# Guide to accounting for avoided GHG emissions in the waste recovery and recycling sector (version 2.0)

Association Record, D. Schrijvers, C. Bolle, M. Ferrieres

## ► To cite this version:

Association Record, D. Schrijvers, C. Bolle, M. Ferrieres. Guide to accounting for avoided GHG emissions in the waste recovery and recycling sector (version 2.0). n°24-1026/2A, RECORD. 2024, pp.102. hal-05026358

HAL Id: hal-05026358

https://hal.science/hal-05026358v1

Submitted on 9 Apr 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# GUIDE TO ACCOUNTING FOR AVOIDED GHG EMISSIONS IN THE WASTE RECOVERY AND RECYCLING SECTOR

## VERSION 2.0

## MAIN REPORT

### September 2024

D. SCHRIJVERS, C. BOLLE, M. FERRIERES - WeLOOP

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>
Created on the initiative of the Ministry in charge of the Environment, the RECORD association has
been since 1989, the catalyst for cooperation between industrialists, institutions, and researchers.

A recognized player in applied research in the field of waste, polluted soils and resource efficiency,
RECORD's main objective is to finance and carry out studies and research from a circular economy
perspective.

The members of this network (industrial and institutional groups) collectively define study and research
programs adapted to their needs. These programs are then entrusted to public or private laboratories.

Warning:

The reports have been prepared on the basis of scientific and technical data and a regulatory and
normative framework in force at the time of publication of the documents.

These documents include proposals or recommendations that are the sole responsibility of their authors.

Unless otherwise stated, they are not intended to represent the views of RECORD members.

✓ There are 2 documents associated with this guide: a Main report and a Project report.

✓ For any resumption of information contained in this document, the user will have the obligation
to cite the report under the reference:

**RECORD**, Guide to accounting for avoided GHG emissions in the waste recovery and recycling
sector (version 2.0), 2024, 102 p, n°24-1026/2A

✓ This work received the support of ADEME (Environment and Energy Management Agency)
www.ademe.fr

Study monitoring committee:

Laétitia AUBEUT CHOJNACKI – GRDF, Rémy BAYARD – INSA DE LYON / RECORD, Tatiana BRATEC – ENGIE LAB CRIGEN, Bénédicte COUFFIGNAL – RECORD, Thibault DE BOYSERE – SUEZ SEHQ, Marion DEVIENNE – SCORE LCA, Julien GASC – Séché Environnement, Anne GRAU – EDF, Agathe JARRY – ADEME, Nicolas MICHEL – Véolia, Mathieu TOLIAN – Véolia
# SUMMARY

To stimulate innovation in low-carbon solutions, companies must be able to calculate and communicate the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions avoided by their solutions, particularly in the recycling and waste valorisation sector, a key sector in the circular economy. While the relevance of methodological considerations has been underlined in the recent past, no consensus has emerged on the specific methodological choices to be implemented in the evaluation. Within this project, a common methodological framework, based on a consensus among actors in recycling and waste valorisation sectors, has been established to calculate avoided GHG emissions. In this updated version of V1 of the methodological guide, a stepwise procedure has been added to support practitioners in their avoided emission evaluations. The requirements of this framework are applied in the calculation of Reference Emission Factors for diverging recycling and valorisation sectors. These Emission Factors are presented in the form of Excel sheets, that can serve as calculation templates and can be used in future data updates. It is recognized that avoided emissions are achieved by the contribution and efforts of multiple actors in the value chain, which is also put forward in the communication recommendations that are formulated for a non-expert audience, LCA experts, as well as in the context of corporate reporting. Finally, recommendations are provided for the implementation and refinement trajectory of the methodological guide, as well as for the future revision of the Reference Emission Factors.

# KEY WORDS

Avoided emissions, GHG emissions, Decarbonisation, Recycling, Energy recovery, Waste valorisation

# RESUME

Pour stimuler l'innovation dans les solutions bas carbone, les entreprises doivent être en mesure de calculer et de communiquer les émissions de gaz à effet de serre (GES) évitées par leurs solutions, en particulier dans le secteur du recyclage et de la valorisation des déchets, secteur clé de l'économie circulaire. Si l'importance des considérations méthodologiques a été soulignée par de nombreux experts, aucun consensus ne s'est dégagé sur les choix méthodologiques à mettre en œuvre dans ce type d'évaluation. Dans le cadre de ce projet, un cadre méthodologique commun, basé sur un consensus entre les acteurs des secteurs du recyclage et de la valorisation des déchets, a été établi pour calculer les émissions de GES évitées. Dans cette version mise à jour de la V1 du guide méthodologique, une procédure étape par étapes a été ajoutée pour aider les praticiens dans leurs évaluations des émissions évitées. Les exigences de ce cadre sont appliquées au calcul des facteurs d'émission de référence pour les secteurs du recyclage et de la valorisation. Ces facteurs d'émission sont présentés sous forme de feuilles Excel, qui peuvent servir de modèles de calcul et être utilisées lors de futures mises à jour des données. Il est reconnu que les émissions évitées sont obtenues grâce à la contribution et aux efforts de multiples acteurs de la chaîne de valeur, ce qui est également mis en avant dans les recommandations de communication qui sont formulées pour un public de non expert, d'experts de l'ACV, ainsi que dans le contexte du reporting des entreprises. Enfin, des recommandations sont fournies pour la trajectoire de mise en œuvre et d'amélioration du guide méthodologique ainsi que pour la révision future des facteurs d'émission de référence.

# MOTS CLES

Emissions évitées, Emissions de GES, Décarbonation, Recyclage, Valorisation énergétique, Valorisation des déchets
# Table of Contents

<table><tr><td>Glossary</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>Acronyms</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>1. Introduction and objectives</td><td>13</td></tr><tr><td>1.1. Context</td><td>13</td></tr><tr><td>1.2. Updates of the RECORD guide</td><td>15</td></tr><tr><td>1.3. Structure of the guide</td><td>16</td></tr><tr><td>2. Guide scope and methodological choices</td><td>18</td></tr><tr><td>2.1. LCA modelling choices</td><td>18</td></tr><tr><td>2.1.1. LCA approach</td><td>18</td></tr><tr><td>2.1.2. Multifunctional processes</td><td>19</td></tr><tr><td>2.1.3. Other methodological choices</td><td>22</td></tr><tr><td>2.2. Solutions covered by the scope of the guide</td><td>22</td></tr><tr><td>2.3. Reference scenario</td><td>22</td></tr><tr><td>2.4. Period of validity of "emission factors"</td><td>24</td></tr><tr><td>2.5. Impact Categories</td><td>24</td></tr><tr><td>2.6. Attribution to actors in the value chain</td><td>24</td></tr><tr><td>2.7. Communication</td><td>25</td></tr><tr><td>2.7.1. Formulation of avoided emission claims</td><td>26</td></tr><tr><td>2.7.2. Communication of avoided emission claims</td><td>26</td></tr><tr><td>3. Step-by-step procedure to evaluate avoided emissions</td><td>28</td></tr><tr><td>3.1. Formulate the objective and target audience(s) of the assessment</td><td>29</td></tr><tr><td>3.2. Describe the analysed solution</td><td>30</td></tr><tr><td>3.2.1. Define the functional unit of the assessment</td><td>30</td></tr><tr><td>3.2.2. Draw a process flow diagram</td><td>30</td></tr><tr><td>3.2.3. Provide information on each flow and process within the flow diagram</td><td>30</td></tr><tr><td>3.3. Describe the reference scenario</td><td>37</td></tr><tr><td>3.3.1. Draw a process flow diagram</td><td>37</td></tr><tr><td>3.3.2. Provide information on each flow and process within the flow diagram</td><td>39</td></tr><tr><td>3.4. Ensure comparability of the two scenarios</td><td>42</td></tr><tr><td>3.4.1. Define the system boundaries of the assessment</td><td>42</td></tr><tr><td>3.4.2. Ensure equal functional outputs of the defined systems</td><td>48</td></tr><tr><td>3.5. Collect data</td><td>64</td></tr><tr><td>3.5.1. Identify data needs</td><td>64</td></tr><tr><td>3.5.2. Select data sources</td><td>67</td></tr><tr><td>3.5.3. Respect cut-off rules</td><td>67</td></tr><tr><td>3.5.4. Assess data quality</td><td>67</td></tr><tr><td>3.6. Calculate (Avoided) Emissions</td><td>71</td></tr><tr><td>3.6.1. Calculate the emissions of each scenario</td><td>71</td></tr><tr><td>3.6.2. Calculate uncertainty ranges</td><td>74</td></tr><tr><td>3.6.3. Calculate Avoided Emissions</td><td>77</td></tr><tr><td>3.6.4. Evaluate the robustness of the Avoided Emissions</td><td>79</td></tr><tr><td>3.7. Communicate avoided emission claims</td><td>80</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>5.</td><td>Reference Emission Factors</td><td>81</td></tr><tr><td>5.1.</td><td>Overview of existing REFs</td><td>81</td></tr><tr><td>5.2.</td><td>Using the REFs in a specific study</td><td>81</td></tr><tr><td>5.2.1.</td><td>Role of Reference Emission Factors in a calculation</td><td>81</td></tr><tr><td>5.2.2.</td><td>Access to the Reference Emission Factors</td><td>82</td></tr><tr><td>5.2.3.</td><td>Scope of the Reference Emission Factors</td><td>82</td></tr><tr><td>5.2.4.</td><td>Evaluation of the updated REFs</td><td>83</td></tr><tr><td>5.2.5.</td><td>Quality and reliability of the Reference Emission Factors</td><td>93</td></tr><tr><td>5.2.6.</td><td>Adapting the analysed solution</td><td>93</td></tr><tr><td>5.2.7.</td><td>Combining REFs for a new reference scenario</td><td>93</td></tr><tr><td>6.</td><td>Conclusions</td><td>97</td></tr><tr><td>6.1.</td><td>Future implementation of the methodological guide</td><td>97</td></tr><tr><td>6.2.</td><td>Future update of the Reference Emission Factors</td><td>97</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">References</td><td>99</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Annex 1</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Reporting template for the communication of avoided emissions</td><td>100</td></tr></table>

## Table of Figures

<table><tr><td>Figure 1</td><td>Assessment of avoided emissions from a solution compared to a reference scenario (RECORD, 2022)</td><td>14</td></tr><tr><td>Figure 2</td><td>Overview of the scope of the guide to evaluate avoided emissions developed in V1 of the RECORD project (RECORD 2022)</td><td>15</td></tr><tr><td>Figure 3</td><td>Assessment of avoided emissions through the use of recycled plastics in car manufacturing (RECORD, 2022)</td><td>20</td></tr><tr><td>Figure 4</td><td>Examples of multifunctional processes within the analysed solution and reference scenario (RECORD, 2024)</td><td>20</td></tr><tr><td>Figure 5</td><td>Strategies to model multifunctional processes in the analysed solution and reference scenario (RECORD, 2024)</td><td>21</td></tr><tr><td>Figure 6</td><td>Presentation of the point of view of each actor in the value chain who could thus assess the avoided emissions it induces. The definition of the "alternative" scenario is specified in Step 3 (RECORD, 2022)</td><td>25</td></tr><tr><td>Figure 7</td><td>Overview of the step-by-step procedure to evaluate avoided emissions (RECORD, 2024)</td><td>28</td></tr><tr><td>Figure 8</td><td>Presentation of the different possible objectives and target audiences for an assessment of avoided emissions (RECORD, 2022)</td><td>29</td></tr><tr><td>Figure 9</td><td>Processes and flows to be included in the process flow diagram of the analysed solution (RECORD, 2024)</td><td>31</td></tr><tr><td>Figure 10</td><td>Process flow diagram of the analysed solution of the PET recycling example, containing the minimum required processes and flows (Illustration of step 2.2). Processes filled in green refer to processes within the organisational boundaries of the actor that conducts the assessment in the illustrative example (RECORD, 2024)</td><td>32</td></tr><tr><td>Figure 11</td><td>Overview of required information for each element in the process flow diagram of the analysed solution. *The flows "Waste", "Sorted material" and the valorized outputs are expressed relative to the Functional Unit. (RECORD, 2024)</td><td>33</td></tr><tr><td>Figure 12</td><td>Demonstration of the provision of information for each element in the process flow diagram of Figure 10 using the Excel template (RECORD, 2024)</td><td>34</td></tr><tr><td>Figure 13</td><td>Flexibility in the Excel template (tab "EF Analysed solution") to model either the recovery of secondary raw material, or the recovery of energy (RECORD, 2024)</td><td>35</td></tr><tr><td>Figure 14</td><td>Potential data sources (in order of priority) for the collection of information for each element in the process flow diagram of the analysed solution (RECORD, 2024)</td><td>36</td></tr><tr><td>Figure 15</td><td>Processes and flows to be included in the process flow diagram of the reference scenario (RECORD, 2024)</td><td>37</td></tr><tr><td>Figure 16</td><td>Process flow diagram of the reference scenario in the illustrative example of the recycling of PET in car panels, containing the minimum required processes and flows (Illustration of step 3.3.1) (RECORD, 2024)</td><td>38</td></tr></table>
<table>
  <tbody>
    <tr>
      <td>Figure 17 Overview of required information for each element in the process flow diagram of the reference scenario (RECORD, 2024)</td>
      <td>39</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Figure 20 Potential data sources for information of the processes and flows within the reference scenario (RECORD, 2024)</td>
      <td>40</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Figure 18 Data on market shares of different technologies can be directly entered into the Excel template (tab "Reference scenario [material]") (RECORD, 2024)</td>
      <td>41</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Figure 19 Example of a technology tab in the Excel template (RECORD, 2024)</td>
      <td>41</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Figure 21 Strategies to define the system boundaries of the assessed scenarios</td>
      <td>42</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Figure 22 Illustration of the definition of system boundaries of the analysed solution in the illustrative example of recycled PET. User 1, collection, and the manufacturing of car panels are the same as in the reference scenario (Figure 23), indicated by a transparent box. These processes are excluded from the system boundaries. If a quality correction factor is applied, a proxy process is included that represents the quality difference between the secondary and primary raw material (RECORD, 2024).</td>
      <td>43</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Figure 23 Illustration of the definition of system boundaries of the reference scenario in the illustrative example of recycled PET. User 1, collection, and the manufacturing of car panels are the same as in the analysed solution (Figure 22), indicated by a transparent box. These processes are excluded from the system boundaries (RECORD, 2024)</td>
      <td>44</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Figure 24 Integration of the Quality Factor into the Excel template (RECORD, 2024)</td>
      <td>47</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Figure 25 Overview of the functional flows of the analysed solution in the example of the recycling of PET (RECORD, 2024)</td>
      <td>49</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Figure 29 Calculation of recovered electricity and heat of a multifunctional process in the analysed solution (tab "EF Analysed solution"). The same quantity of recovered energy must be included in the reference scenario (RECORD, 2024)</td>
      <td>50</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Figure 26 Illustration of the quantified flow "waste" in the tab "EF analysed solution" for the example of the recycling of PET (RECORD, 2024)</td>
      <td>51</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Figure 27 Illustration of the quantified flow "secondary raw material" in the tab "EF analysed solution" for the example of the recycling of PET (RECORD, 2024)</td>
      <td>51</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Figure 28 Quantification of recovered energy by a multifunctional process in the analysed solution (Tab "EF Analysed solution") (RECORD, 2024)</td>
      <td>51</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Figure 30 Summary of total inputs and outputs of functional flows of the analysed solution in the illustrative example of recycled PET (tab "Analysed solution PET") (RECORD, 2024)</td>
      <td>52</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Figure 31 Overview of quantities of functional flows from the analysed solution in the reference scenario tab ("Reference Scenario PET") (RECORD, 2024)</td>
      <td>52</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Figure 32 Overview of the functional flows of the reference scenario in the example of the recycling of PET. The functional flows are listed in Table 6. (RECORD, 2024)</td>
      <td>54</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Figure 33 Ensuring that the analysed solution and the reference scenario provide the same functional outputs via system expansion (tab "Reference scenario PET"). A final check in row 32 shows whether the two systems are comparable (RECORD, 2024)</td>
      <td>55</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Figure 34 Definition of the system boundaries of the reference scenario of recycled PET at the end-of-waste stage (in green) for supplied and consumed valorized materials and energy (RECORD, 2024)</td>
      <td>57</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Figure 35 Modelling the emissions of a technology in the reference scenario up to the end-of-waste stage (RECORD, 2024)</td>
      <td>58</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Figure 36 Illustration of the accounting for the supply for valorized material (and potentially recovered energy) in the reference scenario (tab "REF PET EoL recycling"). This accounting enables the calculation of the net quantity of valorized material and energy produced in the reference scenario (RECORD, 2024)</td>
      <td>58</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Figure 37 Consumed valorized materials are accounted for by a negative flow of secondary raw material in the section "Materials and energy flows that result in loads and benefits beyond the system boundaries" (tab "REF scnd PET post-consumer") (RECORD, 2024)</td>
      <td>59</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Figure 38 Overview of additional outputs (the supply of secondary raw materials and recovered energy) in the reference scenario. These outputs are negative if the technology consumes a valorized waste (tab "Reference scenario PET"). This negative flow enables the calculation of the net output flow of valorized materials (RECORD, 2024)</td>
      <td>59</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Figure 39 Comparison of the functional flows of the analysed solution with the reference scenario. Row 32 indicates that the reference scenario supplies a larger quantity of secondary raw materials, recovered electricity, and recovered heat (tab "Reference scenario PET") (RECORD, 2024)</td>
      <td>60</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Figure 40 Application of system reduction to the net output of recovered raw materials and energy. Valorization is modelled up to the point of substitution. Then, the production of a primary equivalent raw material and energy are subtracted from the system. These processes are modelled beyond the system boundaries of the value chain under study. Therefore, these loads and benefits are not part of the final calculation of avoided emissions but should be provided as additional information (RECORD, 2024)</td>
      <td>61</td>
    </tr>
  </tbody>
</table>
<table>
  <tr>
    <td>Figure 41 Application of system reduction in the Excel template for the valorization of sorted PET up to the substitution of primary PET (tab "D REF Mec Recycl in Europe"). These loads and benefits are not part of the final calculation of avoided emissions but should be provided as additional information (RECORD, 2024)</td>
    <td>62</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Figure 42 Addition of valorization processes to the reference scenario, until the reference scenario provides the same functional outputs as the analysed solution (tab "Reference scenario PET") (RECORD, 2024)</td>
    <td>63</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Figure 43 Inclusion of market ratios (also "market shares") in the Excel template (tab "Reference scenario PET") (RECORD, 2024)</td>
    <td>65</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Figure 44 Activity quantities are filled in into column F of each technology EF tab. These are multiplied with corresponding secondary emission factors (as named in column H) to obtain the final activity emissions in column J (tab "EF Analysed solution") (RECORD, 2024)</td>
    <td>66</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Figure 45 Application of data quality indicators to specific data points (RECORD, 2024)</td>
    <td>67</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Figure 46 Evaluation of data quality via the application of uncertainty ranges in the Excel template (RECORD, 2024)</td>
    <td>70</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Figure 47 Calculation structure of the assessment of emissions of a scenario (i.e. either the analysed solution or the reference scenario). Terms are explained in the text body (RECORD, 2024)</td>
    <td>72</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Figure 48 Overview of data quality indicators applied to activity quantities, secondary emission factors, and technology market shares. Step numbers show the aggregation procedure to calculate the uncertainty range of the emissions of a scenario (RECORD, 2024)</td>
    <td>76</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Figure 49 Scenario emissions and their corresponding uncertainty ranges of the analysed solution and the reference scenario of the illustrative example of the recycling of PET. The results are based on fictive values in the Excel template (tab "CalculateAvoidedEmissions") (RECORD, 2024)</td>
    <td>78</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Figure 50 Avoided emissions and the corresponding uncertainty range of the recycling of PET in the analysed solution. The results are based on fictive values in the Excel template (tab "CalculateAvoidedEmissions") (RECORD, 2024)</td>
    <td>78</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Figure 51 Example comparison of a solution with a reference scenario, with a statistically significant determination of avoided emissions (RECORD, 2022)</td>
    <td>79</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Figure 52 Potential strategies in case the emissions of the analysed solution and the reference scenario are not statistically distinguishable (RECORD, 2022)</td>
    <td>79</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Figure 53 System boundaries of the updated REF of PET (RECORD, 2024)</td>
    <td>84</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Figure 54 Contribution of technologies to the Climate Change impacts of the reference scenario of PET. Results are presented for a functional unit of the production of 1 ton of secondary raw material (RECORD, 2024)</td>
    <td>85</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Figure 55 Scenario emissions of the reference scenario of PET, compared to the analysed solution (i.e. the isolated recycling process from the reference scenario). Results are presented for a functional unit of the production of 1 ton of secondary raw material (RECORD, 2024)</td>
    <td>86</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Figure 56 Avoided emissions of the recycling of PET compared to the average end-of-life treatment of PET waste and the average production of PET in Europe. Results are presented for a functional unit of the production of 1 ton of secondary raw material (RECORD, 2024)</td>
    <td>86</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Figure 57 System boundaries of the updated REF of paper (RECORD, 2024)</td>
    <td>88</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Figure 58 Contribution of technologies to the Climate Change impacts of the reference scenario of paper. Results are presented for a functional unit of the production of 1 ton of secondary raw material (RECORD, 2024)</td>
    <td>87</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Figure 59 Scenario emissions of the reference scenario of paper, compared to the analysed solution (i.e. the isolated recycling process from the reference scenario). Results are presented for a functional unit of the production of 1 ton of secondary raw material (RECORD, 2024)</td>
    <td>89</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Figure 60 Avoided emissions of the recycling of paper compared to the average end-of-life treatment of paper waste and the average production of paper in Europe. Results are presented for a functional unit of the production of 1 ton of secondary raw material (RECORD, 2024)</td>
    <td>89</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Figure 61 System boundaries of the updated REF of steel (RECORD, 2024)</td>
    <td>91</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Figure 62 Contribution of technologies to the Climate Change impacts of the reference scenario of steel. Results are presented for a functional unit of the production of 1 ton of secondary raw material (RECORD, 2024)</td>
    <td>92</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Figure 63 Scenario emissions of the reference scenario of steel, compared to the analysed solution (i.e. the isolated recycling process from the reference scenario). Results are presented for a functional unit of the production of 1 ton of secondary raw material (RECORD, 2024)</td>
    <td>92</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Figure 64 Avoided emissions of the recycling of steel compared to the average end-of-life treatment of steel waste and the average production of steel in Europe. Results are presented for a functional unit of the production of 1 ton of secondary raw material (RECORD, 2024)</td>
    <td>92</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Figure 65 System boundaries of the analysed solution of a study on the energetic valorization of waste paper and waste PET via the production of Solid Recovered Fuel (SRF) (RECORD, 2024)</td>
    <td>94</td>
  </tr>
</table>
<table><tr><td>Figure 66 System boundaries of the reference scenario of a study on the energetic valorization of waste paper and waste PET via the production of Solid Recovered Fuel (SRF). Recovered energy flows in green are modelled by the cut-off approach, followed by a subtraction of alternative production technologies (RECORD, 2024)</td><td>95</td></tr></table>

