that the guidance is not expected to become outdated and therefore does not require an inherent updating procedure. However, as this report presents an updated version of the guide (V2), another implementation and refinement trajectory should be foreseen.

The following recommendations enable the guidance document to become a widely applicable and recognized methodology:

- The alignment and divergence with other, ongoing, initiatives should be monitored, such as the initiatives of WBSCD and Carbone 4 in the area of carbon neutrality.

- The modelling of multifunctional processes in the reference scenario is inspired by EN 15804. It should be monitored whether this approach remains consensual through time, considering also other developments in this area, such as the Circular Footprint Formula of the Product Environmental Footprint Guide (European Commission 2021).

- The methodological guide should enter a roadtesting phase, in which members of RECORD and potentially other interested parties apply the guide in company-specific case studies in which the avoided emissions of the solutions implemented by the RECORD members are evaluated.

- During this testing phase, a contact person should be assigned that operates as a "help-desk". Members of RECORD could be directed to this person with follow-up questions regarding the guide, or to address methodological choices that are not yet covered by the guide. The contact person is responsible for collecting all the feedback.

- Aside from the collected feedback, an independent review team (that may or may not include the above contact person) should be assigned to review the application of the methodological guide in the testing case studies. This review will address whether the implementation of the guide is done in a harmonized manner, whether different members of RECORD interpret the methodology similarly, whether methodological choices are made in the study that could be standardised, and whether certain aspects of the guide impede its practical implementation, e.g. due to complexity or lack of practical feasibility.

- A revision project should be launched, in which the feedback and the results of the review process are discussed, and consensus is built on potential adaptations of, or additions to the methodological guide. A similar procedure could be implemented as in the current project, in which several rounds of discussion, drafting, and feedback collection are organised. The revision of the methodological guide could be foreseen at the same time as the revision of the Reference Emission Factors (as discussed below), i.e. 5 years after its initial publication.

After this revision project, it could be decided whether the updated version of the guide is considered final, or whether it is subject to another testing round. To guarantee the quality of studies that claim to adhere to the methodological guide, a review panel may be assigned to evaluate the correct application of the methodology before publication of the study results.

## 6.2. Future update of the Reference Emission Factors

The updated Reference Emission Factors may be used in studies evaluation the avoided emissions of a solution with a reference year of 2023-2028, without a modification of the current factors and uncertainty scores. After this timeframe, the emission factors and the corresponding uncertainty scores
need to be revised. It is recommended that a working group assigned by members of RECORD revise
the Reference Emission Factors every 5 years, either by an integration of recently published inventory
data and/or emission factors, or by a modification of current inventory data and/or emission factors
based on consultation with relevant industrial experts. Data quality factors shall be updated accordingly.
In an analysis of the avoided emissions comparing a 100% recycling scenario with the average
reference scenario, it can be observed that uncertainty rates of the REFs are still too high to make
conclusive statements. These high uncertainty rates are mostly due to the use of old data representing
the technologies, and partly due to the use of generic data instead of material specific data (e.g.
"plastics" instead of "PET"). The ever increasing relevance of the assessment of avoided emissions may
stimulate the development of more representative data, resulting in increased confidence in technology
investment choices.
References

ADEME. 2016. Quantifier l'impact GES d'une Action de Réduction Des Émissions -V2. Angers, France.

ADEME. 2020. Les Émissions Évitées, de Quoi Parle t-On ?

ADEME. 2022. Méthode QuantiGES - Quantifier l'impact GES d'une Action de Réduction Des Émissions: Guide Méthodologique 3ème Version.

Association Bilan Carbone. 2017. Guide Méthodologique Bilan Carbone V8 - Annexes.

Bouvart, Frédérique, and Emmanuel Hache. 2017. Recommandations Pratiques Pour l'ACV
Prospective/References et Exemples Dans Le Domaine de l'energie. Vols. 181-182.

CEN. 2012. *European Standard NF EN 15804:2012*. Brussels, Belgium.

Ellen MacArthur Foundation. 2015. Delivering the Circular Economy - A Toolkit for Policymakers.

Entreprises pour l'Environnement. 2018. Avoided Emissions - Companies Assess Their Climate Solutions.

