# End-of-Life Impact on the Cradle-to-Grave LCA of Light-Duty Commercial Vehicles in Europe
## 3 Results  
### Comparison of the Two EoL Scenarios  
In this section, two EoL scenarios are compared. The two scenarios are based on the two distinct allocation methods: CFF and avoided burden; these only apply to the raw material acquisition, processing, and EoL stages, while the manufacturing and use stages fall outside of their scope. Consequently, this section shows the results of the following life cycle stages: raw material acquisition, processing, and EoL. In Figure 4, the GWP impacts for each vehicle configuration are compared under the CFF (green) avoided burden (grey) methods. In all vehicle configurations, the GWP impact under the CFF scenario is significantly higher than that under the avoided burden scenario. In more detail, the net GWP impact of the CFF method is 19% greater for DIE-ICEV, 18% greater for CNG-ICEV, and 14% greater for BEV when compared to the avoided burden method. This can be explained as follows:  
* In the CFF scenario, the benefits of recycling are partitioned between the two connected product systems; therefore, the product system under study receives lower benefits (\(-16\%\) for DIE-ICEV, \(-15\%\) for CNG-ICEV, and \(-18\%\) for BEV);
* In the CFF scenario, the product system under study benefits from the introduction of a certain percentage of recycled content as input at the manufacturing stage, while in the avoided burden scenario, only the primary materials are considered as inputs. Consequently, in the CFF scenario, the GWP impact of the raw material acquisition and processing stage is reduced by around \(-4\%\) for DIE-ICEV and \(-3\%\) for CNG-ICEV and BEV. In Figure 5, for each vehicle configuration, the GWP impact of the EoL stage under the avoided burden scenario is compared with the sum of the following parts of the CFF: \"CFF material part recycling\" (1c), \"energy part\" (2), and \"other disposal part\" (3). For each vehicle, the GWP impact of the EoL stage includes a share of burdens (with a positive sign) and a share of benefits (with a negative sign). The burdens are due to the recycling processes (red bars) and to other disposal methods, which, in this graph, have been considered separately to highlight their impacts on the total (e.g., treatment of polymers (yellow bars), tires (orange bars), platinum, rhodium, and palladium (purple bars), batteries (magenta bars), and the ASR non identified fraction (light blue bars)). The benefits are due to the avoided impacts of virgin material production from material recycling (blue bars) and reuse (green bars). As can be seen in Figure 5, in all the three vehicle configurations and in all the EoL scenarios, the benefits due to the avoided virgin production of materials reduce the total GWP impact, compensating the burdens. As far as the BEV configuration is concerned, the burdens are greater than those of the conventional ones (by a factor of two in the CFF scenario and by 66-83% in the avoided burden scenario), mainly due to the impacts related to the treatment of the Li-ion batteries. In addition, significant differences can be found if the EoL scenarios are compared within the same configuration. Although the specific emissions, \(E_{i}\), and mass of materials in both scenarios are the same, the net GWP impacts (black scatters in Figure 5) of the CFF scenario are 33, 29, and 24% higher than those of the avoided burden scenario for DIE-ICEV, CNG-ICEV, and BEV, respectively. These significative differences are due to the A parameter, which largely influences the results [55]. The A parameter, for which the range is between 0.2 and 0.8, aims to allocate the burdens and benefits between the two connected product systems; consequently, as also highlighted in [42], the benefits allocated to the  
Figure 4: Comparison of the GWP impacts in the raw material acquisition, processing, and EoL stages of the three vehicle configurations adopting the CFF and avoided burden scenarios. Figure 5: GWP impact of the EoL stage of the three vehicle configurations adopting the CFF and avoided burden scenarios.