## Table of Tables

<table><tr><td>Table 1 Different actors in the value chain of recycled PET from end-of-life bottles and the potentially implemented recycling solution (RECORD, 2022)</td><td>17</td></tr><tr><td>Table 2 Limitation of claims regarding avoided emissions based on methodological choices (RECORD, 2022)</td><td>26</td></tr><tr><td>Table 3 Values of the quality factor to be used by default. These factors are reviewed regularly by RECORD (RECORD, 2022)</td><td>45</td></tr><tr><td>Table 4 Examples of calculation to establish a quality factor (Q) (RECORD, 2022)</td><td>46</td></tr><tr><td>Table 5 Overview of allocation procedures applied to the functional flows in the analysed solution of the recycling of PET (RECORD, 2024)</td><td>48</td></tr><tr><td>Table 6 Overview of allocation procedures applied to the functional flows in the reference scenario of the recycling of PET (RECORD, 2024)</td><td>53</td></tr><tr><td>Table 7 Uncertainty scoring for specific data quality ratings, based on (SEDDRe and Crowe Sustainable Metrics, 2019; Weidema et al., 2013; Weidema and Wesnæs, 1996) (RECORD, 2022)</td><td>69</td></tr><tr><td>Table 8 Matching of terms of Eq 1-4 with the accompanying Excel template</td><td>73</td></tr><tr><td>Table 9 End-of-life treatment and the supply of flows for which Reference Emission Factors are established (RECORD, 2022)</td><td>81</td></tr><tr><td>Table 10 Overview of sources of default REFs for paper, steel, and PET (RECORD, 2024)</td><td>82</td></tr><tr><td>Table 11 Scope of the updated Reference Emission Factors published as annex to the guide (RECORD, 2024)</td><td>82</td></tr><tr><td>Table 12 Overview of sources of emission factors for the reference scenario of the production of SRF (RECORD, 2024)</td><td>96</td></tr><tr><td>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)</td><td>100</td></tr></table>
Glossary

<table><thead><tr><td>Term (English)</td><td>Definition</td><td>Term (French)</td><td>Definition (French)</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Analysed solution</td><td>The solution that generates avoided emissions in comparison with a reference solution.</td><td>Solution évaluée</td><td>La solution qui génère des émissions évitées par rapport à une solution de référence.</td></tr><tr><td>Attribution of benefits</td><td>Qualitative or quantitative sharing of the benefits estimated through the avoided emissions accounting, between all actors of the value chain committed in the implementation of the assessed solution.</td><td>Attribution des bénéfices</td><td>Partage qualitatif ou quantitatif des bénéfices estimés grâce à la comptabilisation des émissions évitées, entre tous les acteurs de la chaîne de valeur engagés dans la mise en œuvre de la solution évaluée.</td></tr><tr><td>Attributional LCA (A-LCA)</td><td>Approach used in LCA to attribute potential impacts to a given product/service/process without considering the potential effects and consequences associated with the implementation of the assessed solution beyond the studied value chain.</td><td>ACV attributionnelle (A-LCA)</td><td>Approche utilisée en ACV pour attribuer les impacts potentiels à un produit/service/processus donné sans tenir compte des effets et conséquences potentiels associés à la mise en œuvre de la solution évaluée au-delà de la chaîne de valeur étudiée.</td></tr><tr><td>Avoidance period</td><td>Period of time during which solutions are studied and their GHG emissions compared.</td><td>Période d'évitement</td><td>Période pendant laquelle les solutions sont étudiées et leurs émissions de GES comparées.</td></tr><tr><td>Avoided emissions</td><td>Reduction of GHG emissions that occur as a result of the implementation of the assessed solution, compared to a reference solution during the defined avoidance period</td><td>Emissions évitées (dans le cas d'analyses comparatives)</td><td>Réduction des émissions de GES résultant de la mise en œuvre de la solution évaluée, par rapport à une solution de référence, pendant la période d'évitement définie</td></tr><tr><td>Consequential LCA (C-LCA)</td><td>Approach used in LCA to assess the environmental consequences of the assessed solution on global GHG emissions, including emissions that take place beyond the studied value chain.</td><td>Approche conséquentielle (C-LCA)</td><td>Approche utilisée en ACV pour évaluer les conséquences environnementales de la solution évaluée au-delà de la chaîne de valeur étudiée.</td></tr><tr><td>Energy recovery from waste</td><td>Energy recovery from waste is the conversion of waste materials into useable heat, electricity, or fuel through a variety of processes, including combustion, gasification, pyrolysis, anaerobic digestion, and landfill gas (LFG) recovery. This</td><td>Valorisation énergétique des déchets</td><td>La valorisation énergétique des déchets (W2E) est la conversion des déchets en chaleur, électricité ou carburant utilisables, par une variété de processus, y compris la combustion, la gazéification, la pyrolyse, la digestion anaérobie et la récupération des gaz de décharge (LFG).</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><td>Term (English)</td><td>Definition</td><td>Term (French)</td><td>Definition (French)</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td></td><td>process is often called waste-to-energy (W2E).</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Functional unit</td><td>Reference unit used in LCA, based on the solution's quantified performance (equivalence of service provided). The definition of a functional unit should ensure that evaluated solution and the reference scenario can be compared.</td><td>Unité fonctionnelle</td><td>Unité de référence utilisée en ACV, basée sur la performance quantifiée de la solution (équivalence de service rendu). La définition d'une unité fonctionnelle doit permettre de comparer la solution évaluée à un scénario de référence</td></tr><tr><td>Multifunctional process</td><td>A process that provides multiple functional flows, such as waste treatment and the production of a material or energy. Co-production, recycling, and incineration with energy recovery are examples of a multifunctional process</td><td>Processus multifonctionnel</td><td>Un procédé qui fournit de multiples flux fonctionnels, tels que le traitement des déchets et la production d'une matière ou de l'énergie. La coproduction, le recyclage et l'incinération avec récupération d'énergie sont des exemples de processus multifonctionnels</td></tr><tr><td>Multifunctional process modelling</td><td>Strategy to make two processes or systems comparable, of which one is multifunctional, by dividing the process into two or more subprocesses or by expansion or reduction of the system. When multifunctionality is solved by system reduction, substitution of a similar or equivalent solution is done, leading to avoided impacts. If system expansion, reduction, or substitution is not applicable, allocation can be done via partitioning or the cut-off approach.</td><td>Modélisation des processus multifonctionnels</td><td>Stratégie pour rendre deux processus ou systèmes comparables, dont l'un est multifonctionnel, en divisant le processus en deux ou plusieurs sous-processus ou en élargissant ou en réduisant le système. Lorsque la multifonctionnalité est résolue par la réduction du système, la substitution d'une solution similaire ou équivalente est effectuée, conduisant à des impacts évités. Si l'expansion, la réduction ou la substitution du système n'est pas applicable, l'allocation peut être effectuée via le partitionnement ou l'approche cut-off.</td></tr><tr><td>Recycling</td><td>Industrial processes /operations that add value to waste and transform it into an input that can be used as a substitute to alternative inputs</td><td>Recyclage</td><td>Processus/opérations industriels qui ajoutent de la valeur aux déchets et les transforment en un intrant pouvant être utilisé en remplacement d'intrants alternatifs.</td></tr><tr><td>Reference scenario</td><td>Scenario used as a reference, against which the analysed solution is compared, on the bases of the same function provided (the same functional unit).</td><td>Scénario de référence</td><td>Scénario utilisé comme référence, à laquelle la solution évaluée est comparée, sur la base de la même fonction fournie (la même unité fonctionnelle).</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><td>Term (English)</td><td>Definition</td><td>Term (French)</td><td>Definition (French)</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Solution</td><td>Refers to an action involving the increased or decreased production, use, or operation of products, processes, or projects (in this guide associated to waste management and recycling activities)</td><td>Solution</td><td>Fait référence à une action impliquant l'augmentation ou la diminution de la production, de l'utilisation ou de l'exploitation de produits, de processus ou de projets (dans ce guide associée à des activités de gestion des déchets et de recyclage)</td></tr><tr><td>System boundaries</td><td>Set of processes and stages of the value chain that are considered in the analysed solution and the reference scenario.</td><td>Frontières du système</td><td>Ensemble de processus inclus dans la solution analysée et le scénario de référence.</td></tr><tr><td>Recycling/ valorisation value chain</td><td>All the operations associated to the recycling and valorisation activities of wastes.</td><td>Filière de recyclage/valorisation</td><td>Toutes les opérations associées aux activités de gestion et de recyclage ou valorisation des déchets.</td></tr><tr><td>Unit process</td><td>Smallest element in the avoided emissions analysis for which input and output data are quantified</td><td>Processus unitaire</td><td>Le plus petit élément de l'analyse des émissions évitées pour lequel les données d'entrée et de sortie sont quantifiées</td></tr></tbody></table>
Acronyms

<table><thead><tr><td>Acronym</td><td>Definition</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>ADEME</td><td>Agence de l'environnement et de la maîtrise de l'énergie</td></tr><tr><td>AFNOR</td><td>Association française de normalisation</td></tr><tr><td>A-LCA</td><td>Attributional Life Cycle Assessment</td></tr><tr><td>C-LCA</td><td>Consequential Life Cycle Assessment</td></tr><tr><td>C-PCR</td><td>Complementary Product Category Rules</td></tr><tr><td>EAF</td><td>Electric arc furnace</td></tr><tr><td>EF</td><td>Emission Factor</td></tr><tr><td>EPD</td><td>Environmental Product Declaration</td></tr><tr><td>FEDEREC</td><td>Fédération professionnelle des entreprises du recyclage</td></tr><tr><td>GHG</td><td>Greenhouse Gases</td></tr><tr><td>HDPE</td><td>High density polyethylene</td></tr><tr><td>IPCC</td><td>Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change</td></tr><tr><td>ISO</td><td>International Organization for Standardization</td></tr><tr><td>JRC</td><td>Joint Research Centre</td></tr><tr><td>LCA</td><td>Life Cycle Assessment</td></tr><tr><td>MSW</td><td>Municipal Solid Waste</td></tr><tr><td>NGO</td><td>Non-government organization</td></tr><tr><td>PE</td><td>Polyethylene</td></tr><tr><td>PEF</td><td>Product Environmental Footprint</td></tr><tr><td>PEFCR</td><td>Product Environmental Footprint Category Rule</td></tr><tr><td>PET</td><td>Polyethylene terephthalate</td></tr><tr><td>PP</td><td>Polypropylene</td></tr><tr><td>PVC</td><td>Polyvinyl Chloride</td></tr><tr><td>REF</td><td>Reference Emission Factors</td></tr><tr><td>SEDDRe</td><td>Syndicat des Entreprises de Déconstruction, Dépollution et Recyclage</td></tr><tr><td>SRF</td><td>Solid Recovered Fuels</td></tr><tr><td>W2E</td><td>Waste to Energy</td></tr><tr><td>WEEE</td><td>Waste from Electrical and Electronic Equipment</td></tr></tbody></table>
# 1. Introduction and objectives

## 1.1. Context

Combatting climate change is one of the key priorities of current governmental policies (e.g. via international agreements such as COP215 and the Sustainable Development Goals), in the public debate, as well as in the strategic considerations of many companies. Companies play a crucial role in providing technical, business, and consumer solutions to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. These innovative solutions often require significant investments, e.g. in the form of R&D and capital. To justify these investments, to facilitate the implementation of the solutions on the market, and to formulate needs for supportive policy frameworks, **it is important that the company is able to quantify and communicate its contribution to reduced GHG emissions**, to policymakers, to investors, to their suppliers and clients, and to the wider society.

The transition to a more circular economy is often considered as a strategy that could support the required reduction in the GHG emissions of our economic activities (Ellen MacArthur Foundation 2015; European Commission 2015), via a decreased energy consumption and a decreased reliance on primary resources and associated damages to the planet. The circular economy supports increased resource efficiency via numerous strategies, including reuse, repair, remanufacturing, and refurbishment. However, to recover the valuable materials and energy contained in products that reach the end of their life cycle, even after several loops, **recycling and energy recovery are crucial activities** to close the final loop.

The environmental benefits of a (circular) innovation can be evaluated via a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), in which the environmental performance of a product system (including resource extraction, manufacturing, transport, use, and end-of-life treatment) is assessed in relation to a functional unit; the quantified function that is provided by the product system. Evaluating the environmental performance of a recycling or waste valorisation process is relatively challenging, as the process serves two distinct product systems: one in which the primary product is used, and one in which the recovered material or energy is used. This makes the end-of-life process multifunctional, and an allocation strategy must be defined to distribute the environmental impacts of the processes among the two functions. A comparison of the environmental performance of the recycling/recovery process (i.e. "the analysed solution") to a reference scenario can indicate whether the former is environmentally beneficial. If this is the case, **GHG emissions could be avoided** by opting for the solution scenario instead of the reference scenario.

Several guidance documents have been developed to provide guidance to support company's assessments in the evaluation of avoided emissions (ADEME 2016; Entreprises pour l'Environnement 2018; Grönman et al. 2019; ICCA and WBCSD 2013, 2017; The Institute of LCA Japan 2015). Guidance is provided in the formulation of the solution scenario, the reference scenario, allocation rules for multifunctional processes, and whether avoided emissions can be allocated to specific companies in the value chain. The provided guidance is often broad and the documents are not aligned on all points, such as the possibility to "claim" avoided emissions by a single company. Within the project SCORELCA 2018-03, Schrijvers et al. (2019) conducted a review and provided recommendations in line with scientific practices in conducting an LCA. A consortium of companies also provided "preliminary guidance" for the assessment of avoided emissions, focusing on the recycling and waste recovery sector<fnref n="1" />. They recommend a structured procedure for the assessment of avoided emissions. These recommendations highlighted important considerations regarding methodological choices and transparency of communication, while a **range of methodological options remain open for application by the company** or LCA practitioner.

In a technical note, ADEME underlined that this lack of consensus on methodological choices will result in a lack of credibility and comparability of avoided emission claims (ADEME 2020). ADEME emphasised the need for a calculation method that is homogeneous, shared, and acknowledged by companies, public authorities, and stakeholders. Therefore, a logical continuation of earlier reviews and recommendations is the establishment of consensus among actors in the recycling and waste

<footnote n="1">¹ Veolia, Veolia Research & Innovation, Quantis, Gold Standard Foundation, WBCSD, Paprec, Séché Environnement and Suez, Preliminary Guidance for Avoided Emissions Accounting in Waste Management and Recycling, 2019.</footnote>
valorisation sector on the methodological requirements for the evaluation of "avoided emissions". The calculation and agreement on (avoided) Emission Factors enables to put these requirements into practice.

In response to this need, the association RECORD launched a project in 2021 (further referred to as "V1 of the RECORD project") with the following objectives:

- Construct a common methodological framework, based on consensus among actors in recycling and waste valorisation value chains, as well as affiliated stakeholders. The methodological framework contains **requirements and detailed recommendations** allowing for the quantification of avoided emissions, especially in comparison to reference scenarios,

- Collectively validate **avoided Emission Factors** ("Reference Emission Factors") following the prescribed methodology, specifically for energetic valorisation and different recycled materials in the European and the French context,

- Collectively validate allocation keys to **attribute avoided emissions among value-chain actors**,

- Formulate recommendations allowing for a **credible and transparent communication of avoided emissions**

The project report contains a comprehensive overview of the state of the art on recommendations on the evaluation of avoided emissions and its application to the waste valorization sector. The resulting guide and emission factors were published by RECORD (2022).

Within the guide of V1 of the RECORD project, avoided emissions<fnref n="2" /> are defined as "**GHG emission reductions resulting from the implementation of the evaluated solution, compared to a reference scenario**", as illustrated in Figure 1. They should be assessed over the entire life cycle of the solution. The scope of the methodological guide is illustrated in Figure 2, which summarises the steps that are conducted in an "avoided emissions evaluation" and the methodological choices on which a consensus was established within the project.

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 1** Assessment of avoided emissions from a solution compared to a reference scenario (RECORD, 2022)</figcaption></figure>

<footnote n="2">² Note that a distinction could be made between "avoided emissions" and "avoided impacts". Avoided impacts are often interpreted as the environmental benefits generated in other product life cycles, as the result of the inclusion of a multifunctional process in a product life cycle under study. A study on avoided emissions does not aim to quantify the emissions of a specific product life cycle, but instead evaluates the total emissions and benefits of an implemented solution, which could take place in multiple product life cycles.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>Figure 2 Overview of the scope of the guide to evaluate avoided emissions developed in V1 of the RECORD project (RECORD 2022)</figcaption></figure>

Since the finalisation of the first version of the RECORD guide, members of RECORD have had the opportunity to test the guide and the associated Reference Emission Factors. During this testing phase, it appeared that several exchanges were necessary with the authors of the guide, to clarify methodological steps and questions regarding the used and calculated data. As these interactions were done on a bilateral basis, questions may still arise by other potential users of the guide.

For the harmonized evaluation of avoided emissions, it must be avoided that the methodological guide lead room for varying interpretations. The application of the guide must be as much as possible standardized. Furthermore, the value of the guide is increased when it becomes widely used. To enable this, its application must be simple, even though the assessment of avoided emissions is often a complex exercise.