European Commission. 2015. *Closing the Loop* - An EU Action Plan for the Circular Economy. Vol. 614.

European Commission. 2020. Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules Guidance Annex C - V2.1.

European Commission. 2021. "Commission Recommendation on the Use of the Environmental Footprint Methods to Measure and Communicate the Life Cycle Environmental Performance of Products and Organisations."

FEDEREC. 2017. Évaluation Environnementale Du Recyclage En France Selon La Méthodologie de l'Analyse de Cycle de Vie. Vol. 32.

Grönman, Kaisa, Tiina Pajula, Jani Sillman, Maija Leino, Saija Vatanen, Heli Kasurinen, Asta Soininen, and Risto Soukka. 2019. "Carbon Handprint – An Approach to Assess the Positive Climate Impacts of Products Demonstrated via Renewable Diesel Case." *Journal of Cleaner Production* 206:1059–72. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.09.233.

ICCA, and WBCSD. 2013. *Addressing the Avoided Emissions Challenge* “The Earth We Live on Is a Precious Resource for All.”

ICCA, and WBCSD. 2017. "Avoiding Greenhouse Gas Emissions - the Essential Role of Chemicals: Guidelines - Accounting for and Reporting Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Avoided along the Value Chain Based on Comparative Studies." 2013(October 2013):44.

ISO. 2002. ISO 14020 - Environmental Labels and Declarations - General Principles.

ISO. 2006. ISO 14044 - Environmental Management - Life Cycle Assessment - Requirements and Guidelines. The International Organization for Standardization (ISO), Geneva, Switzerland.

RECORD. 2022. Guide to Accounting for Avoided GHG Emissions in Waste Recovery and Recycling - Good Practices and Application to Different Sectors V1.1.

Rethore, Olivier, Guillaume Audard, Philippe Osset, Magali Palluau, and Charlotte Hugrel. 2021. *Empreinte Projet: Evaluer l'empreinte Environnementale d'un Projet*.

Schrijvers, Dieuwertje, Guido Sonnemann, Mathilde Fiorletta, and Camilla Tomasetta. 2019. IMPACTS ENVIRONNEMENTAUX & EMISSIONS ENVIRONNEMENTALES EVITES.

The Institute of LCA Japan. 2015. Guidelines for Assessing the Contribution of Products to Avoided Greenhouse Gas Emissions The Institute of Life Cycle Assessment, Japan.

Zampori, Luca, and Rana Pant. 2019. *Suggestions for Updating the Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) Method*.
# Annex 1.