## 1.2. Updates of the RECORD guide

The following updates have been made in V2 of the RECORD guide to assess avoided emissions:

- Additional guidance has been formulated on the modelling of specific types of multifunctional processes (Chapter 2)

- A step-by-step procedure has been developed (Chapter 3) that accompanies a practitioner to calculate avoided emissions of a solution

- An Excel calculation template is developed, which can be used to calculate avoided emissions, starting from a company's primary data up to obtaining a result

- Three Reference Emission Factors (REFs) have been updated: steel, PET, and paper. Data sources have been updated, and the Excel format of the REFs are aligned with the calculation template. These REFs may be used to calculate the impacts of the reference scenario in which these materials are produced.
- The methodology is applied in detail on an illustrative case study (the recycling of PET). Furthermore, it is shown how a study can be set-up in the case of energy recovery, and how REFs may be combined, e.g. in the assessment of avoided emissions of the production of Solid Recovered Fuel (Chapter 4)

## 1.3. Structure of the guide

This report is built up as follows:

- Chapter 2: Guide scope and methodological choices

There is not a single correct way to evaluate avoided emissions. This chapter presents the methodological choices that are made during a consensus-building process.

- Chapter 3: Step-by-step procedure to evaluate avoided emissions

Via a stepwise procedure, it is presented how avoided emissions can be assessed in a case study. It is demonstrated how the methodology is applied starting with the formulation of the objective of a study, up to the calculation of avoided emissions. It is also demonstrated how an accompanying Excel template can be used to facilitate the assessment process.

- Chapter 4: Reference Emission Factors

An overview is provided of the existing Reference Emission Factors, which may be used to assess the emissions of processes in a reference scenario. Furthermore, an explanation is given on their use, and on how these REFs may be combined in the assessment of avoided emissions of Solid Recovered Fuel.

- Chapter 5: Conclusions

An overview is given of the results of this work, the limitations, and potential next steps.

Throughout this guide, text in different colours is presented. The general text in black presents the specific methodological choices and perspectives recommended in this guide. These recommendations are based on a consensus among RECORD members, allowing for a common and shared approach.

Text in purple refers to the implementation of the methodology into an Excel template. This template is developed as an annex to the guide, and facilitates the implementation of the method and the corresponding calculations.

The paragraphs in green show how the recommended methodology is applied in an illustrative example. The example that is used as a "red thread" throughout the guide is the use of recycled plastics, e.g. from end-of-life bottles, for the manufacture of cars. Table 1 shows the solution that each actor in this value chain can implement and evaluate in an analysis of avoided emissions. In this illustrative example, the perspective is taken from the manufacturer of a car with recycled PET.

Finally, the paragraphs underlined in orange indicate other methodological choices or modelling strategies that can be used in an assessment of avoided emissions. However, these strategies have not been favored by RECORD members and are not developed in more detail in this guide.
<table><caption>Table 1 Different actors in the value chain of recycled PET from end-of-life bottles and the potentially implemented recycling solution (RECORD, 2022)</caption><thead><tr><td>Actor of the value chain</td><td>Evaluated solution</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Manufacturer of a recyclable bottle</td><td>Make a recyclable bottle instead of an alternative bottle</td></tr><tr><td>User of a recyclable bottle</td><td>Use a recyclable bottle instead of an alternative bottle</td></tr><tr><td>Bottle recycler</td><td>Treat a plastic bottle through a recycling process instead of an alternative process</td></tr><tr><td>Manufacturer of a car with recycled PET</td><td>Making a car with recycled PET instead of an alternative material</td></tr><tr><td>User of a car with recycled PET</td><td>Use a car with recycled PET instead of an alternative product</td></tr><tr><td>End-of-life vehicle waste manager</td><td>Treating a car with end-of-life recycled PET instead of an alternative product</td></tr></tbody></table>
## 2. Guide scope and methodological choices

This chapter focuses on methodological choices that have been made by partners of the RECORD project, in a consensus-building process.

### 2.1. LCA modelling choices

In the development of the methodological guide, an LCA approach is defined. This is necessary, as it influences several methodological choices, such as the definition of a reference scenario, the system boundaries, and the modelling of multifunctional processes. The two existing approaches, commonly used and mutually exclusive, are attributional LCA and consequential LCA, which are described in more detail below.

#### 2.1.1. LCA approach

In LCA, two approaches can be distinguished: attributional LCA and consequential LCA. An attributional LCA aims to provide an overview of the environmental impacts of the products and processes involved in the value chain of the evaluated solution (for example, the product, process, technology, or action of a company). These environmental impacts can be directly associated with the evaluated solution, and are, via allocation rules, attributed to the solution. Consequential LCAs aim to assess the consequences of a solution. The processes that are affected by the solution (for example, the increased implementation of a technology or the increase in sales of a product) are identified and the environmental impacts generated by these changes in an economic system broader than the value chain of the process studied are evaluated. The calculated environmental impacts can take place outside the solution value chain, for example via market-mediated effects, such as substitution or rebound effects (e.g. a change in consumption patterns due to the use of a product at a lower price or higher energy efficiency).

In an attributional LCA (A-LCA), it could be assessed that a recycled material may be associated with lower GHG emissions compared to a primary material.

> Example of an A-LCA analysis from the recycler's perspective: The GHG emissions from the PET recycling process are lower than the sum of the emissions from the PET incineration and primary PET production process. The difference can be considered "avoided emissions".

In a consequential LCA (C-LCA), it is identified which processes are affected by the increased use or supply of a recycled material. This could be an increase in the productivity of recycling processes. However, it could also be a decrease in recycling in other value chains, where more raw materials are now needed or where more alternative waste treatment processes are used, respectively. A C-LCA assesses which processes are impacted by the solution, within and beyond the value chain, and then how GHG emissions evolve due to the increased use or supply of recycled materials, considering market dynamics.

> Example of a C-LCA analysis from the perspective of a car manufacturer: The increased use of recycled PET in vehicles can lead to an increase in the recycling of PET bottles and can avoid other end-of-life treatment processes, such as incineration. In this case, the substituted emissions from incineration can be considered "avoided emissions". However, it is possible that the increased use of recycled PET in vehicles will not lead to an increase in bottle recycling, for example if all economically recyclable bottles are already recovered elsewhere. Instead, other sectors will use less recycled PET and instead use an alternative material (e.g., primary PET). In this case, the avoided emissions may not be observed and the use of recycled PET in cars will result in the same GHG emissions as the use of primary PET in cars.

In this methodological guide, it has been chosen to use an **attributional approach** to quantify the avoided emissions. This makes it possible to assess avoided emissions using the same methodology as direct and indirect emissions related to the recycling process, whether they are assessed in the context of an EPD or for corporate carbon footprint reporting – which also follow an attributional approach.
approach. This allows for a transparent assessment of GHG emissions (generated by the recycling process) and GHGs being reduced (i.e. GHG emissions that would occur in the event of non-implementation of the recycling process). The limitation of an attributional approach is that only the reduced GHG footprint of a predefined value chain is assessed and potential increases in GHG emissions in other value chains of the global economy are excluded from the analysis.

A consequential LCA is recommended if the study commissioner is interested in the contribution of a solution to the reduction of global GHG emissions, rather than the potential reduction of emissions from a specific value chain. While a C-LCA provides a more complete view of a solution's environmental benefits, the processes affected by the solution that take place beyond the solution's value chain cannot be traced back to the company implementing the solution, making this analysis more complex, uncertain, and disconnected from the company's sphere of influence. However, the assessment of avoided emissions could benefit from a (qualitative) analysis of potential consequences on a global scale, through the inclusion of a consequence tree as recommended (ADEME, 2022b; RETHORE et al., 2021) for example.

### 2.1.2. Multifunctional processes

**Consideration of recycling or energy recovery as a multifunctional process**

The waste recycling and recovery processes are multifunctional: they perform the function of a waste treatment service and the function of material/energy production. From a product system perspective in LCA, this poses a problem in the assessment of avoided emissions, as it becomes necessary to determine which emissions generated by the recycling process (and potentially other processes) should be attributed to the life cycle that makes the end-of-life product available, and what part of the emissions goes to the user of the recovered materials/energy. This problem is illustrated in Figure 3.

*In the example of the production of recycled plastic for use in cars, how does the GHG footprint of cars change if recycled plastics are used instead of other materials (e.g. primary plastics)? What emissions related to the recycling process can be attributed to cars, and what emissions to plastic bottles?*

In an attributional LCA, there are two strategies for modeling this multifunctionality:

1. Application of system expansion (which is prioritized by ISO 14044 (ISO 2006))

2. Distribution of emissions on the recycling chain (and potentially other life-cycle processes, such as the primary production of materials) between the life cycle that provides the waste and the life cycle that uses the recovered materials/energy according to an allocation criterion.

In accordance with the priority strategy of ISO 14044, **system expansion is applied** in this guide. This has the following consequences:

* The functional unit of the evaluated solution covers the two functions of the recycling/recovery process: the treatment of a product at the end of its life and the recovery of materials/energy

* Avoided emissions from a recycling/recovery solution represent a reduction in emissions in two life cycles: the life cycle in which recovered waste is supplied and the life cycle in which recovered materials/energy are used, as illustrated in Figure 3.

*Recycling PET results in lower GHG emissions than alternative PET production, due to the low emissions of the recycling process. This results in avoided emissions in the life cycle of the car. However, the recycling process also avoids emissions in the life cycle of end-of-life recycled plastic bottles, as the recycling process replaces another end-of-life treatment process that would have been used. Therefore, the evaluated solutions presented in Table 1 all avoid emissions over both life cycles: that of cars and that of plastic bottles.*
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 3** Assessment of avoided emissions through the use of recycled plastics in car manufacturing (RECORD, 2022).</figcaption></figure>

Processes in green frames are assigned to the life cycle of a car, processes in blue frames are assigned to the life cycle of a bottle. The process in the orange frame could be partially attributed to the life cycle of a bottle, and partially to the life cycle of a car (RECORD, 2022).

According to the system expansion approach, the calculated avoided emissions from a waste recycling or recovery solution reflect emission reductions along the value chain. Avoided emissions are not attributed to specific product life cycle stages. If the study is done to assess the reduction of GHG emissions from a specific product's life cycle stage through the implementation of a solution, an allocation method will need to be applied to identify the emissions attributed to the life cycle of the specific product.

## Other multifunctional processes

Once system expansion is applied to the analysed solution, other cases of multifunctionality may still be present. This may be the case in the following examples:

<table><caption>**Figure 4** Examples of multifunctional processes within the analysed solution and reference scenario (RECORD, 2024)</caption><thead><tr><td>Analysed solution</td><td>Reference scenario</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><ul><li>During the sorting, multiple waste flows may be generated that can subsequently be valorised (e.g. the separation of PET, paper, and steel)</li><li>Energy is recovered during the treatment of reject materials</li></ul></td><td><ul><li>Recycling is a relevant treatment or production technology in the specific geography under study</li><li>Energy recovery is an alternative treatment activity for recycling</li></ul></td></tr></tbody></table>

The following steps ensure that the analysed solution and the reference scenario have the same quantified functional outputs.
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>Figure 5 Strategies to model multifunctional processes in the analysed solution and reference scenario (RECORD, 2024)</figcaption></figure>

* An example of partitioning reflecting underlying physical relationships is when a truck collects both PET and paper waste. The fuel consumption and emissions of the truck can be partitioned among the PET and paper waste, according to their mass or volume, based on the property that limits the truck load. If 70% of the transported mass/volume represents PET waste, 70% of the fuel use and transport emissions are attributed to PET waste.

** Economic allocation is favoured over mass allocation, as it better reflects the underlying motivation to optimize the recovery of certain flows. Furthermore, economic allocation is consistent with the cut-off system model of ecoinvent, which is recommended as a source of background data.

*** This approach corresponds to the use of Module D in EN 15804 (CEN 2012), which is a consensual multi-material approach to model end-of-life valorization of waste. System reduction, often called
"system expansion with substitution" is a mathematical construct. Instead of adding the average market mix for the valorised flows in the relevant geographic area to the analysed solution, these processes are subtracted from the reference scenario. System reduction is only applied to the net output of the reference scenario, i.e. the amount of valorized material/energy produced at the end of life minus the amount of valorized material/energy consumed at the production stage. If the net output is negative (the end-of-life recycling rate is lower than the recycled content), it is recommended to put the net output to zero, for a conservative calculation of emissions of the reference scenario.

**** The end-of-waste stage is reached when the valorized flow complies with all the following criteria (CEN 2012):

- the recovered material, product or construction element is commonly used for specific purposes;

- a market or demand, identified e.g. by a positive economic value, exists for such a recovered material, product or construction element;

- the recovered material, product or construction element fulfils the technical requirements for the specific purposes and meets the existing legislation and standards applicable to products;

- the use of the recovered material, product or construction element will not lead to overall adverse environmental or human health impacts.

Note: The "specific purpose" in this context is not restricted to the function of a certain product but can also be applied to a material serving as input to the production process of another product or of energy.

NB. It is important to consider that "system reduction" distorts the calculation of "total" impacts of one single scenario. Only the absolute difference between the analysed solution and the reference scenario remains intact and may be communicated.

### 2.1.3. Other methodological choices

Methodological choices that are not further specified in this guide (e.g. the modelling of biogenic CO2 emissions) shall be transparently described and justified and applied consistently to the analysed solution and the reference scenario.

## 2.2. Solutions covered by the scope of the guide

This guide was developed to provide methodological guidance in the analysis of "avoided emissions" from waste recycling and recovery systems. Avoided emissions are GHG emission reductions that are made possible by implementing a solution (such as production from recycled materials or end-of-life recycling), compared to a reference scenario.

Avoided emissions can be calculated for a solution implemented in the past, for a solution implemented in the same year as the analysis, or for a solution that is envisaged to be implemented in the future. This guide focuses on the analysis of solutions implemented "today", which means in the recent past or in the near future. The methodology could also be applicable for solutions implemented in the past, provided that the necessary data are accessible. Solutions to be implemented in the distant future require a "prospective" analysis, which is not analyzed by this guide. The evaluation of a solution that will be implemented in more than 3 years is considered a "prospective evaluation". This type of analysis can follow the recommendations of (Bouvart and Hache, 2017).

## 2.3. Reference scenario

Avoided emissions are calculated by comparing the scenario with the implementation of the analyzed solution with a reference scenario. As shown in Figure 6, each actor in the value chain in a recycling/recovery chain could calculate avoided emissions. To increase the credibility and comparability of the values obtained, the avoided emissions calculated by each actor in the value chain are ideally based on the same reference scenario.

The reference scenario provides the same functionality as the analysed solution. All assumptions made in the construction of the reference scenario should be described in a transparent manner.

Each actor in the recycling value chain, as shown in Figure 6, can assess the avoided emissions of the solution they have implemented. In theory, each actor can choose a different reference scenario, given
its context. For example, the plastic bottle manufacturer could make a comparison with steel or glass bottles, the recycler could compare the production of recycled PET with the production of primary PET, and the car user could compare the car in which the recycled PET is used with a car that uses polyamide. This could lead to a different calculation of "avoided emissions" for each actor in the value chain.

In order to harmonise the assessment of "avoided emissions" between actors in the value chain, the following aspects must be taken into account. The reference scenario is **the most representative situation possible** for the market without implementing the solution based on the following considerations:

1. The reference scenario refers to the life cycle of the **same type of material** that is processed at the end of its life and/or is produced, where the distinction is made between the recycling/recovery solution and generic material flows (i.e. recyclable PET bottles should be compared with average PET bottles and recycled PET should be compared with average market PET)

If the goal is to compare two products that offer the same function and use different materials, then a life cycle assessment is recommended. Indeed, such a comparison goes beyond the assessment of the emissions avoided through a recycling/recovery solution and is therefore not covered by this guide. A distinction can be made between the selection of average processes or marginal processes in the reference scenario. Marginal processes reflect the processes most likely to be replaced by the solution. For example, it could be argued that the use of recycled PET in a car only replaces the primary production of PET and does not compete with other recycling routes. The selection of marginal processes in the reference scenario makes it possible to calculate the avoided emissions that are likely to be achieved by the solution. The identification of marginal processes requires a market analysis compatible with a C-LCA approach. These processes need to be justified if used as a reference scenario.

2. The processes included in the reference scenario reflect **the market-weighted combination of processes implemented during the reference year** (i.e., this mix includes recycling/recovery processes that already existed prior to the implementation of the solution).

In this guide, the **average processes** are selected for the reference scenario. This is a conservative approach, reflecting the fact that it is often unclear which processes will actually decrease their activity based on the implementation of a solution. The selection of average processes avoids optimistic assumptions in the identification of the marginal process leading to an overestimation of avoided emissions. However, the disadvantage of considering average processes is that the calculated avoided emissions may be underestimated or overestimated compared to the avoided emissions that are likely to occur. In practice, by following this guide, a solution only generates avoided emissions if it performs better than the market average, which stimulates the continuous development of low-carbon solutions.

In addition to a comparison with average processes on the market, a comparison can be made with marginal processes in a sensitivity analysis, under the following conditions:

* The relevance of marginal processes must be justified. The marginal processes considered should be the most likely marginal processes.

* The selection procedure of marginal processes must be justified, for example, by market research

* The robustness of the scenario (the likelihood that other processes will be substituted in place of the marginal process identified as likely) must be justified.

3. **The smallest possible market** is considered (for example, if the waste treated by the recycling/recovery sector is collected in France, then the French market must be considered for alternative waste treatment. If the recycled material is sold in Europe, then the European market for the consumption of the generic material is considered).
4. The reference scenario considers the market at the time of implementation of the solution, as well as future regulations confirmed at that time provided that they are put in place in the near future, which is compatible with the avoidance period considered. Apart from the evolution of regulations in the near future, **the market is considered "static"**. Potential changes in technology and market composition, as well as external factors (e.g. climate, demographics, human behaviour) are not taken into account in the development of the reference scenario, as the calculation is restricted to the recent and near future.

## 2.4. Period of validity of "emission factors"

An analysis of avoided emissions can be simplified by the use of "emission factors", which represent the GHG emissions of specific processes included in the analysis. From the moment of the calculation of these "emission factors", developments on the market can take place that limit the representativeness of these factors.

The validity of the emission factors calculated in this guide is **5 years**, reflecting a balance between rapidly changing and relatively stable sectors, and delays in the availability of data sources used in the development of these emission factors. After 5 years, the relevant parameters (e.g. the energy mix) must be updated to ensure the representativeness of the emission factors.

Potential users of emission factors should be advised on the interpretation of the representativeness of the calculated emission factors, specifying that the regulations and technologies considered in the reference scenario are subject to change. **A sensitivity analysis with the best technologies available on the market (instead of average technologies) is recommended.**

## 2.5. Impact Categories

This guide focuses on assessing avoided GHG emissions. However, to comply with ISO 14044, potential trade-offs with other impact categories should also be assessed.

At a minimum, it is recommended that the following impact categories be assessed using the Environmental Footprint (EF) method (Zampori and Pant 2019):

* Climate change, total;

* Acidification;

* Eutrophication, freshwater;

* Water use;

* Resource use, fossils; and

* Resource use, minerals and metals.

Note that the EF 3.1 method as applied in the calculation of the Emission Factors in Chapter 5.1 calculates the total of fossil, biogenic, and land use and land transformation-induced GHG emissions. However, only biogenic methane is characterized. Biogenic carbon dioxide and biogenic carbon monoxide have a characterisation factor of 0, also in the category "biogenic carbon".

The used impact assessment method and version number (e.g. IPCC 20XX, EF X.X) must be communicated with the study results. A disclaimer shall be added to all communication of avoided GHG emissions stating that either trade-offs with other environmental problems may take place, or that (no) trade-offs are identified in the study (if other impact categories are evaluated as well).

## 2.6. Attribution to actors in the value chain

Several actors play a role in the recycling chain that transforms an end-of-life product into a valuable material or energy. The decision to implement a waste recycling or recovery solution is not the action of a single isolated actor in the value chain. For this, it is necessary to have recyclable waste, recycling technology and a market for recycled/recovered materials and energy. The involvement of each actor
in the value chain is therefore essential for the sustainability of the recycling sector. Therefore, each actor in the value chain could assess the environmental benefits of engaging or not in the recycling chain. Figure 6 shows the different points of view that each actor in the waste recycling or recovery chain could take to evaluate in a study the avoided emissions the actor induces.

There may be a desire for individual actors in the value chain to assess their specific contribution to avoided emissions, potentially with the aim of later aggregating all avoided emissions generated by a company in a specific year. This guide does not encourage the attribution of avoided emissions to certain actors in the value chain. Recycling may be limited, inter alia, by collection costs, costs related to the separation of waste streams, the availability and technical maturity of recycling technologies, as well as the existence of applications in which recycled materials can be used, potentially at a higher price or at a lower quality than substituted alternative materials, etc. The dependence of the success of the recycling/recovery sector on the involvement of all actors in the value chain is shown in Figure 6. From a financial point of view, it may be justifiable to identify certain actors that can claim their specific contribution to avoided emissions. However, this guide applies an approach based on Life Cycle Assessment, which is focused on physical flows. Such an allocation is then less straightforward to justify.

Therefore, the proper functioning of a recycling value chain requires the contribution and significant efforts of multiple actors, which could be overlooked via an allocation of avoided emissions to specific actors in the value chain. Thus, **this guide does not recommend attributing avoided emissions to individual actors**. Instead, each actor can communicate that "*our participation in the recycling/recovery sector contributes to a cumulative reduction in the GHG emissions of the actors involved of X tonne of CO2 equivalent per year*".

For this reason, the calculation of avoided emissions as defined in this guide is not intended to be used in potential certification/labelling schemes or the distribution of potential costs/credits of GHG emissions among actors in the value chain.

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 6** Presentation of the point of view of each actor in the value chain who could thus assess the avoided emissions it induces (RECORD, 2022)</figcaption></figure>

## 2.7. Communication

Avoided emissions can be assessed in different contexts, such as the GHG assessment of a project, process, or portfolio of solutions. **They are systematically reported separately from the emissions induced by the product/process/project/organization and are to be distinguished from a carbon footprint or a GHG balance**, in line with international consensus.

In order for the communication of "avoided emissions" to be credible, transparent, and not misinterpreted, the communication requirements of ISO 14044 (ISO 2006) and ISO 14020 (ISO 2002) could be followed, as outlined by (Schrijvers et al. 2019). This section presents the types of claims that could be made regarding "avoided emissions" evaluated by this guide, and how this information is best communicated to different audiences.
### 2.7.1. Formulation of avoided emission claims

This guide to evaluate avoided emissions preconises methodological choices that influence the type of claim that can be made regarding the evaluated "avoided emissions", which are summarized in Table 2.

<table><caption>Table 2 Limitation of claims regarding avoided emissions based on methodological choices (RECORD, 2022)</caption><thead><tr><td>Methodological choice</td><td>What can be claimed</td><td>What cannot be claimed</td><td>Why not?</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Attributional LCA</td><td>Avoided emissions are reduced GHG emissions of a specific entity</td><td>Avoided emissions are reduced global GHG emissions</td><td>This would require a consequential LCA</td></tr><tr><td>System expansion</td><td>Avoided emissions are reduced GHG emissions of all entities involved in the removal of a waste and the production of a valuable intermediate product</td><td>Avoided emissions are reduced GHG emissions of:<ul><li>A product</li><li>A single product life cycle</li><li>A single value-chain actor</li></ul></td><td>This would require an allocation of GHG emissions</td></tr></tbody></table>

Based on the above limitations, the claim of "avoided emissions" should clarify that the avoided GHG emissions refer to the whole recycling/waste valorisation chain, and that it is this chain of actors that benefit from reduced GHG emissions. Only emissions attributed to the value-chain actors in the solution scenario are accounted for, and emissions/benefits beyond these system boundaries are excluded.

The claim of "avoided emissions" must be accompanied by an **overview of the limitations of the study**, which provides an interpretation of the robustness of the results based on at least the following elements:

- Study hypotheses

- System boundaries

- Data sources

- Data gaps

- Data uncertainty

- Impact categories and used emission factors

Additional sensitivity analyses may be conducted to support the robustness of the avoided emission claim.

### 2.7.2. Communication of avoided emission claims

The communicated information regarding the calculated avoided emissions should be adapted to the targeted audiences. In this section, a distinction is made between LCA experts and a non-expert (professional) audience. It must be noted that, to be compliant with ISO 14044, **all communication with a third party requires a critical review by an independent panel**. A critical review by external experts is recommended to evaluate the correct implementation of the methodology, which could protect the commissioning company against potential external allegations regarding the study results.
## Communication to non-expert audiences

All audiences should be given access to the full report of the analysis, in which the functional unit, relevant assumptions, and the applied LCA approach and its corresponding limitations are described (Schrijvers et al., 2019). However, the initial information provided to non-expert audiences can be reduced to a minimum level of communication requirements:

- Total amount of avoided emissions

- Description of the analysed solution

- Description of the reference scenario

- Reference year

Furthermore, a reminder must be communicated that avoided emissions are not to be subtracted from a carbon footprint.

Avoided emissions can be communicated visually via a figure such as presented in Figure 1.

## Communication to LCA experts and supplement to full report

If the communication is targeted to LCA experts, more information should be provided up-front to allow the audience to determine the relevance of the study results. Table 13 in the Annex provides a communication template that summarizes the most relevant study parameters required for the interpretation of the results. It is recommended to **present this template in the executive summary of the full report**, for all audiences. The template and the full report can be complemented with additional communication elements as described in Section 5 of ISO 14044 (ISO 2006).

## Corporate reporting

A company can communicate about avoided emissions in the context of corporate reporting under the following conditions:

- A critical review of the study report is conducted by an independent review panel

- To avoid a confusion with the corporate GHG balance:

- Avoided emissions may never be subtracted from the company's GHG balance

- Avoided emissions must be presented in a separate chapter or section than the company's GHG balance

- The minimum communication requirements for non-expert audiences must be followed, and access to the full report and critical review must be provided

Aggregating the avoided emissions of multiple solutions of a company may give the impression that the company's actions only result in avoided emissions, whereas other actions (that are not mentioned or assessed) may result in increased GHG emissions. Therefore, if the company aggregates the avoided emissions of multiple solutions, an overview must be provided of the solutions included in the aggregation. The total avoided emissions may be communicated as "the solutions 1, 2, and 3 implemented by this company contribute to a total avoided emission of X tons of GHG emissions within their respective value chains."
## 3. Step-by-step procedure to evaluate avoided emissions

This chapter presents a step-by-step procedure to evaluate avoided emissions, comparing an analysed solution with a reference scenario. The procedure follows the guidance of V1 of the RECORD project which is updated in Chapter 2 of this report.

The steps of the procedure are summarised in Figure 7.

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>Figure 7 Overview of the step-by-step procedure to evaluate avoided emissions (RECORD, 2024)</figcaption></figure>
## 3.1. Formulate the objective and target audience(s) of the assessment

The first step in a study to assess the avoided emissions of a product/service/project is the definition of the objective of the study and the target audience for the results. This guide does not define a specific objective. Instead, a non-exhaustive set of potential objectives and target audiences that can be foreseen in a study on avoided emissions is presented in Figure 8. The potential target audiences foreseen in this guide are investors and extra-financial rating agencies, actors in the value chain, decision-makers, NGOs, consumers, society as a whole, as well as (internal) employees.

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>Figure 8 : Presentation of the different possible objectives and target audiences for an assessment of avoided emissions (RECORD, 2022)</figcaption></figure>

Following the same example as introduced in the previous chapter, the car manufacturer could study avoided emissions to decide whether this change fits into the company's low-GHG emissions strategy. In addition, this actor could share the information with decision-makers (e.g. in grant applications), or their investors in order to highlight the company's efforts to reduce its GHG emissions.
## 3.2. Describe the analysed solution

### 3.2.1 Define the functional unit of the assessment

The functional unit (FU) is the quantified basis for comparison between the analysed solution and the reference scenario. The functional unit is quantified based on the **implementation of the analysed solution by the value-chain actor that evaluates its avoided emissions for one year**. This allows for the inclusion of variability in electricity consumption, waste streams, etc. at an annual level. However, the results can be expressed "per kg" of waste treated or material produced, specifying that the results represent an annual average. **Avoided emissions are therefore expressed over a period of one year.**

*An example of a functional unit formulated by a car manufacturer that implements the solution of using recycled PET is "the use of PET for the production of panels for 300 000 cars", representing the annual demand for recycled PET by the car manufacturer.*

### 3.2.2. Draw a process flow diagram

A process flow diagram must be drawn of the analysed solution:

- Include at a minimum the processes and flows indicated in Figure 9.

- Highlight the processes that are within the boundaries of the organisation that conducts the assessment.

- If needed, extend the diagram to include the processes that are within the organisational boundaries of the organisation that conducts the assessment (e.g. manufacturing of a product that is recyclable at its end of life).

- Include the functional unit at the relevant location in the diagram.

The completed process flow diagram for the PET recycling example is provided in Figure 10. A process flow diagram for an analysed solution that focuses on the recovery of energy is provided in Figure 65.

### 3.2.3. Provide information on each flow and process within the flow diagram

Information must be provided for each element within the process flow diagram. Figure 11 provides a list of the required information.

**To facilitate the subsequent evaluation of avoided emissions, the required information can be directly entered into the Excel template provided as Annex to this guide. This is illustrated in Figure 12 for the process flow diagram of Figure 10.**

Figure 13 shows that the template can be adapted to cases of recovery of raw materials or energy.
<figure><img src="image_10.png" /><figcaption>Figure 9 Processes and flows to be included in the process flow diagram of the analysed solution (RECORD, 2024)</figcaption></figure>
Analysed solution

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /><figcaption>Figure 10 Process flow diagram of the analysed solution of the PET recycling example, containing the minimum required processes and flows (Illustration of step 2.2). Processes filled in green refer to processes within the organisational boundaries of the actor that conducts the assessment in the illustrative example (RECORD, 2024)</figcaption></figure>
<table><caption>Figure 11 Overview of required information for each element in the process flow diagram of the analysed solution. *The flows "Waste", "Sorted material" and the valorized outputs are expressed relative to the Functional Unit. (RECORD, 2024)</caption><tr><td>Activity that supplies the waste ( "User 1")</td><td><ul><li>Geographic location</li><li>Reference year</li><li>Single actor (e.g. one company) or multiple actors (e.g. households)</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>"Waste"</td><td><ul><li>Quantity*</li><li>Location (e.g. at local collection site)</li><li>Characteristics<ul><li>Single material or mix of materials (« paper » or « household waste »)</li><li>Which materials are present in the mix and in what ratio ? (e.g. paper, PE, PP)</li></ul></li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>Collection</td><td><ul><li>Collection method (e.g. curb side collection, drop-off centres, or specialized programs such as for hazardous waste or electronics).</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>Sorting</td><td><ul><li>Sorting technology</li><li>Geographic location</li><li>Specify outputs of sorting process<ul><li>Types and quantities of valorized material flows (e.g. different types of plastic, paper, steel, aluminium, etc.)</li><li>Types and quantities of reject flows</li></ul></li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>Treatment of reject flows</td><td><ul><li>Treatment technology (e.g. incineration with/without energy recovery, landfilling, recycling by other parties)</li><li>Valorized outputs (materials and/or energy) from the treatment process (type and quantity)</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>« Sorted material »</td><td><ul><li>Quantity*</li><li>Characteristics<ul><li>Single material or mix of materials (e.g. multiple types of plastic)</li><li>Which materials are present in the mix and in what ratio ? (different types of paper and cardboard, or only "graphic paper" / different types of plastics or only HDPE)</li><li>Form (e.g. ground, baled, etc.)</li></ul></li><li>Repeat if multiple valorized flows are obtained from the sorting process</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>"Pre-treatment of waste" and "Preparation of recycled material/energy carrier":</td><td><ul><li>Geographic location</li><li>Describe technology</li><li>Specify outputs of valorization process<ul><li>Types and quantities of valorized material flows (e.g. different types of plastic, paper, steel, aluminium, etc.) and energy carriers</li><li>Types and quantities of reject flows</li></ul></li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>"Secondary raw material"</td><td><ul><li>Quantity*</li><li>Characteristics<ul><li>Type (e.g. paper, cardboard, LDPE, PP)</li><li>Relevant material properties</li><li>Potential uses (application, geography)</li></ul></li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>"Energy carrier"</td><td><ul><li>Physical quantity (mass or volume at defined pressure)*</li><li>Characteristics<ul><li>Type (e.g. biogas, solid combustible waste)</li><li>Relevant material properties</li><li>Potential uses</li></ul></li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>"Energy flow"</td><td><ul><li>Quantity of heat (in MJ)*</li><li>Quantity of electricity (in MJ or kWh)*</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>Activity that uses the recovered material/energy:</td><td><ul><li>Geographic location</li><li>Reference year</li><li>Single actor (e.g. one company) or multiple actors (e.g. an entire sector)</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>Each transport activity</td><td><ul><li>Quantity transported (in mass or volume)*</li><li>Transport mode</li><li>Distance</li></ul></td></tr></table>
<table><caption>Figure 12 Demonstration of the provision of information for each element in the process flow diagram of Figure 10 using the Excel template (RECORD, 2024)</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Process/flow</th><th rowspan="2">Required information</th><th rowspan="2">Information field</th><th rowspan="2">Source of information (e.g. estimation, internal measurements, reference document)</th><th colspan="3">Secondary PET (post-consumer)</th></tr><tr><th>Activity</th><th>Quantity (Q_activity)</th><th>Unit</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Activity that supplies the waste (User 1)</td><td>- Geographic location<br/>- Reference year<br/>- Single actor (e.g. one company) or multiple actors (e.g. households)</td><td>End-users of plastic in Europe, in 2023.</td><td>Assumption</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Input (Waste)</td><td>- Location (e.g. at local collection site of specific country)<br/>- Single actor or multiple actors<br/>- Single material or mix of materials<br/>- Material(s) present in the mix</td><td>Plastic products and parts by end-users from Europe, at user</td><td>Assumption</td><td>Quantity</td><td>4000</td><td>ton</td></tr><tr><td>Collection</td><td>- Collection method (e.g. curb side collection, drop-off centres, or specialized programs such as for hazardous waste or electronics).</td><td>Curbside collection</td><td>Assumption</td><td>Collection</td><td>4000</td><td>ton</td></tr><tr><td>Sorting</td><td>- Geographic location<br/>- Technology description<br/>- Outputs of sorting process</td><td>Sorting of PET from other recyclable materials, Europe. Other outputs of sorting process are unknown.<br/>Treatment of reject materials is integrated into ecoinvent dataset</td><td>Ecoinvent</td><td>Sorting of PET from other recyclable materials, Europe</td><td>4000</td><td>ton</td></tr><tr><td>Output of sorting process (Sorted material)</td><td>- Single material or mix of materials (e.g. multiple types of plastic)<br/>- Which materials are present in the mix and in what ratio ?<br/>- Form (e.g. ground, baled, etc.)</td><td>Sorted PET, form unknown</td><td>Assumption</td><td>Quantity</td><td>4000</td><td>ton</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Transport sorted PET from Europe</td><td>Quantity (ton)</td><td></td><td>4000</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Distance (km)</td><td></td><td>150</td><td>Estimation</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Transport mode</td><td>Truck Euro 6</td><td>Assumption</td><td>Transport by truck</td><td>600000</td><td>tkm</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>Figure 13 Flexibility in the Excel template (tab "EF Analysed solution") to model either the recovery of secondary raw material, or the recovery of energy (RECORD, 2024)</caption><tr><td>Output (Secondary raw material)</td><td>- Type of material<br/>- Relevant material properties<br/>- Application of use<br/>- Geography of use<br/>- Year of use<br/>- Type of user(s)</td><td>Secondary PET, postconsumer, mechanically recycled, used in Europe, 2023</td><td>Quantity</td><td>2800</td><td>ton</td></tr><tr><td>Output (Energy carrier)</td><td>- Type of material<br/>- Relevant material properties<br/>- Application of use<br/>- Geography of use<br/>- Year of use<br/>- Type of user(s)</td><td>NA</td><td>Quantity</td><td>NA</td><td>NA</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Combustion of energy carrier</td><td>- Geographic location<br/>- Technology description</td><td>NA</td><td>Combustion</td><td>0</td><td>ton</td></tr><tr><td>Electricity recovery rate (MJ/ton)</td><td>0</td><td>NA</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Heat recovery rate (MJ/ton)</td><td>0</td><td>NA</td><td></td><td></td></tr></table>
To collect the required information, data sources are suggested in Figure 14. The data sources are presented in order of priority, meaning that process and flow-specific information must be provided where possible.

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /><figcaption>Figure 14 Potential data sources (in order of priority) for the collection of information for each element in the process flow diagram of the analysed solution (RECORD, 2024)</figcaption></figure>
## 3.3. Describe the reference scenario

### 3.3.1. Draw a process flow diagram

Draw a process flow diagram of the reference scenario. At a minimum, the processes and flows mentioned in Figure 15 are to be included.

The process flow diagram of the reference scenario of the recycling of PET into car panels is shown in Figure 16.

<figure><img src="image_13.png" /><figcaption>Figure 15 Processes and flows to be included in the process flow diagram of the reference scenario (RECORD, 2024)</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_14.png" /><figcaption>Figure 16 Process flow diagram of the reference scenario in the illustrative example of the recycling of PET in car panels, containing the minimum required processes and flows (Illustration of step 3.3.1) (RECORD, 2024)</figcaption></figure>
### 3.3.2. Provide information on each flow and process within the flow diagram

Similar to the analysed solution, information must be provided for the processes and flows included in the process flow diagram of the reference scenario. The information that must be provided at a minimum is listed in Figure 17.

<table><caption>Figure 17 Overview of required information for each element in the process flow diagram of the reference scenario (RECORD, 2024)</caption><tr><td>Each treatment technology</td><td><ul><li>Share of each treatment technology (consider export shares to different countries if relevant) for waste supply in the defined geography and year</li><li>Geographic location</li><li>Treatment technology type (e.g. incineration with/without energy recovery, landfilling, recycling by other parties)</li><li>Valorized outputs from the treatment process</li><li>Type (materials and/or energy)</li><li>Quantity</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>Substituted raw materials</td><td><ul><li>Quantity</li><li>Characteristics</li><li>Type (e.g. paper, cardboard, LDPE, PP - identify the generic raw material flow that is most similar to the secondary raw material flow in the analysed solution, e.g. generic PET which is substituted by recycled PET)</li><li>Relevant material properties (especially in comparison to the secondary raw material flow in the analysed solution)</li><li>Consider the consumption rate of recycled and primary materials without the implementation of the analysed solution, based on the market-average recycled content.</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>Substituted energy</td><td><ul><li>Quantity</li><li>Type (e.g. heat or electricity)</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>Each production technology</td><td><ul><li>Share of each production technology (consider import shares from different countries if relevant) for consumption in the defined geography and year</li><li>Geographic location</li><li>Potential valorisation of waste (include type and quantity)</li></ul></td></tr></table>
The required information can be directly entered into the Excel sheet in the following tabs:

- "Reference scenario [material]":

- Share of treatment and production technologies (Figure 19)

- "REF [technology]" (input and output table for each technology in the reference scenario)

- Geographic location of each process within the technology

- Technology type

- Valorized outputs

At the level of each technology pathway, information is provided in a separate Excel sheet. These worksheets calculate the emission factor of each technology and are indicated in the workbook by a purple label (see Figure 20).

### Potential data sources

Figure 18 lists potential sources that may be used to provide the requested information (in no specific order). Indicate the sources for all information provided. If no information is available, assumptions may be made. Indicate which information is based on assumptions and provide sources that justify these assumptions.