## Reporting template for the communication of avoided emissions

<table><caption>Table 13 Reporting template for the communication of avoided emissions to LCA experts. Lines marked in green should, at a minimum, also be accessible to non-expert audiences (RECORD, 2024)</caption><thead><tr><th>Study parameters</th><th>Example answers</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>General aspects</strong></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>LCA commissioner and LCA practitioner</td><td>Car manufacturing company and external consultant</td></tr><tr><td>Date of the report</td><td>June 2024</td></tr><tr><td>Methodological reference</td><td>The study has been conducted according to the requirements of the Guide to accounting for avoided GHG emissions in waste recovery and recycling – Good practices and application to different sectors (Version 2.0) (RECORD, 2024)</td></tr><tr><td>Objective of the study</td><td>Inform and potentially justify a decision to use recycled PET in car components</td></tr><tr><td>Target audiences</td><td>Internal decision makers of the car manufacturing company, as well as investors, (potential) clients, and the general public</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Methodology</strong></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>LCA approach</td><td>Attributional</td></tr><tr><td>Modelling of multifunctional processes</td><td>System expansion of recycling process, partitioning reflecting physical relationships of sorting, and cut-off for recycling and energy recovery in the reference scenario</td></tr><tr><td>Functional unit</td><td>The use of secondary PET to fulfil the annual demand for PET by a car manufacturer</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Additional functional flows considered</strong></td><td>The waste treatment of PET as provided by the recycling process, and energy recovery of the incineration of reject flows from the recycling process</td></tr><tr><td>Main data sources</td><td><ul><li>Primary data collection at suppliers</li><li>...</li><li>Ecoinvent V3.9.1 (cut-off system model)</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>Additional methodological choices</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Evaluated impact categories, impact assessment method and version number, and (if applicable) software and version number</td><td>Climate change (method EF 3.1), evaluated in SimaPro v.X</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Analysed solution</strong></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Description of the solution</td><td>The production of PET and the end-of-life treatment of plastic bottles to fulfil the annual demand for 100% recycled PET by a car manufacturer</td></tr><tr><td>Reference year</td><td>2023</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Valorization process</td><td>Description</td><td>Specific recycling process, which is a direct supplier of the car manufacturer</td></tr><tr><td>Geographical area of valorisation</td><td>Operation of recycling factory in Europe</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Valorized waste stream</td><td>Type</td><td>End-of-life plastic waste</td></tr><tr><td>Geographical area of waste collection</td><td>Europe</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><th>Study parameters</th><th>Example answers</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Quantified reference flow</td><td>4 kt of plastic bottles</td></tr><tr><td>Type</td><td>Recycled PET granulates</td></tr><tr><td>Geographical area of consumption</td><td>Europe</td></tr><tr><td>Quantified reference flow</td><td>2.8 kt of PET</td></tr><tr><td>System boundaries</td><td><ul><li>Included life cycle stages</li><li>Excluded processes</li></ul><ul><li>Quality differences between the valorized material and the reference material</li><li>Applied quality correction factor</li><li>Foreseen uses of the valorized product</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>Quality and foreseen uses of the valorized material/energy</td><td><ul><li>Substitution takes place at a 1:1 ratio, recycled PET has a different colour than primary PET, and part of the recycled PET needs to be additionally replaced</li><li>0.9</li><li>Use in plastic components in cars</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>Relevant assumptions</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>GHG emissions of the analysed solution</td><td>7.1 kt CO2-eq</td></tr><tr><td>Data quality</td><td>Uncertainty level of the GHG emissions</td></tr><tr><td>Reference scenario</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Description of the reference scenario</td><td>The production of PET and the end-of-life treatment of plastic waste to fulfil the annual demand for market-average PET by a car manufacturer</td></tr><tr><td>Valorized waste stream</td><td><ul><li>Point of substitution</li><li>Reference process(es)</li><li>Identified technologies</li><li>Relative contribution of each technology to the scenario</li><li>Quantified reference flow(s)</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>Production of intermediate products</td><td><ul><li>Point of substitution</li><li>Reference process(es)</li><li>Identified technologies</li><li>Relative contribution of each technology to the scenario</li><li>Quantified reference flow(s)</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>System boundaries</td><td><ul><li>Included life cycle stages</li><li>Incineration/landfilling:</li><li>Final treatment</li><li>Recycling:</li></ul></td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><th>Study parameters</th><th>Example answers</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td></td><td><ul><li>Sorting</li><li>Production of PET granulates</li></ul>Primary production:<ul><li>Raw material extraction</li><li>Production</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>Excluded processes</td><td><ul><li>Collection</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"><strong>Relevant assumptions</strong></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"><strong>Comparability between the analysed solution and the reference scenario</strong></td></tr><tr><td>GHG emissions of the reference scenario</td><td>12 kt CO2-eq</td></tr><tr><td>Data quality</td><td>Uncertainty level of the GHG emissions</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"><strong>Avoided emissions</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Average avoided emissions attributed to the value chain</td><td>4.9 kt CO2-eq / year</td></tr><tr><td>Minimum value</td><td>-2.8 kt CO2-eq / year</td></tr><tr><td>Maximum value</td><td>12.5 kt CO2-eq / year</td></tr><tr><td>Avoided emissions including benefits and loads beyond the value chain</td><td>3.1 kt (+- 7.7 kt) CO2-eq / year</td></tr><tr><td>Access to full report and critical review</td><td>URL / QR-code</td></tr></tbody></table>

Avoided emissions are not to be subtracted from the carbon footprint of a company or a product. Furthermore, trade-offs may take place regarding other environmental problems, such as acidification, eutrophication, water use, or resource use, which are however not evaluated within the scope of this study

OR (No) trade-offs are identified regarding other environmental problems, such as acidification, eutrophication, water use, or resource use.