Available Reference
Emission Factors

Literature studies of
scientific and/or grey
literature

Internal assessments

**Figure 18** Potential data sources for information of the processes and flows within the reference scenario (RECORD, 2024)
<table><caption>Figure 19 Data on market shares of different technologies can be directly entered into the Excel template (tab "Reference scenario [material]") (RECORD, 2024)</caption><thead><tr><th colspan="4">Reference scenario (Europe) for EoL treatment of waste</th><th colspan="4">Uncertainty technology market share</th></tr><tr><th></th><th>Technology</th><th>Market share (MR)</th><th>Source and comments</th><th>Temporal representativeness</th><th>Geographical representativeness</th><th>Data from enterprises, processes and materials under study</th><th>Total uncertainty technology market share</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="3">Reference scenario (Europe) for waste treatment of PET</td><td>Recycling</td><td>36.0%</td><td>Plastics Europe. 2024. "The Circular Economy for Plastics A European Analysis." (March).1-114. Page 71. Data represent all types of plastics.</td><td>Less than 3 years of difference to the time period of the dataset</td><td>Data from area under study</td><td>Data on related processes or materials</td><td>50%</td></tr><tr><td>Direct incineration with energy recovery</td><td>43.5%</td><td>Plastics Europe. 2024. "The Circular Economy for Plastics A European Analysis." (March).1-114. Page 71. Data represent all types of plastics.</td><td>Less than 3 years of difference to the time period of the dataset</td><td>Data from area under study</td><td>Data on related processes or materials</td><td>50%</td></tr><tr><td>Direct landfilling</td><td>20.5%</td><td>Plastics Europe. 2024. "The Circular Economy for Plastics A European Analysis." (March).1-114. Page 71. Data represent all types of plastics.</td><td>Less than 3 years of difference to the time period of the dataset</td><td>Data from area under study</td><td>Data on related processes or materials</td><td>50%</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Total</td><td>100.0%</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th colspan="8">Reference scenario (Europe) for intermediate material consumption</th></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">Reference scenario (Europe) for the consumption of PET</td><td>Bio-based and bio-attributed PET</td><td>1.0%</td><td>Plastics Europe. 2024. "The Circular Economy for Plastics A European Analysis." (March).1-114. Page 71. Data represent all types of plastics.</td><td>Less than 3 years of difference to the time period of the dataset</td><td>Data from area under study</td><td>Data on related processes or materials</td><td>50%</td></tr><tr><td>Secondary PET (pre-consumer)</td><td>5.4%</td><td>Plastics Europe. 2024. "The Circular Economy for Plastics A European Analysis." (March).1-114. Page 71. Data represent all types of plastics.</td><td>Less than 3 years of difference to the time period of the dataset</td><td>Data from area under study</td><td>Data on related processes or materials</td><td>50%</td></tr><tr><td>Secondary PET (post-consumer)</td><td>13.3%</td><td>Plastics Europe. 2024. "The Circular Economy for Plastics A European Analysis." (March).1-114. Page 71. Data represent all types of plastics.</td><td>Less than 3 years of difference to the time period of the dataset</td><td>Data from area under study</td><td>Data on related processes or materials</td><td>50%</td></tr><tr><td>Primary production</td><td>80.3%</td><td>Plastics Europe. 2024. "The Circular Economy for Plastics A European Analysis." (March).1-114. Page 71. Data represent all types of plastics.</td><td>Less than 3 years of difference to the time period of the dataset</td><td>Data from area under study</td><td>Data on related processes or materials</td><td>50%</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Total</td><td>100.0%</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>Figure 20 Example of a technology tab in the Excel template (RECORD, 2024)</caption><thead><tr><th>Process/flow</th><th>Required information</th><th>Information field</th><th>Source of information (e.g. estimation, internal measurements, reference document)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">Production</td><td>- Geographic location</td><td rowspan="2">Primary production of PET, for consumption in Europe, 2023</td><td>ecoinvent v3.9.1 (Cut-off)</td></tr><tr><td>- Technology description</td><td>ecoinvent v3.9.1 (Cut-off)</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="6">Output</td><td>- Type of material</td><td rowspan="6">Primary production of PET, for consumption in Europe, 2023</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>- Relevant material properties</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>- Application of use</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>- Geography of use</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>- Year of use</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>- Type of user(s)</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>
## 3.4. Ensure comparability of the two scenarios

### 3.4.1. Define the system boundaries of the assessment

In this step, the system boundaries of the avoided emission assessment are defined. System boundaries define which processes are included in the scenarios of the analyzed and reference solution. The boundaries of the system of the two scenarios must be comparable. The procedure of defining system boundaries is summarized in Figure 21.

All the processes that are different between the analysed solution and the reference scenario must be included within the system boundaries of the assessment. Any process that is exactly the same, may be omitted from further quantification steps, after justification (as illustrated in Figure 22 and Figure 23).

A process is the same if it has the same inputs and outputs (both in types and quantities), the same technology is used, and it takes place in the same geographical location.

The quality of recycled materials may be lower than the quality of substituted primary materials, which is often the case for recycled plastics and paper. This can impact the stages of use (e.g. by a shorter lifetime) and end of life (e.g. by reduced end-of-life recyclability, which could be illustrated by a reduced number of recycling loops). Ideally, such differences between the two scenarios are represented by the inclusion of the affected processes within the system boundaries. If this is not possible, a quality correction factor can be applied.

<figure><img src="image_15.png" /><figcaption>Figure 21 Strategies to define the system boundaries of the assessed scenarios.</figcaption></figure>

* Examples:

1) Modifications in product design were applied to make the flow « Waste » more recyclable (e.g. use of different auxiliary materials during production to create a higher quality of the waste flow),

2) Different behaviour of the user is expected (e.g. pre-sorting, pre-disassembly) to increase the recyclability of the flow.

** Example: Difference in (perceived) quality of recycled paper and virgin paper results in the use of two sheets to dry a user's hands compared to one sheet. (RECORD, 2024)
Analysed solution

System boundaries analysed solution

<figure><img src="image_16.png" /></figure>

Figure 22 Illustration of the definition of system boundaries of the analysed solution in the illustrative example of recycled PET. User 1, collection, and the manufacturing of car panels are the same as in the reference scenario (Figure 23), indicated by a transparent box. These processes are excluded from the system boundaries. If a quality correction factor is applied, a proxy process is included that represents the quality difference between the secondary and primary raw material (RECORD, 2024).
<figure><img src="image_17.png" /><figcaption>Figure 23 Illustration of the definition of system boundaries of the reference scenario in the illustrative example of recycled PET. User 1, collection, and the manufacturing of car panels are the same as in the analysed solution (Figure 22), indicated by a transparent box. These processes are excluded from the system boundaries (RECORD, 2024)</figcaption></figure>
## Application of a quality correction factor

If no information is available on quantitative differences between the two scenarios, for example due to a difference in quality between virgin and recycled materials, a **quality factor (QF)** can be applied. This factor corrects for the fact that the impacts of the analysed solution may be underestimated, due to the disregarding of life cycle stages that may be affected by a difference in the waste or raw material flows between the two scenarios.

The emission factor of the reference material (to which the recycled material is compared) is multiplied by (1 - QF), and subsequently added to the EF of the recycled material. Hence, the emission factor of the recycled material is increased<fnref n="3" />. The inclusion of the quality factor is illustrated in Figure 22.

Studies based on this guide should use, by default, the quality factors published in Table 3, which are the most conservative among the factors published by (European Commission 2020; FEDEREC 2017). Other factors may be used if this deviation is justified and described in a transparent manner. If a material is not mentioned in Table 3, a factor of 1 may be taken, if justified. The quality factor must reflect the consequences of this difference in quality throughout the life cycle of the recycled material. Examples of calculations to establish a quality factor are provided in Table 4.

<table><caption>Table 3 Values of the quality factor to be used by default. These factors are reviewed regularly by RECORD (RECORD, 2022)</caption><thead><tr><td>Recycling chain</td><td>Quality factor (European Commission 2020; FEDEREC 2017)</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Steel</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Copper</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Aluminium</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Paper</td><td>0.85</td></tr><tr><td>Cardboard</td><td>0.85</td></tr><tr><td>PET (mechanical recycling)</td><td>0.9</td></tr><tr><td>HDPE (mechanical recycling)</td><td>0.9</td></tr><tr><td>LDPE (mechanical recycling)</td><td>0.75</td></tr><tr><td>PP (mechanical recycling)</td><td>0.9</td></tr><tr><td>Plastic (chemical recycling)</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Aggregates</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Textile</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Glass</td><td>1</td></tr></tbody></table>

<footnote n="3">³ Ideally, the increase in the emission factor corresponds to the additional emissions that take place upon substitution, such as additional maintenance, increased weight during transport, a shorter lifetime, or a different end-of-life treatment process. The modelling of these downstream effects should be prioritized over the application of a quality factor.</footnote>
<table><caption>Table 4 Examples of calculation to establish a quality factor (Q) (RECORD, 2022)</caption><thead><tr><td>Consequence of a difference in quality between the recycled material and the raw material</td><td>Example of a calculation to establish a quality factor</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Limited number of recycling loops</td><td>Recycling is limited to 4 loops; recycling avoids primary production and incineration 4 out of 5 times: Q = 0.8</td></tr><tr><td>Recycled material must be mixed with raw material, but the substitution rate is 1:1</td><td>The recycled content of a final product is limited to 60%. However, the final product has the same weight as a product with a recycled content of 0%. Q = 1</td></tr><tr><td>Recycled material must be mixed with raw material, but the substitution rate is different than 1:1</td><td>1 kg of recycled material can substitute 0.8 kg of virgin material: Q = 0.8<br>In addition, stages of transport, use, and end of life of the life cycle of the recycled material must be included in the analysis, because these stages will be impacted by the difference in weight of the product</td></tr><tr><td>The recycled product has a shorter lifespan</td><td>The recycled product must be replaced twice as often as the primary product; 2 recycling cycles replace 1 raw material cycle: Q = 0.5</td></tr></tbody></table>

If several quality factors are possible, take the **most unfavorable factor**.

If the difference in quality between the recycled material and the generic material does not affect the use of a recycled material in certain applications, the assessment of avoided emissions may be limited to those specific uses of the recycled materials and it is not necessary to apply a quality correction factor. In any case, **the potential applications** of the recycled material considered in the analysis must be mentioned in the study.

It is assumed that there is a difference between the manufacturing processes of the car panels in the two scenarios. The assumption is that the same quantity of PET is used in the two scenarios, but electricity consumption is slightly higher in the analysed solution than in the reference scenario. As no data are available about the manufacturing process, the process is excluded from the system boundaries and instead a quality correction factor is applied. Following the recommendation of Table 3, a quality factor of 0.9 is applied to the recycled PET in the analysed solution. **Additional impacts are included in the analysed solution, which are calculated by multiplying (1-QF) with the EF of primary PET.**

The Quality Factor is integrated into the Excel sheet (Figure 24). It must be ensured that the output quantity is multiplied with (1-QF) and the EF of the reference raw material (e.g. the primary equivalent).
<table><caption>Figure 24 Integration of the Quality Factor into the Excel template (RECORD, 2024)</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th>Quality factor (this factor replaces the modelling of excluded downstream impacts)</th><th>Quality factor justification</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Output (Secondary raw material)</td><td><ul><li>Type of material</li><li>Rеlevant material properties</li><li>Application of use</li><li>Geography of use</li><li>Year of use</li><li>Type of user(s)</li><li>Type of material</li></ul></td><td>Secondary PET, postconsumer, mechanically recycled, used in Europe, 2023</td><td>Quantity</td><td>2800</td><td>ton</td><td>0.3</td><td>Following the recommendation of the RECORD guide. 1-QF is multiplied with emission factor of primary PET</td></tr></tbody></table>
### 3.4.2. Ensure equal functional outputs of the defined systems

It must be considered whether all functional outputs of the analysed solution and the reference scenario are equal. Functional outputs include the treatment of waste, the production of (secondary) raw materials, and recovered electricity and heat. Whereas earlier steps have been focussing on the waste treatment and the recycled raw materials or recovered energy that are the main outputs of the recycling/recovery process, additional flows of recovered energy, among others, may be present in one or both of the scenarios, due to the existence of additional multifunctional processes. These may include recycling in the reference scenario, or recovery of energy from the treatment of reject materials.

#### Functional flows in the analysed solution

In the example of the recycling of PET, several functional flows can be observed in the analysed solution (Figure 25). The flows are summarized in Table 5, and it is explained which type of allocation solution is applied to each of them, following the guidance of Chapter 2.

<table><caption>Table 5 Overview of allocation procedures applied to the functional flows in the analysed solution of the recycling of PET (RECORD, 2024)</caption><thead><tr><td>Functional flow</td><td>Applied allocation solution</td><td>Justification</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Treatment of waste plastic</td><td>System expansion: the same quantity of waste plastic treatment must be modelled in the reference scenario</td><td>The function of waste treatment is one of the key functional flows of the PET recycling process</td></tr><tr><td>Production of “other plastics” besides the flow of sorted PET from the sorting process</td><td>Partitioning reflecting underlying physical relationships: the sorting process is modelled as if only sorted PET is produced, assuming that the mass of sorted PET determines the emissions generated by the sorting process.</td><td>The quantity of “other plastics” produced could independently be varied from the quantity of sorted PET produced, based on the composition of the unsorted plastic waste.</td></tr><tr><td>Production of secondary PET</td><td>System expansion: the same quantity of raw materials must be modelled in the reference scenario</td><td>The function of raw material production is one of the key functional flows of the PET recycling process</td></tr><tr><td>Recovery of electricity and heat from the incineration of reject materials</td><td>System expansion: the same quantity of produced energy must be modelled in the reference scenario</td><td>Energy is recovered during waste valorization within the analysed solution</td></tr></tbody></table>
Analysed solution

System boundaries analysed solution

<figure><img src="image_18.png" /><figcaption>Figure 25 Overview of the functional flows of the analysed solution in the example of the recycling of PET (RECORD, 2024)</figcaption></figure>
<table><caption>Figure 27 Illustration of the quantified flow “waste” in the tab “EF analysed solution” for the example of the recycling of PET (RECORD, 2024)</caption><tr><td>Input (Waste)</td><td>- Location (e.g. at local collection site of specific country)<br/>- Single actor or multiple actors<br/>- Single material or mix of materials<br/>- Material(s) present in the mix</td><td>Plastic products and parts by end-users from Europe, at user</td><td>Assumption</td><td>Quantity</td><td>4000</td><td>ton</td></tr></table>

<table><caption>Figure 28 Illustration of the quantified flow “secondary raw material” in the tab “EF analysed solution” for the example of the recycling of PET (RECORD, 2024)</caption><tr><td>Output (Secondary raw material)</td><td>- Type of material<br/>- Relevant material properties<br/>- Application of use<br/>- Geography of use<br/>- Year of use<br/>- Type of user(s)</td><td>Secondary PET, postconsumer, mechanically recycled, used in Europe, 2023</td><td>Quantity</td><td>2800</td><td>ton</td></tr></table>

<table><caption>Figure 29 Quantification of recovered energy by a multifunctional process in the analysed solution (Tab “EF Analysed solution”) (RECORD, 2024)</caption><tr><td rowspan="3">Treatment of reject materials</td><td>- Type of reject materials<br/>- Geographic location<br/>- Technology description</td><td>PET scraps, mix of incineration with energy recovery and landfilling in Europe</td><td>Plastics Europe, 2024. "The Circular Economy for Plastics A European Analysis." (March): 1-114. Page 71</td><td>Landfilling</td><td>384</td><td>ton</td></tr><tr><td>Electricity recovery rate (MJ/ton)</td><td>2970</td><td>energy yield from ecoinvent dataset "Waste polyethylene terephthalate (Poly) treatment of waste polyethylene terephthalate, municipal incineration | Cut-off, U"</td><td>Incineration with energy recovery</td><td>816</td><td>ton</td></tr><tr><td>Heat recovery rate (MJ/ton)</td><td>5810</td><td>energy yield from ecoinvent dataset "Waste polyethylene terephthalate (Poly) treatment of waste polyethylene terephthalate, municipal incineration | Cut-off, U"</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></table>
<table><caption>Figure 30 Summary of total inputs and outputs of functional flows of the analysed solution in the illustrative example of recycled PET (tab "Analysed solution PET") (RECORD, 2024)</caption><thead><tr><th colspan="2">A</th><th>B</th><th>C</th><th>D</th><th>E</th><th>F</th></tr><tr><th colspan="2">Technology</th><th colspan="2">Inputs</th><th colspan="3">Outputs</th></tr><tr><th>1</th><th>2</th><th>3</th><th>Waste collected (ton)</th><th>Secondary raw materials (ton)</th><th>(Recovered) electricity (MJ)</th><th>(Recovered) heat (MJ)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>3</td><td>Analysed solution (recycling)</td><td></td><td>4.00E+03</td><td>2.80E+03</td><td>2.42E+06</td><td>4.74E+06</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>Total</td><td>Total inputs and outputs</td><td>4.00E+03</td><td>2.80E+03</td><td>2.42E+06</td><td>4.74E+06</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>Figure 31 Overview of quantities of functional flows from the analysed solution in the reference scenario tab ("Reference Scenario PET") (RECORD, 2024)</caption><thead><tr><th colspan="2">A</th><th>B</th><th>C</th><th>D</th><th>E</th><th>F</th><th>G</th></tr><tr><th colspan="2">Technology</th><th>Quantity of waste treated</th><th>Quantity of raw materials produced</th><th>Quantity of valorized recovered materials and energy beyond the system boundaries</th><th colspan="3">Additional Outputs</th></tr><tr><th>16</th><th>17</th><th>18</th><th>19</th><th></th><th>Secondary raw materials (ton)</th><th>(Recovered) electricity (MJ)</th><th>(Recovered) heat (MJ)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Analysed solution</td><td>4.00E+03</td><td>2.80E+03</td><td></td><td>2.42E+06</td><td>4.74E+06</td></tr></tbody></table>
## Functional flows in the reference scenario

Also, in the example of the reference scenario for the recycling of PET, multiple functional flows are present (Figure 32). Equally for this scenario, the flows are summarized in Table 6, and it is explained which type of allocation solution is applied to each of them.

<table><caption>Table 6 Overview of allocation procedures applied to the functional flows in the reference scenario of the recycling of PET (RECORD, 2024)</caption><thead><tr><td>Functional flow</td><td>Applied allocation solution</td><td>Justification</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Treatment of waste plastic ("Waste")</td><td>System expansion: the same quantity of waste plastic treatment must be modelled as in the analysed solution</td><td>The function of waste treatment is one of the key functional flows of the PET recycling process</td></tr><tr><td>Production of secondary PET from the recycling of "Waste"</td><td>Cut-off approach combined with system reduction: valorisation of waste is modelled within the system boundaries up to the end-of-waste stage. The <u>net</u> resulting output of valorized material from the system boundaries is modelled by additional valorization steps and the subsequent subtraction of an equivalent primary material.</td><td>The reference scenario provides a higher functional output than the analysed solution</td></tr><tr><td>Production of recovered energy from the incineration of "Waste"</td><td>Cut-off approach combined with system reduction: valorisation of waste is modelled within the system boundaries up to the end-of-waste stage. The <u>net</u> resulting output of valorized energy from the system boundaries is modelled by the subsequent subtraction of an equivalent production of energy from primary sources.</td><td>The reference scenario provides a higher functional output than the analysed solution</td></tr><tr><td>Average production of PET for consumption in Europe</td><td>System expansion: the same quantity of raw materials must be modelled as in the analysed solution</td><td>The function of raw material production is one of the key functional flows of the PET recycling process</td></tr><tr><td>Treatment of PET waste during the production of secondary PET for the average PET consumption mix</td><td>Cut-off approach combined with system reduction: the supply of a recycled material is modelled starting from the end of waste stage.</td><td>The reference scenario provides a higher functional output than the analysed solution</td></tr><tr><td>Production of recovered energy from the incineration of reject materials during the production of secondary PET for the average PET consumption mix</td><td>Cut-off approach combined with system reduction: valorisation of waste is modelled within the system boundaries up to the end-of-waste stage. The <u>net</u> resulting output of valorized energy from the system boundaries is modelled by the subsequent subtraction of an equivalent production of energy from primary sources.</td><td>The reference scenario provides a higher functional output than the analysed solution</td></tr></tbody></table>
<figure><img src="image_19.png" /><figcaption>Figure 32 Overview of the functional flows of the reference scenario in the example of the recycling of PET. The functional flows are listed in Table 6. (RECORD, 2024)</figcaption></figure>
Modelling of multifunctional processes in the reference scenario

The following steps explain the modelling of multifunctional processes in the reference scenario:

1. First of all, it is ensured that the same quantity of waste is treated and the same amount of raw materials is produced between the analysed solution and the reference scenario (i.e. the application of system expansion). The quantities of treated waste and produced raw materials from the analysed solution are multiplied by the market ratios of the different technologies in the reference scenario. This is illustrated for the example of PET recycling in Figure 33.

<table><caption>Figure 33 Ensuring that the analysed solution and the reference scenario provide the same functional outputs via system expansion (tab “Reference scenario PET”). A final check in row 32 shows whether the two systems are comparable (RECORD, 2024)</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Technology</th><th>Quantity of waste treated</th><th>Quantity of raw materials produced</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>17</td><td>Analysed solution</td><td>4.00E+03</td><td>2.80E+03</td></tr><tr><td>18</td><td>Analysed solution</td><td>4.00E+03</td><td>2.80E+03</td></tr><tr><td>19</td><td>Recycling</td><td>1440.00</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>20</td><td>Direct incineration with energy recover</td><td>1740.80</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>21</td><td>Direct landfilling</td><td>819.20</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>22</td><td>Direct landfilling</td><td>819.20</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>23</td><td>Bio-based and bio-attributed PET</td><td></td><td>28.00</td></tr><tr><td>24</td><td>Secondary PET (pre-consumer)</td><td></td><td>151.20</td></tr><tr><td>25</td><td>Secondary PET (post-consumer)</td><td></td><td>372.40</td></tr><tr><td>26</td><td>Primary production</td><td></td><td>2248.40</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Total inputs and outputs</td><td>4000.00</td><td>2800.00</td></tr><tr><td>31</td><td>Difference with the analysed solution</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.00</td></tr></tbody></table>

2. Secondly, the cut-off approach is applied for any additional waste valorization and material production in the reference scenario.

**Valorization of waste** in the reference scenario is modelled up to the end-of-waste stage, e.g. up to the production of sorted waste that can be traded on the market to serve as an input into a recycling process (Figure 34). Figure 35 shows how this is modelled within the Excel template (tab “REF PET EoL recycling”). To ensure that the additional supply of valorized raw materials is accounted for, the quantities of these flows are reported as materials and energy flows that result in loads and benefits beyond the system boundaries (Figure 36). The same procedure is applied for incineration with energy recovery.

**Production of recycled materials** in the reference scenario is modelled as follows. The input material in the recycling process (e.g. “sorted PET waste to mechanical recycling from Europe” in Figure 34) is modelled starting at the end-of-waste stage of the upstream waste processing step – e.g. the moment that a sorted material flow is generated. No impacts are associated with this input flow. However, it is marked that a secondary material is used as an input flow by adding a *negative* quantity for “materials and energy flows that result in loads and benefits beyond the system boundaries” (Figure 37). These negative flows are then added to the tab “Reference scenario [material]” (see rows 24 and 25 in Figure 38). This negative flow enables the calculation of the *net output* flow of valorized materials. Only the net output of valorized materials is modelled by system reduction in the next step.

3. Thirdly, system reduction is applied in the reference scenario

It can be observed in Figure 39 that the analysed solution and the reference scenario do not provide the same functional output. This is highlighted by the red coloring of the cells of row 32 in Figure 39. The reference scenario supplies a larger quantity of sorted waste at the end of life than accommodated within the demand for secondary PET (i.e. the *net output* of sorted PET is higher than zero). Furthermore, a larger quantity of electricity and heat is recovered than in the analysed solution. These additional functional flows are neutralized by “system reduction”. This means that additional processes of
valorization are modelled up to the point that the valorized material/energy substitutes an equivalent primary flow. Subsequently, the emissions of the production process of the substituted primary flow are subtracted from the reference scenario (Figure 40). Figure 41 shows how system reduction is applied in the Excel template for recycled PET. These processes are modelled as “loads and benefits beyond the system boundaries of the value chain under study”, as the processes do not take place within the boundaries of the stakeholders that take part in the analysed solution. Therefore, these loads and benefits are not integrated into the calculation of “avoided emissions”, but are only provided as additional information. The tabs that model the inputs and outputs of these processes beyond the system boundaries are indicated with a “D”, referring to “Module D” of EN 15804, on which this modelling procedure is based.

The additional valorization processes (which are modelled as separate tabs in the Excel template) are added to the reference scenario, until both scenarios provide the same quantities of functional outputs (Figure 42).
<figure><img src="image_20.png" /><figcaption>Figure 34 Definition of the system boundaries of the reference scenario of recycled PET at the end-of-waste stage (in green) for supplied and consumed valorized materials and energy (RECORD, 2024)</figcaption></figure>
<table><caption>Figure 35 Modelling the emissions of a technology in the reference scenario up to the end-of-waste stage (RECORD, 2024)</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Process/flow</th><th rowspan="2">Required information</th><th rowspan="2">Information field</th><th rowspan="2">Source of information (e.g. estimation, internal measurements, reference document)</th><th colspan="5">Recycling</th></tr><tr><th>Activity</th><th>Quantity (Q_activity)</th><th>Unit</th><th>Emission Factor reference name</th><th>Comments</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Input (Waste)</td><td>- Single material or mix of materials<br/>- Material(s) present in the mix<br/>- Location (e.g. at local collection site)</td><td>PET waste, collected, Europe</td><td></td><td>Quantity</td><td>1</td><td>ton</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Sorting</td><td>- Geographic location<br/>- Technology description</td><td>Sorting of PET from other recyclable materials, Europe</td><td></td><td>Sorting of PET from other recyclable materials, Europe</td><td>1</td><td>ton</td><td>Waste polyethylene terephthalate, for recycling, sorted in Europe without Switzerland; treatment of waste polyethylene terephthalate, for recycling, unsorted, sorting in Cut-off, U</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Output (at end-of-waste stage)</td><td>- Single material or mix of materials<br/>- Materials present in the mix<br/>- Form</td><td>Sorted PET to chemical recycling, baled</td><td></td><td>Quantity</td><td>0.02</td><td>ton</td><td></td><td>No economic allocation, cut-off approach applied at end-of-waste stage</td></tr><tr><td>Output (at end-of-waste stage)</td><td>- Single material or mix of materials<br/>- Materials present in the mix<br/>- Form</td><td>Sorted PET to mechanical recycling, baled</td><td></td><td>Quantity</td><td>0.98</td><td>ton</td><td></td><td>No economic allocation, cut-off approach applied at end-of-waste stage</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>Figure 36 Illustration of the accounting for the supply for valorized material (and potentially recovered energy) in the reference scenario (tab "REF PET EoL recycling"). This accounting enables the calculation of the net quantity of valorized material and energy produced in the reference scenario (RECORD, 2024)</caption><thead><tr><th colspan="3">Materials and energy flows that result in loads and benefits beyond the system boundaries</th></tr><tr><th>(Secondary) raw material (ton)</th><th>(Recovered) electricity (MJ)</th><th>(Recovered) heat (MJ)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2.00E-02</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>9.80E-01</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>1.00E+00</td><td>0.00E+00</td><td>0.00E+00</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><th colspan="10">Secondary PET (post-consumer)</th></tr><tr><th>Activity</th><th>Quantity (Q_activity)</th><th>Unit</th><th>Emission Factor reference name</th><th>Comments</th><th>Emissions associated (in kg CO2eq) (GHG_activity)</th><th>(Secondary) raw material (ton)</th><th>Materials and energy</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Sorted PET, baled, from Europe</td><td>0.93</td><td>ton</td><td></td><td>Recycled material input, burden-free</td><td>0.00E+00</td><td>-9.30E-01</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Sorted PET, baled, outside Europe</td><td>0.07</td><td>ton</td><td></td><td>Recycled material input, burden-free</td><td>0.00E+00</td><td>-7.00E-02</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

Figure 37 Consumed valorized materials are accounted for by a negative flow of secondary raw material in the section “Materials and energy flows that result in loads and benefits beyond the system boundaries” (tab “REF scnd PET post-consumer) (RECORD, 2024)

<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Technology</th><th rowspan="2">Quantity of waste treated</th><th rowspan="2">Quantity of raw materials produced</th><th rowspan="2">Quantity of valorized recovered materials and energy beyond the system boundaries</th><th colspan="3">Additional Outputs</th></tr><tr><th>Secondary raw materials (ton)</th><th>(Recovered) electricity (MJ)</th><th>(Recovered) heat (MJ)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Analysed solution</td><td>4.00E+03</td><td>2.80E+03</td><td></td><td></td><td>2.42E+06</td><td>4.74E+06</td></tr><tr><td>Recycling</td><td>1440.00</td><td></td><td></td><td>1440.00</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.00</td></tr><tr><td>Direct incineration with energy recovered</td><td>1740.80</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.00</td><td>5170176.00</td><td>10114048.00</td></tr><tr><td>Direct landfilling</td><td>819.20</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.00</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.00</td></tr><tr><td>Bio-based and bio-attributed PET</td><td></td><td>28.00</td><td></td><td>0.00</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.00</td></tr><tr><td>Secondary PET (pre-consumer)</td><td></td><td>151.20</td><td></td><td>-216.00</td><td>130870.08</td><td>256011.84</td></tr><tr><td>Secondary PET (post-consumer)</td><td></td><td>372.40</td><td></td><td>-532.00</td><td>322328.16</td><td>630547.68</td></tr><tr><td>Primary production</td><td></td><td>2248.40</td><td></td><td>0.00</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.00</td></tr></tbody></table>

Figure 38 Overview of additional outputs (the supply of secondary raw materials and recovered energy) in the reference scenario. These outputs are negative if the technology consumes a valorized waste (tab “Reference scenario PET”). This negative flow enables the calculation of the *net output* flow of valorized materials (RECORD, 2024)
<table><caption>Figure 39 Comparison of the functional flows of the analysed solution with the reference scenario. Row 32 indicates that the reference scenario supplies a larger quantity of secondary raw materials, recovered electricity, and recovered heat (tab “Reference scenario PET”) (RECORD, 2024)</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Technology</th><th rowspan="2">Quantity of waste treated</th><th rowspan="2">Quantity of raw materials produced</th><th rowspan="2">Quantity of valorized recovered materials and energy beyond the system boundaries</th><th colspan="3">Additional Outputs</th></tr><tr><th>Secondary raw materials (ton)</th><th>(Recovered) electricity (MJ)</th><th>(Recovered) heat (MJ)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Analysed solution</td><td>4.00E+03</td><td>2.80E+03</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Recycling</td><td>1440.00</td><td></td><td></td><td>1440.00</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.00</td></tr><tr><td>Direct incineration with energy recovered</td><td>1740.80</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.00</td><td>5170176.00</td><td>10114048.00</td></tr><tr><td>Direct landfilling</td><td>819.20</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.00</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.00</td></tr><tr><td>Bio-based and bio-attributed PET</td><td></td><td>28.00</td><td></td><td>0.00</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.00</td></tr><tr><td>Secondary PET (pre-consumer)</td><td></td><td>151.20</td><td></td><td>-216.00</td><td>130870.08</td><td>256011.84</td></tr><tr><td>Secondary PET (post-consumer)</td><td></td><td>372.40</td><td></td><td>-532.00</td><td>322328.16</td><td>630547.68</td></tr><tr><td>Primary production</td><td></td><td>2248.40</td><td></td><td>0.00</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.00</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.00</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.00</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.00</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.00</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.00</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.00</td></tr><tr><td>Total inputs and outputs</td><td>4000.00</td><td>2800.00</td><td></td><td>692.00</td><td>5623374.24</td><td>11000607.52</td></tr><tr><td>Difference with the analysed solution</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.00</td><td>NA</td><td>-692.00</td><td>-3199854.24</td><td>-6259647.52</td></tr></tbody></table>
<figure><img src="image_21.png" /><figcaption>Figure 40 Application of system reduction to the *net* output of recovered raw materials and energy. Valorization is modelled up to the point of substitution. Then, the production of a primary equivalent raw material and energy are subtracted from the system. These processes are modelled beyond the system boundaries of the value chain under study. Therefore, these loads and benefits are not part of the final calculation of avoided emissions but should be provided as additional information (RECORD, 2024)</figcaption></figure>
<table><tr><td>Output (Secondary raw material)</td><td>- Type of material<br/>- Relevant material properties<br/>- Application of use<br/>- Geography of use<br/>- Year of use<br/>- Type of user(s)</td><td>Secondary PET in Europe</td><td>Assumption based on Plastics Europe. 2024. "The Circular Economy for Plastics A European Analysis." (March):1-114. Page 71</td><td>Quantity</td><td>0.623</td><td>ton</td></tr><tr><td>Output (Secondary raw material)</td><td>- Type of material<br/>- Relevant material properties<br/>- Application of use<br/>- Geography of use<br/>- Year of use<br/>- Type of user(s)</td><td>Secondary PET outside Europe</td><td>Assumption based on Plastics Europe. 2024. "The Circular Economy for Plastics A European Analysis." (March):1-114. Page 71</td><td>Quantity</td><td>0.080</td><td>ton</td></tr><tr><td>Substitution of PET production inside Europe</td><td>- Process type<br/>- Required information related to process type</td><td>Production process of PET (Europe)</td><td>NA</td><td>Primary production of PET</td><td>-0.62</td><td>ton</td></tr><tr><td>Substitution of PET production outside Europe</td><td>- Process type<br/>- Required information related to process type</td><td>Production process of PET (Rest of World)</td><td>NA</td><td>Primary production of PET</td><td>-0.08</td><td>ton</td></tr></table>

Figure 41 Application of system reduction in the Excel template for the valorization of sorted PET up to the substitution of primary PET (tab "D REF Mec Recycl in Europe"). These loads and benefits are not part of the final calculation of avoided emissions but should be provided as additional information (RECORD, 2024)
<table><caption>Figure 42 Addition of valorization processes to the reference scenario, until the reference scenario provides the same functional outputs as the analysed solution (tab "Reference scenario PET") (RECORD, 2024)</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Technology</th><th rowspan="2">Quantity of waste treated</th><th rowspan="2">Quantity of raw materials produced</th><th rowspan="2">Quantity of valorized recovered materials and energy beyond the system boundaries</th><th colspan="3">Additional Outputs</th></tr><tr><th>Secondary raw materials (ton)</th><th>(Recovered) electricity (MJ)</th><th>(Recovered) heat (MJ)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Analysed solution</td><td>4.00E+03</td><td>2.80E+03</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Recycling</td><td>1440.00</td><td></td><td></td><td>1440.00</td><td>2.42E+06</td><td>4.74E+06</td></tr><tr><td>Direct incineration with energy recovered</td><td>1740.80</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.00</td><td>5170176.00</td><td>10114048.00</td></tr><tr><td>Direct landfilling</td><td>819.20</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.00</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.00</td></tr><tr><td>Bio-based and bio-attributed PET</td><td></td><td>28.00</td><td></td><td>0.00</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.00</td></tr><tr><td>Secondary PET (pre-consumer)</td><td></td><td>151.20</td><td></td><td>-216.00</td><td>130870.08</td><td>256011.84</td></tr><tr><td>Secondary PET (post-consumer)</td><td></td><td>372.40</td><td></td><td>-532.00</td><td>322328.16</td><td>630547.68</td></tr><tr><td>Primary production</td><td></td><td>2248.40</td><td></td><td>0.00</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.00</td></tr><tr><td>Valoration of recovered electricity</td><td></td><td></td><td>3199854.24</td><td>0.00</td><td>-3199854.24</td><td>0.00</td></tr><tr><td>Valoration of recovered heat</td><td></td><td></td><td>6259647.52</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.00</td><td>-6259647.52</td></tr><tr><td>Valoration of sorted plastic to mechanical recycling</td><td></td><td></td><td>692.00</td><td>-692.00</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.00</td></tr><tr><td>Total inputs and outputs</td><td>4000.00</td><td>2800.00</td><td></td><td>0.00</td><td>2423520.00</td><td>4740960.00</td></tr><tr><td>Difference with the analysed solution</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.00</td><td>NA</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.00</td></tr></tbody></table>
## 3.5. Collect data

### 3.5.1. Identify data needs

Data need to be collected for the following elements:

- Technology market ratios

- Secondary Emission Factors

- Quantities of inputs and outputs of processes

EFs represent the Scope 1-3 emissions of a process per unit of input (for waste treatment processes) or output (for production processes). The EFs include direct emissions, emissions related to the production of energy, and emissions related to the production and supply of raw materials, the provision of services, auxiliary goods, equipment, capital goods, and infrastructure.

Each process in a scenario is assessed either directly by a **secondary EF**, or the process is modelled in detail, i.e. a **“unit process evaluation”**, based on the quantities of inputs and outputs, and secondary emission factors that reflect the Scope-3 emissions of these inputs and outputs (which will be generally the case for the analysed solution).

In the accompanying Excel template, technology market ratios are entered into the tab “Reference scenario [material]” (Figure 43). Secondary Emission Factors are added to the tab “Secondary EFs”. Here, additional information should be provided as well, such as the activity description, the source, the reference geography, time, and technology of the EF, and the uncertainty percentage (see below for an explanation). Quantities of inputs and outputs of processes are added in column F of each technology EF tab. These quantities are multiplied by the corresponding secondary emission factors in column J, to obtain the emissions of the inputs and outputs of the technology (Figure 44).
<table><caption>Figure 43 Inclusion of market ratios (also “market shares”) in the Excel template (tab “Reference scenario PET”) (RECORD, 2024)</caption><thead><tr><th colspan="4">Reference scenario (Europe) for EoL treatment of waste</th></tr><tr><th></th><th>Technology</th><th>Market share (%)</th><th>Source and comments</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="4">Reference scenario (Europe) for waste treatment of PET</td><td>Recycling</td><td>36.0%</td><td>Plastics Europe. 2024. "The Circular Economy for Plastics A European Analysis." (March):1-114. Page 71. Data represent all types of plastics.</td></tr><tr><td>Direct incineration with energy recovery</td><td>43.5%</td><td>Plastics Europe. 2024. "The Circular Economy for Plastics A European Analysis." (March):1-114. Page 71. Data represent all types of plastics.</td></tr><tr><td>Direct landfilling</td><td>20.5%</td><td>Plastics Europe. 2024. "The Circular Economy for Plastics A European Analysis." (March):1-114. Page 71. Data represent all types of plastics.</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>100.0%</td><td></td></tr></tbody><tbody><tr><th colspan="4">Reference scenario (Europe) for intermediate material consumption</th></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Reference scenario (Europe) for the consumption of PET</td><td>Bio-based and bio-attributed PET</td><td>1.0%</td><td>Plastics Europe. 2024. "The Circular Economy for Plastics A European Analysis." (March):1-114. Page 71. Data represent all types of plastics.</td></tr><tr><td>Secondary PET (pre-consumer)</td><td>5.4%</td><td>Plastics Europe. 2024. "The Circular Economy for Plastics A European Analysis." (March):1-114. Page 71. Data represent all types of plastics.</td></tr><tr><td>Secondary PET (post-consumer)</td><td>13.3%</td><td>Plastics Europe. 2024. "The Circular Economy for Plastics A European Analysis." (March):1-114. Page 71. Data represent all types of plastics.</td></tr><tr><td>Primary production</td><td>80.3%</td><td>Plastics Europe. 2024. "The Circular Economy for Plastics A European Analysis." (March):1-114. Page 71. Data represent all types of plastics.</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>100.0%</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><th colspan="7">Secondary PET (post-consumer)</th></tr><tr><th>Activity</th><th>Quantity (Q_activity)</th><th>Unit</th><th>Emission Factor reference name</th><th>Comments</th><th>Emissions associated (in kg CO2eq) (GHG_activity)</th><th>(S<sup>2</sup>)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Quantity</td><td>4000</td><td>ton</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Collection</td><td>4000</td><td>ton</td><td></td><td>Excluded from scope</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Sorting of PET from other recyclable materials, Europe</td><td>4000</td><td>ton</td><td>Waste polyethylene terephthalate, for recycling, sorted (Europe without Switzerland)| treatment of waste polyethylene terephthalate, for recycling, unsorted, sorting | Cut-off, U</td><td>Dataset is generated by subdivision, no economic allocation of other outputs of the sorting process.</td><td>1.25E+06</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

Figure 44 Activity quantities are filled in into column F of each technology EF tab. These are multiplied with corresponding secondary emission factors (as named in column H) to obtain the final activity emissions in column J (tab "EF Analysed solution") (RECORD, 2024)
### 3.5.2. Select data sources

Primary data should be used as much as possible for the calculation of EFs. These data can be supplemented by data from LCA databases, such as ecoinvent (cut-off system model) or Base Empreinte®. Unit process databases should be prioritized over aggregated databases, and recent data over older data.

If available, (Reference) Emission Factors (e.g. as made available in this project) may be used to represent processes either in the analysed solution or in the reference scenario.

### 3.5.3. Respect cut-off rules

Processes for which data are not available may be excluded from the analysis if their contribution is estimated to be negligible according to the cut-off criteria. The cut-off criteria, taken from EN-15804 (CEN, 2012), are 1% of the consumption of renewable and non-renewable primary energy and 1% of the total mass input of a unit process. Total neglected input flows must be a maximum of 5% of mass and energy consumption. Conservative assumptions combined with plausibility considerations and expert judgment can be used to demonstrate compliance with these criteria.

### 3.5.4. Assess data quality

The quality of the data influences the level of uncertainty of the assessment. Data quality is evaluated for the collected quantities of inputs and outputs, secondary emission factors (i.e. emission factors taken from external sources, such as LCA background databases), and technology market shares.

Figure 45 shows which data quality criteria are applied to each specific data point. On each of these criteria, an uncertainty rating is attributed according to Table 7.

<figure><img src="image_22.png" /><figcaption>Figure 45 Application of data quality indicators to specific data points (RECORD, 2024)</figcaption></figure>
Instead of evaluating the reliability and completeness of secondary emission factors, their inherent uncertainty is evaluated via one of the following options (in order of priority):

1. The uncertainty rate communicated by the publisher of the secondary emission factor is used to represent the inherent uncertainty, if available

2. An uncertainty range is calculated, e.g. via a Monte Carlo analysis (10.000 runs). Based on a low and high value and a 95% confidence interval a (corrected – in the case of a log-normal distribution) mean value with a corresponding uncertainty range can be established. This is illustrated for the secondary emission factor for the incineration of PET in the Excel sheet of the REF of PET published as an annex.

3. A default value of 30% for the inherent uncertainty of the secondary emission factor is applied (based on a hypothetical scoring of 5% for reliability and 30% for completeness)

The evaluation of data quality is integrated into the Excel sheets. Three tables of uncertainty evaluation are available (Figure 46):

1) Uncertainty of the activity quantity: Here, the uncertainty of the data quantity (e.g. transport distance), as entered in column F, is evaluated. This category is skipped if the quantity reported in column F is unitary and the activity represents an aggregated process (for example, incineration of 1 ton of waste, sorting of 1 ton of waste, recycling of 1 ton of waste, etc.).

2) Uncertainty of primary emission factor: This column is used of the emission factor of the activity is calculated in a separate tab of the Excel sheet, in which the uncertainty of the used secondary emission factors is already assessed.

3) Uncertainty secondary emission factor: This section is used to assess the uncertainty of the emission factor that is multiplied with the activity quantity (column F), to obtain the total activity emissions (column J). The temporal, geographical, and technological representativeness are assessed by comparing the scope of the activity with the scope of the secondary emission factor as published in the tab "Secondary Emission Factors".

Uncertainty aspects are evaluated via a simple drop-down menu showing the assessment criteria. The corresponding uncertainty percentages are then automatically selected by Excel.
<table><caption>Table 7 Uncertainty scoring for specific data quality ratings, based on (SEDDRe and Crowe Sustainable Metrics, 2019; Weidema et al., 2013; Weidema and Wesnæs, 1996) (RECORD, 2022)</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>5%</th><th>15%</th><th>30%</th><th>50%</th><th>75%</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>Reliability</th><td>Verified data based on measurements</td><td>Verified data partly based on assumptions<br>Or non-verified data based on measurements</td><td>Non-verified data partly based on qualified estimates</td><td>Qualified estimate (e.g. by industrial expert)</td><td>Non-qualified estimate</td></tr><tr><th>Completeness</th><td>Representative data from all sites relevant for the market considered, over an adequate period to even out normal fluctuations</td><td>Representative data from >50% of the sites relevant for the market considered, over an adequate period to even out normal fluctuations</td><td>Representative data from only some sites (<<50%) relevant for the market considered or >50% of sites but from shorter periods</td><td>Representative data from only one site relevant for the market considered or some sites but from shorter periods</td><td>Representativeness unknown or data from a small number of sites and from shorter periods</td></tr><tr><th>Temporal representativeness</th><td>Less than 3 years of difference to the time period of the dataset</td><td>Less than 6 years of difference to the time period of the dataset</td><td>Less than 10 years of difference to the time period of the dataset</td><td>Less than 15 years of difference to the time period of the dataset</td><td>Age of data unknown or more than 15 years of difference to the time period of the dataset</td></tr><tr><th>Geographical representativeness</th><td>Data from area under study</td><td>Average data from larger area in which the area under study is included</td><td>Data from area with similar production conditions</td><td>Data from area with slightly similar production conditions</td><td>Data from unknown or distinctly different area (North America instead of Middle East, OECD-Europe instead of Russia)</td></tr><tr><th>Technological representativeness</th><td>Data from enterprises, processes and materials under study</td><td>Data from processes and materials under study (i.e. identical technology) but from different enterprises</td><td>Data from processes and materials under study but from different technology</td><td>Data on related processes or materials</td><td>Data on related processes on laboratory scale or from different technology</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>Figure 46 Evaluation of data quality via the application of uncertainty ranges in the Excel template (RECORD, 2024)</caption><thead><tr><th colspan="6">Uncertainty activity quantity (this can be skipped if the activity represents an aggregated process)</th><th>Uncertainty of primary emission factor</th><th colspan="3">Uncertainty secondary emission factor</th></tr><tr><th colspan="2">Reliability</th><th>Completeness</th><th>Temporal representativeness</th><th>Geographical representativeness</th><th>Technological representativeness</th><th>Fill this column when the emission factor and corresponding uncertainty are calculated within the scope of the study</th><th>Inherent uncertainty (Select from tab "Secondary Efs")</th><th>Temporal representativeness</th><th>Geographical representativeness</th><th>Technological representativeness</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>4</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td rowspan="2">30%</td><td rowspan="2">Less than 6 years of difference to the time period of the dataset</td><td rowspan="2">Data from area under study</td><td rowspan="2">Data from enterprises, processes and materials under study</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td rowspan="2">30%</td><td rowspan="2">Less than 6 years of difference to the time period of the dataset</td><td rowspan="2">Data from area under study</td><td rowspan="2">Data from enterprises, processes and materials under study</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td rowspan="2">30%</td><td rowspan="2">Less than 10 years of difference to the time period of the dataset</td><td rowspan="2">Data from area with similar production conditions</td><td rowspan="2">Data from enterprises, processes and materials under study</td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>10</td><td rowspan="2">Non-qualified estimate</td><td rowspan="2">Representative data from only some sites (&lt;50%) relevant for the market considered or &gt;50% of sites but from</td><td rowspan="2">Less than 3 years of difference to the time period of the dataset</td><td rowspan="2">Data from area under study</td><td rowspan="2">Data from enterprises, processes and materials under study</td><td rowspan="2"></td><td rowspan="2">30%</td><td rowspan="2">Less than 10 years of difference to the time period of the dataset</td><td rowspan="2">Data from enterprises, processes and materials under study</td></tr><tr><td>11</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>12</td><td rowspan="2">Verified data based on measurements</td><td rowspan="2">Representative data from &gt;50% of the sites relevant for the market considered, over an adequate period to even out normal fluctuations</td><td rowspan="2">Less than 6 years of difference to the time period of the dataset</td><td rowspan="2">Data from area with similar production conditions</td><td rowspan="2">Data from enterprises, processes and materials under study</td><td rowspan="2"></td><td rowspan="2">30%</td><td rowspan="2">Less than 10 years of difference to the time period of the dataset</td><td rowspan="2">Data from enterprises, processes and materials under study</td></tr><tr><td>13</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>14</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td rowspan="2">30%</td><td rowspan="2">Less than 6 years of difference to the time period of the dataset</td><td rowspan="2">Data from area under study</td><td rowspan="2">Data from enterprises, processes and materials under study</td></tr><tr><td>15</td><td rowspan="2">Non-qualified estimate</td><td rowspan="2">Representative data from only some sites (&lt;50%) relevant for the market considered or &gt;50% of sites but from</td><td rowspan="2">Less than 3 years of difference to the time period of the dataset</td><td rowspan="2">Data from area under study</td><td rowspan="2">Data from enterprises, processes and materials under study</td><td rowspan="2"></td><td rowspan="2">30%</td><td rowspan="2">Less than 15 years of difference to the time period of the dataset</td><td rowspan="2">Average data from larger area in which the area under study is included</td></tr><tr><td>16</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>17</td><td rowspan="2">Verified data based on measurements</td><td rowspan="2">Representative data from all sites relevant for the market considered, over an adequate period to even out normal fluctuations</td><td rowspan="2">Less than 3 years of difference to the time period of the dataset</td><td rowspan="2">Data from area under study</td><td rowspan="2">Data on related processes or materials</td><td rowspan="2"></td><td rowspan="2">20%</td><td rowspan="2">Less than 15 years of difference to the time period of the dataset</td><td rowspan="2">Average data from larger area in which the area under study is included</td><td rowspan="2">Data from enterprises, processes and materials under study</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>
## 3.6. Calculate (Avoided) Emissions

### 3.6.1. Calculate the emissions of each scenario

The emissions of a scenario (i.e. the analysed solution or the reference scenario) are calculated by Eq. 1 - Eq. 4, as visually represented in Figure 47. Note that these equations represent a simple case without multifunctional processes.

$$ \text{Eq. 1} \qquad \text{GHG}_{\text{scenario}} = \sum \text{GHG}_{\text{technology in scenario}-i} $$

$$ \text{Eq. 2} \qquad \text{GHG}_{\text{technology in scenario}} = EF_{UP-i} * MR_i * Q_{\text{scenario}} $$

$$ \text{Eq. 3} \qquad EF_{UP} = \sum \text{GHG}_{\text{activity}-i} $$

$$ \text{Eq. 4} \qquad \text{GHG}_{\text{activity}} = \sum Q_{\text{activity}} * EF_{\text{activity}} $$

*GHG\_scenario* = GHG emissions per functional unit from all processes within the system boundaries of a scenario (i.e. the analysed solution or the reference scenario)

*Q\_scenario* = Quantity of waste treated or quantity of raw materials/energy produced in relation to the functional unit. In the reference scenario, the formula is repeated for both functional flows.

*GHG\_technology\_in\_scenario* = GHG emissions associated with a specific technology within the scenario

*MR* = Market ratio of technology *i* within the scenario

*EF\_UP* = Emission Factor (GHG emissions per unit) of a specific unit process *i* (e.g. recycling, incineration, landfilling, or primary production)

*GHG\_activity* = GHG emissions of a specific input or output within a unit process

*Q\_activity* = Quantity of an input or output within a unit process

*EF\_activity* = Emission Factor (GHG emissions per unit) of an input or output within a unit process
<figure><img src="image_23.png" /><figcaption>Figure 47 Calculation structure of the assessment of emissions of a scenario (i.e. either the analysed solution or the reference scenario). Terms are explained in the text body (RECORD, 2024)</figcaption></figure>
In the accompanying Excel template, data is filled in in the locations as described in Table 8. Cells coloured **light orange** must be filled in by the study conductor. Other values are automatically calculated, but it must be verified whether linking is applied correctly. An example of correct linking is provided in the accompanying REF Excel sheets (steel, paper, and PET).

<table><caption>Table 8 Matching of terms of Eq 1-4 with the accompanying Excel template</caption><thead><tr><td>Term</td><td>Location in Excel template</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Q<sub>activity</sub></td><td>Column F in each technology emission factor tab (tabs highlighted purple)</td></tr><tr><td>EF<sub>activity</sub></td><td>Column B in tab "Secondary EFs"</td></tr><tr><td>GHG<sub>activity</sub></td><td>Column J in each technology emission factor tab (tabs highlighted purple)</td></tr><tr><td>EF<sub>UP</sub></td><td>Final row of column J in each technology emission factor tab (tabs highlighted purple).<br><b>These values must be matched</b> with the values in Column G of tab "Analysed solution [material]" and Column H of tab "Reference scenario [material]"</td></tr><tr><td>MR</td><td>Column D in tab "Reference scenario [material]"</td></tr><tr><td>Q<sub>scenario</sub> of the analysed solution</td><td>Column C-F (depending on the formulation of the functional unit) of tab "Analysed solution [material]"</td></tr><tr><td>Q<sub>scenario</sub> of the reference scenario</td><td>Column B-G (depending on the formulation of the functional unit, starting under "quantity of waste treated") of tab "Reference scenario [material]".<br><b>Ensure that the quantities mentioned here are aligned</b> with the tab "Analysed solution [material]"</td></tr><tr><td>GHG<sub>technology in scenario</sub> of the analysed solution</td><td>Column J in the tab "Analysed solution [material]"</td></tr><tr><td>GHG<sub>technology in scenario</sub> of the reference scenario</td><td>Column K in the tab "Reference scenario [material]"</td></tr><tr><td>GHG<sub>scenario</sub> of the analysed solution</td><td>Value in green in column J in the tab "Analysed solution [material]"</td></tr><tr><td>GHG<sub>scenario</sub> of the reference scenario</td><td>Value in beige in the column K in the tab "Reference scenario [material]"</td></tr></tbody></table>
### 3.6.2. Calculate uncertainty ranges

The uncertainty factors established in Section 3.5.4 are aggregated via the following steps, as shown in Figure 48, based on (Association Bilan Carbone 2017).

The aggregation of uncertainty factors is automatically applied in the accompanying Excel template.

**Step 1.** Aggregation of uncertainty factors of activity (i.e. input and output) quantities:

$$ \text{Eq. 1} \qquad U_{\text{quantity}} = \sqrt{U_R^2 + U_C^2 + U_{TpR}^2 + U_{GR}^2 + U_{TchR}^2} $$

With:

$U_{\text{quantity}}$ = the total uncertainty rate of the activity quantity

$U_R$ = the uncertainty rate related to reliability,

$U_C$ = the uncertainty rate related to completeness

$U_{TpR}$ = the uncertainty rate related to temporal representativeness

$U_{GR}$ = the uncertainty rate related to geographical representativeness

$U_{TchR}$ = the uncertainty rate related to technological representativeness

NB. The uncertainty rate of the activity quantity is not evaluated if the quantity is unitary (e.g. emissions per kg or per ton).

**Example:** The average transport distance of the collection of end-of-life bottles is 50 km, with an uncertainty of 30%. This uncertainty factor is interpreted as follows: there is a 95% probability that the transport distance ranges between 50 ± 30%, i.e. between 35-65 km (see (Association Bilan Carbone 2017)).

**Step 2.** Aggregation of uncertainty factors of secondary emission factors:

$$ \text{Eq. 2} \qquad U_{EF} = \sqrt{U_i^2 + U_{TpR}^2 + U_{GR}^2 + U_{TchR}^2} $$

With:

$U_{EF}$ = the total uncertainty rate of the secondary emission factor

$U_i$ = the inherent uncertainty of the secondary emission factor

$U_{TpR}$ = the uncertainty rate related to temporal representativeness

$U_{GR}$ = the uncertainty rate related to geographical representativeness

$U_{TchR}$ = the uncertainty rate related to technological representativeness

**Example:** Transport by truck has an emission factor of 3 kg CO2-eq/tkm, with an uncertainty of 15%.

**Step 3.** Aggregation of the uncertainty rate of the activity quantity and the secondary emission factor:

$$ \text{Eq. 3} \qquad U_{\text{activity}} = \sqrt{U_{\text{quantity}}^2 + U_{EF}^2} $$

With:

$U_{\text{activity}}$ = the total uncertainty rate of the activity emissions

$U_{\text{quantity}}$ = the total uncertainty rate of the activity quantity

$U_{EF}$ = the total uncertainty rate of the secondary emission factor

**Example:** Transport by truck for the collection of end-of-life bottles generates 150 kg CO2-eq, with an uncertainty of 34%.
**Step 4.** Aggregation of emission factors of various activities at a Unit Process level:

$$ \text{Eq. 4} \qquad U_{UP} = \frac{\sqrt{(U_{activity1}*X_1)^2+(U_{activity2}*X_2)^2+\cdots+(U_{activity-n}*X_n)^2}}{X_1+X_2+\cdots+X_n} $$

With:

$U_{UP}$ = the total uncertainty rate of the emission factor of a Unit Process

$U_{activity-i}$ = the total uncertainty rate of the emissions of each activity within the Unit Process

$X_i$ = the emissions associated to each activity

**Example:** Recycling of plastic bottles, including collection, sorting, and processing, generates 700 kg CO2-eq/kg of collected waste, with an uncertainty of 45%.

**Step 5.** Aggregation of uncertainty factors of the technology market shares:

$$ \text{Eq. 5} \qquad U_{\text{market share}} = \sqrt{U_{TpR}^2 + U_{GR}^2 + U_{TchR}^2} $$

With:

$U_{market share}$ = the total uncertainty rate of the market share of each technology contributing to the market

$U_{TpR}$ = the uncertainty rate related to temporal representativeness

$U_{GR}$ = the uncertainty rate related to geographical representativeness

$U_{TchR}$ = the uncertainty rate related to technological representativeness

**Example:** The average end-of-life treatment of plastic bottles in Europe is 40% collection for recycling, 30% landfilling, and 30% incineration with energy recovery, with an uncertainty of 15%.

**Step 6.** Aggregation of the uncertainty rate of the contribution of a technology in a scenario:

$$ \text{Eq. 6} \qquad U_{\text{technology in scenario}} = \sqrt{U_{\text{market share}}^2 + U_{\text{UP}}^2} $$

With:

$U_{technology in scenario}$ = the total uncertainty rate of the technology within the scenario

$U_{market share}$ = the total uncertainty rate of the market share of each technology contributing to the scenario

$U_{UP}$ = the total uncertainty rate of the emission factor of a Unit Process

**Example:** The inclusion of emissions related to incineration within the reference scenario has an uncertainty of 35%.

**Step 7.** The aggregation of uncertainty factors for a scenario including multiple technologies (e.g. the reference scenario):

$$ \text{Eq. 7} \qquad U_{\text{scenario}} = \frac{\sqrt{(U_{\text{technology in scenario1}*X_1}^2+(U_{\text{technology in scenario2}*X_2}^2+\cdots+(U_{\text{technology in scenario-n}*X_n}^2)}}{X_1+X_2+\cdots+X_n} $$

With:

$U_{scenario}$ = the total uncertainty rate of the emission factor at scenario level

$U_{technology in scenario}$ = the total uncertainty rate of the emission factor of each technology in the scenario

$X_i$ = the emissions associated to each technology in the scenario

**Example:** The reference scenario with which the solution (recycling of plastic bottles for the use of recycled PET in cars) is compared generates 4.5 kt CO2-eq per year, with an uncertainty of 35%.
<figure><img src="image_24.png" /><figcaption>Figure 48 Overview of data quality indicators applied to activity quantities, secondary emission factors, and technology market shares. Step numbers show the aggregation procedure to calculate the uncertainty range of the emissions of a scenario (RECORD, 2024).</figcaption></figure>
### 3.6.3. Calculate Avoided Emissions

The avoided emissions with associated uncertainty range are calculated as follows:

$$ \text{Eq. 8} \qquad \text{GHG}_{\text{avoided}} = \text{GHG}_{\text{reference}} - \text{GHG}_{\text{solution}} \pm (\text{GHG}_{\text{reference}} * U_{\text{reference}} + \text{GHG}_{\text{solution}} * U_{\text{solution}}) $$

With:

* GHG<sub>avoided</sub> = Avoided GHG emissions

* GHG<sub>solution</sub> = GHG emissions per functional unit from all processes within the system boundaries of the analysed solution

* GHG<sub>reference</sub> = GHG emissions per functional unit from all processes within the system boundaries of the reference scenario

* U<sub>solution</sub> = the total uncertainty rate of the Emission Factor of the analysed solution

* U<sub>reference</sub> = the total uncertainty rate of the Emission Factor of the reference scenario

By default, avoided emissions are based on processes that take place within the system boundaries of the value chain under study. This means that loads and benefits beyond these system boundaries (due to waste valorization in the reference scenario) are excluded from this calculation. These loads and benefits are part of the scope of a consequential LCA (as explained in Section 2.1.1), but are outside the scope of an attributional LCA, as applied by this guide.

Avoided emissions are automatically calculated in the Excel template in the tab "CalculateAvoidedEmissions". It must be verified that numbers are referenced correctly. For informative purposes only, the net avoided emissions including loads and benefits beyond the system boundaries are calculated in a second graph. The scenario emissions of the two scenarios in the illustrative example of recycled PET used by car manufacturers and the avoided emissions of the analysed solution are presented in Figure 49 and Figure 50, respectively.
<figure><img src="image_25.png" /></figure>

Figure 49 Scenario emissions and their corresponding uncertainty ranges of the analysed solution and the reference scenario of the illustrative example of the recycling of PET. The results are based on fictive values in the Excel template (tab "CalculateAvoidedEmissions") (RECORD, 2024)

<figure><img src="image_26.png" /></figure>

Figure 50 Avoided emissions and the corresponding uncertainty range of the recycling of PET in the analysed solution. The results are based on fictive values in the Excel template (tab "CalculateAvoidedEmissions") (RECORD, 2024)
#### 3.6.4. Evaluate the robustness of the Avoided Emissions

Even if lower GHG emissions can be attributed to the analysed solution than to the reference scenario, the uncertainty ranges of the reference scenario and the analysed solution may be overlapping (as in Figure 49). In that case, it cannot be claimed that the analysed solution generates avoided GHG emissions.

Only when the uncertainty ranges show no overlap, as shown in Figure 51, it can be claimed that the GHG emissions of the analysed solution are significantly lower than the GHG emissions of the reference scenario.

<figure><img src="image_27.png" /><figcaption>Figure 51 Example comparison of a solution with a reference scenario, with a statistically significant determination of avoided emissions (RECORD, 2022)</figcaption></figure>

The strategies formulated in Figure 52 could be applied in case the performance of the two scenarios is not statistically distinguishable.

<figure><img src="image_28.png" /><figcaption>Figure 52 Potential strategies in case the emissions of the analysed solution and the reference scenario are not statistically distinguishable (RECORD, 2022)</figcaption></figure>

In the illustrative example of recycled PET, the uncertainty range shows that there is a possibility that the analysed solution does not generate avoided emissions, but instead increased emissions (see Figure 50). This possibility may be eliminated by reducing the uncertainty range via the collection of more representative data.
## 3.7. Communicate avoided emission claims

The GHG emissions avoided by the recycling/recovery sector are interpreted as "a reduction in GHG emissions of X ton of CO2-equivalent per year attributed to the recycling/waste valorisation chain", where "the chain" includes both the actors who generate the waste and the users of the recovered materials/energy in the analysed solution.

The stakeholder that conducts the study refers to the avoided emissions related to the functional unit, i.e. the stakeholder's perspective. Additional information on the study results must provide also the additional functional flows considered in the analysed solution. Also, the uncertainty range of the calculated avoided emissions must be additionally provided.

By default, only GHG emissions attributable to actors involved in the recycling/waste valorization supply chain are included. Benefits and loads beyond the system boundaries (due to waste valorization in the reference scenario) are not included in the evaluation of avoided emissions. However, the net avoided emissions including these benefits and loads must be provided as additional information.

A suggested communication template is provided in the Annex which includes these recommendations.

The result of Figure 50 may be communicated by the car manufacturer as follows: "Fulfilling the annual demand for PET in our cars in 2023 via recycled PET instead of market-average PET had the potential to avoid the emission of 4.9 kt CO2-equivalent per year within the value chain. More reliable and representative data must be collected for the relevant processes before such a claim can be confirmed. Avoided emissions, however, do not decrease the carbon footprint of our company and our products."
# 5. Reference Emission Factors

## 5.1. Overview of existing REFs

In the first run of the RECORD project, Reference Emission Factors (REFs) (emission factors that can be used in a reference scenario) are developed that can be used in the evaluation of avoided emissions within the value chains. The list of flows for which REFs have been established is provided in Table 9.

<table><caption>Table 9 End-of-life treatment and the supply of flows for which Reference Emission Factors are established (RECORD, 2022)</caption><thead><tr><th>Average end-of-life treatment of flows in Europe</th><th>Average production of intermediate products in Europe</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><ul><li>Paper</li><li>PET packaging</li><li>HDPE/LDPE</li><li>PP</li><li>PS</li><li>Aluminium</li><li>Copper</li><li>Steel</li><li>Glass</li><li>Inert construction waste</li><li>Wood</li><li>Biowaste</li></ul></td><td><ul><li>Paper</li><li>PET packaging</li><li>HDPE/LDPE</li><li>PP</li><li>PS</li><li>Aluminium</li><li>Copper</li><li>Steel</li><li>Glass</li><li>Materials for road construction</li><li>Wood</li><li>Nitrogen fertilizers</li><li>Gas</li><li>Heat in cement production</li><li>Electricity (France and Europe)</li><li>District heat (France and Europe)</li></ul></td></tr></tbody></table>

Within the second run of the project, three Excel sheets of REFs are updated: PET, steel, and paper. The system boundaries have been revised, and data sources have been updated. Furthermore, these Excel sheets are complemented with tabs that serve as a calculation template for the calculation of avoided emissions in a specific study.

## 5.2. Using the REFs in a specific study

### 5.2.1. Role of Reference Emission Factors in a calculation

The calculated Emission Factors are "Reference Emission Factors", i.e. Emission Factors that represent the GHG emissions associated with processes included in the reference scenario. Avoided emissions are the result of a comparison between the GHG emissions of a solution and the GHG emissions of the reference scenario. The published Emission Factors can be considered as building blocks to construct the total emissions of the reference scenario. If the solution contains similar technologies, the EFs can furthermore be used to calculate the total emissions of the evaluated solution.

The GHG emissions of the evaluated solution are compared with the GHG emissions of the reference scenario, based on the same:

- Point of substitution of the collected waste and produced intermediate material

- Inclusion and exclusion of processes within the system boundaries

- Functional unit

The user of the Reference Emission Factors is responsible for:

- Evaluating the suitability of the REFs in a specific calculation exercise of avoided emissions

- Ensuring alignment of the scope of the Emission Factors with the scope of the evaluated solution
- Ensuring the comparability of the evaluated solution with the reference scenario, by adapting the inclusion of processes and life cycle stages to a common functional unit.

### 5.2.2. Access to the Reference Emission Factors

The Reference Emission Factors in the Excel files are calculated based on a defined functional unit, determined by the input and output flows of the analysed solution. The location of this REF is provided in Table 10. This number will be updated if the analysed solution treats a different amount of waste, or produces a different amount of raw materials/energy. These emission factors may be used as such, or adapted according to level of knowledge of the user of the emission factors:

- Adapted quantities of waste treated and materials/energy produced by the analysed solution

- Adapted ratios of different technologies (e.g. primary production vs. recycling) in the market

- Adapted process data of a specific technology (e.g. transport distances or recycling efficiency)

- Adapted secondary emission factors

<table><caption>Table 10 Overview of sources of default REFs for paper, steel, and PET (RECORD, 2024)</caption><thead><tr><th>Material</th><th>Excel file name</th><th>Emission factor - Worksheet and cell</th><th>Uncertainty rate - Worksheet and cell</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Paper</td><td>20241023 Paper.xlsx</td><td>Reference scenario paper - K21</td><td>Reference scenario paper - N21</td></tr><tr><td>PET</td><td>20241023 PET.xlsx</td><td>Reference scenario PET - K27</td><td>Reference scenario PET - N27</td></tr><tr><td>Steel</td><td>20241023 Steel.xlsx</td><td>Reference scenario Steel - K16</td><td>Reference scenario PET - N19</td></tr></tbody></table>

### 5.2.3. Scope of the Reference Emission Factors

The Reference Emission Factors can be used in a study that aims to evaluate the avoided emissions generated by a recycling or waste valorisation solution. The combination of the collected data, the secondary emission factors, and the data quality evaluation are strictly reserved for the use in a study that applies the same scope, as outlined in Table 11.

<table><caption>Table 11 Scope of the updated Reference Emission Factors published as annex to the guide (RECORD, 2024)</caption><thead><tr><th>Reference element</th><th>Scope of the Emission Factor</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Reference year</td><td>2023</td></tr><tr><td>Reference geography (for the collection of waste and the consumption of intermediate materials)</td><td>Europe*</td></tr><tr><td>Technological reference</td><td>As specified in the according Excel sheet</td></tr><tr><td>System boundaries</td><td>From the point of substitution of the collected waste** to the point of substitution of the produced intermediate materials/energy at factory gate</td></tr></tbody></table>

The REFs may be used in studies with different scopes (e.g. with a reference geography of France), after applying the following modifications:

- Revision of the included processes and data values, where relevant

- Revision of secondary emission factors (e.g. using the French electricity production mix, instead of the European mix)

<footnote>*For some processes, no secondary emission factors were available for Europe. In that case, a representative dataset is selected, e.g. with a Swiss, Rest-of-World, or Global scope. The uncertainty of these secondary emission factors is adapted accordingly.</footnote>

<footnote>**Some REFs do not include collection of unsorted waste. If this is relevant for a specific comparison, this should be added by the user of the REFs.</footnote>
- Revision of the data quality evaluation (i.e. the scoring of the geographical, technological, and temporal representativeness of the data values and the secondary emission factors)

- Expansion of the system boundaries (addition of upstream and/or downstream life cycle stages) if the life cycles of the implemented solution and the reference scenario show differences beyond the defined system boundaries of the Reference Emission Factors. These life cycle stages must be added to both the implemented solution and the reference scenario.

#### 5.2.4. Evaluation of the updated REFs

The Reference Emission Factors aim to represent the average market scenario of Europe in 2023. This may include both primary production, incineration and landfilling, and recycling, according to their relative market share.

However, it is interesting to evaluate to what extent recycling appears to be environmentally beneficial compared to the average production and waste treatment (i.e. a mixture of primary production and recycling). This section analyses the results of the REFs of PET, paper, and steel.

##### PET

The system boundaries of the REF of PET are given in

Figure 53. It must be noted that collection is excluded from the analysis, due to a lack of reliable data. Figure 54 shows how each technology in the reference scenario contributes to the emissions of the reference scenario. In the default assessment of avoided emissions, the benefits and loads beyond the system boundaries (the “valorization” processes, leading to negative emissions) are excluded from the scope.

Key contributors to emissions are the primary production of PET and the incineration of PET waste.
<figure><img src="image_29.png" /><figcaption>Figure 53 System boundaries of the updated REF of PET (RECORD, 2024)</figcaption></figure>
Contribution of technologies to the Climate Change impacts of
the reference scenario

<figure><img src="image_30.png" /><figcaption>Figure 54 Contribution of technologies to the Climate Change impacts of the reference scenario of PET. Results are presented for a functional unit of the production of 1 ton of secondary raw material (RECORD, 2024)</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_31.png" /><figcaption>Figure 55 Scenario emissions of the reference scenario of PET, compared to the analysed solution (i.e. the isolated recycling process from the reference scenario). Results are presented for a functional unit of the production of 1 ton of secondary raw material (RECORD, 2024)</figcaption></figure>

Figure 55 shows the comparison of the reference scenario of PET with an example analysed solution (i.e. the isolated recycling process from the reference scenario). The high uncertainty rate of the reference scenario is mostly due to the uncertainty related to the primary production of PET. The share of primary PET production in the total production mix is relatively uncertain, due to the fact that no specific data for PET is used, but instead average data for multiple types of plastic. Furthermore, the EF for primary PET production, based on ecoinvent, refers to technologies from more than 10 or even 15 years ago.

<figure><img src="image_32.png" /><figcaption>Figure 56 Avoided emissions of the recycling of PET compared to the average end-of-life treatment of PET waste and the average production of PET in Europe. Results are presented for a functional unit of the production of 1 ton of secondary raw material (RECORD, 2024)</figcaption></figure>

Due to the high uncertainty rate of the reference scenario (and in a smaller extent the analysed solution), it cannot be claimed with certainty that recycling results in avoided emissions compared to the reference scenario.
## Paper

The system boundaries of the REF of paper are given in Figure 58. For recycling and the primary production of paper, a focus is put on tissue paper. Figure 57 shows how each technology in the reference scenario contributes to the emissions of the reference scenario. In the default assessment of avoided emissions, the benefits and loads beyond the system boundaries (the “valorization” processes, leading to negative emissions) are excluded from the scope.

Key contributors to emissions are the primary production of paper and the recycling process of tissue paper. The end-of-life treatment of paper waste by non-recycling technologies has a minor contribution.

<figure><img src="image_33.png" /><figcaption>Figure 57 Contribution of technologies to the Climate Change impacts of the reference scenario of paper. Results are presented for a functional unit of the production of 1 ton of secondary raw material (RECORD, 2024)</figcaption></figure>

Figure 59 shows the comparison of the reference scenario of paper with an example analysed solution (i.e. the isolated recycling process from the reference scenario). The high uncertainty rate of the reference scenario is mostly due to the high uncertainty rate of the primary production process of tissue paper. This is mostly related to the fact that data are used from 2012, which gives a temporal representativeness of 50%. Due to this high uncertainty rate, Figure 60 shows that it cannot be claimed that recycling results in avoided emissions compared to the current situation (which includes already a high end-of-life recycling rate).
<figure><img src="image_34.png" /><figcaption>Figure 58 System boundaries of the updated REF of paper (RECORD, 2024)</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_35.png" /><figcaption>Figure 59 Scenario emissions of the reference scenario of paper, compared to the analysed solution (i.e. the isolated recycling process from the reference scenario). Results are presented for a functional unit of the production of 1 ton of secondary raw material (RECORD, 2024)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_36.png" /><figcaption>Figure 60 Avoided emissions of the recycling of paper compared to the average end-of-life treatment of paper waste and the average production of paper in Europe. Results are presented for a functional unit of the production of 1 ton of secondary raw material (RECORD, 2024)</figcaption></figure>
## Steel

The system boundaries of the REF of steel are given in Figure 62. The end-of-life flow of steel represents steel waste which has been collected for recycling. No alternative waste treatment of steel is included in the assessment, due to a lack of data. For the consumption of steel, a mixture of Electric Arc Furnace (EAF, using only recycled steel scraps as an input) and Basic Oxygen Furnace (BOF, using a mixture of primary iron and steel scrap) processes is applied. Figure 61 shows how each technology in the reference scenario contributes to the emissions of the reference scenario. In the default assessment of avoided emissions, the benefits and loads beyond the system boundaries (the “valorization” processes, leading to negative emissions) are excluded from the scope.

The key contributor to emissions is the production of steel via the BOF process. EAF has a much lower contribution, mostly due to the use of steel scrap.

<figure><img src="image_37.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 61** Contribution of technologies to the Climate Change impacts of the reference scenario of steel. Results are presented for a functional unit of the production of 1 ton of secondary raw material (RECORD, 2024)</figcaption></figure>

Figure 63 shows the comparison of the reference scenario of steel with an example analysed solution (i.e. the isolated EAF process from the reference scenario). The steel case is the only case in which a statement that recycling results to avoided emissions compared to the current situation can be supported, due to the non-overlapping uncertainty rates (Figure 63 and Figure 64).
<figure><img src="image_38.png" /><figcaption>Figure 62 System boundaries of the updated REF of steel (RECORD, 2024)</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_39.png" /><figcaption>Figure 63 Scenario emissions of the reference scenario of steel, compared to the analysed solution (i.e. the isolated recycling process from the reference scenario). Results are presented for a functional unit of the production of 1 ton of secondary raw material (RECORD, 2024)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_40.png" /><figcaption>Figure 64 Avoided emissions of the recycling of steel compared to the average end-of-life treatment of steel waste and the average production of steel in Europe. Results are presented for a functional unit of the production of 1 ton of secondary raw material (RECORD, 2024)</figcaption></figure>
### 5.2.5. Quality and reliability of the Reference Emission Factors

The Excel sheets presenting the Reference Emission Factors reflect an illustration of the methodological guide in Chapter 3, as well as a template for the future calculation of avoided emissions. The Excel sheets are occupied with readily available data on recycling processes, primary production processes, waste treatment processes, as well as technology market shares. The user of the Excel sheets should therefore evaluate the suitability of the data in a specific avoided emissions calculation.

At a minimum, the following limitations should be taken into consideration:

- No specific data were available for the different types of plastics. Therefore, the market shares of different technologies are based on the information of a mixture of plastics.

- Secondary emission factors have been used from background databases, notably ecoinvent. Many datasets have a relatively low scoring on the geographical, temporal, or technological representativeness, leading to high uncertainty rates. Ideally, future users of the REFs evaluate whether more representative data are available in an effort to decrease these uncertainty rates.

- The inherent uncertainty of the secondary emission factors is by default established at 30%. This value is ideally updated by conducting a Monte Carlo analysis, that allows to generate specific uncertainty ranges for each of these secondary emission factors.

- Data on market-average recycling rates were not readily available and benefit from a more sector-specific analysis.

- Ideally, the REFs represent the European consumption patterns of raw materials, considering the import of primary and recycled materials, extra-European production processes, as well as the export of waste and corresponding waste treatment processes. The inclusion of import and export rates has been limited, as data were not always readily available. This should be revised in an updated version of the REFs.

- The emission factors would benefit from a review conducted by sector-specific experts.

### 5.2.6. Adapting the analysed solution

The updated REFs include a tab called "analysed solution". In the default version of the Excel files, this analysed solution represents the recycling technology that is integrated into the reference scenario. The system boundaries of the analysed solution considered in the Excel files are shown in the tab "Goal and scope". Hence, the calculation template automatically compares 100% recycling with the average mixture of waste and production technologies in the European market, considering the same recycling technology. In a future study, the "analysed solution" may be modified to a specific recycling approach, which may deviate in its efficiency or applied techniques. The recycling technology in the reference scenario may be unmodified. This allows for a comparison between, for example, an innovative recycling technique with the average case, including the average recycling technique.

### 5.2.7. Combining REFs for a new reference scenario

The existing REFs can be combined to create new scenarios, that may contain a mixture of various raw materials. For example, Solid Recovered Fuel (SRF) can be produced from several materials (including plastics and paper) that are unsuitable for recycling.

**This example furthermore serves to illustrate the application of the steps of Chapter 3 to an analysed solution that focuses on energy recovery rather than material recovery.**

First, the system boundaries are drawn for the relevant processes of the analysed solution (the production of SRF from waste paper and PET, for the recovery of energy, Figure 65). As mentioned in the guide, at least the preparation of the energy carrier (SRF) and the transformation process that releases the energy (combustion) must be included in the system boundaries.

Secondly, the system boundaries of the reference scenario are drawn (Figure 66). As the treated waste flows are per definition not recyclable, only final waste treatment processes are included in the system boundaries. Furthermore, as the analysed solution supplies recovered electricity and heat as functional outputs, these must also be included in the reference scenario. However, because the incineration processes in the reference scenario also recover electricity and heat, the surplus of recovered energy is modelled by the cut-off approach, followed by a subtraction of an alternative production process. It must be noted that the subtracted production mixes of heat and electricity may be different than the ones in the system boundaries of the value chain under study, e.g. if energy recovery takes place in a different geographical region than energy consumption by User 2.
Analysed solution

<figure><img src="image_41.png" /><figcaption>Figure 65 System boundaries of the analysed solution of a study on the energetic valorization of waste paper and waste PET via the production of Solid Recovered Fuel (SRF) (RECORD, 2024)</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_42.png" /><figcaption>Figure 66 System boundaries of the reference scenario of a study on the energetic valorization of waste paper and waste PET via the production of Solid Recovered Fuel (SRF). Recovered energy flows in green are modelled by the cut-off approach, followed by a subtraction of alternative production technologies (RECORD, 2024)</figcaption></figure>
The Emission Factors for the reference technologies can be collected from various Excel files, as shown in Table 12.

<table><caption>Table 12 Overview of sources of emission factors for the reference scenario of the production of SRF (RECORD, 2024)</caption><thead><tr><th>Process</th><th>Excel file name</th><th>Emission factor -<br>Worksheet and cell</th><th>Uncertainty rate -<br>Worksheet and cell</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Transport, municipal<br>incineration (56,4%),<br>open burning, and<br>sanitary landfill of waste<br>paper</td><td>20240902<br>Paper.xlsx</td><td>Reference scenario<br>paper - H18</td><td>Reference scenario<br>paper - J18</td></tr><tr><td>Incineration with energy<br>recovery of PET</td><td>20240904<br>PET.xlsx</td><td>Reference scenario<br>PET - H21</td><td>Reference scenario<br>PET - J21</td></tr><tr><td>Landfilling of PET</td><td>20240904<br>PET.xlsx</td><td>Reference scenario<br>PET - H22</td><td>Reference scenario<br>PET - J22</td></tr><tr><td>Electricity production</td><td>20220630<br>Europe.xlsx</td><td>Electricity Europe -<br>B5</td><td>Electricity Europe D5</td></tr><tr><td>Heat production</td><td>20220630<br>Europe.xlsx</td><td>Heat Europe - B20</td><td>Heat Europe - D20</td></tr></tbody></table>