(PDF) Methodology for evaluating LCC

REFRESH is funded by the Horizon 2020 Framework Programme of the European Union

under Grant Agreement no. 641933. The contents of this document are the sole

responsibility of REFRESH and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the

European Union

Methodology for

evaluating LCC

Methodology for evaluating LCC

i

Authors

Fabio De Menna, University of Bologna

Marion Loubiere, Deloitte Sustainability

Jana Dietershagen, University of Bologna

Nicole Unger, University of natural resources and life sciences

Matteo Vittuari, University of Bologna

With thanks to:

Karin Östergren, SP Food and Bioscience

Jennifer Davis, SP Food and Bioscience

Manuscript completed in April, 2016

This document is available on the Internet at: [optional]

Document title

Methodology for evaluating LCC

Work Package

WP5

Document Type

Deliverable

Date

22 April 2016

Document Status

Final version

ISBN

978-94-6257-722-0

Acknowledgments & Disclaimer

This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and

innovation programme under grant agreement No 641933.

Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is

responsible for the use which might be made of the following information. The views

expressed in this publication are the sole responsibility of the author and do not

necessarily reflect the views of the European Commission.

Reproduction and translation for non-commercial purposes are authorised, provided the

source is acknowledged and the publisher is given prior notice and sent a copy.

Methodology for evaluating LCC

ii

Table of Contents

1 Exec u t ive s u mmar y 1

1 Intr o ductio n 2

2 Meth o dolog y of t h e revi e w 3

3 What is Li f e Cyc l e Cost i n g 4

4 REFR E S H Si t u ation s 6

5.1 Purpose and link to other activities 6

5.2 Description of REFRESH situations 7

5.2.1 Prevention at source 7

5.2.2 Co-product valorisation 8

5.2.3 Valorisation as part of waste management 9

5.2.4 End of life treatment 10

6 LCC a n d foo d was t e : sta t e of a rt and meth o d ologi c al

aspe c ts 11

6.1 Application of LCC to food systems and food waste 11

6.2 Functional units and system boundaries 13

6.2.1 Functional units 13

6.2.2 System boundaries 15

6.3 Cost modelling 17

6.3.1 Cost categories 17

6.3.2 Cost bearers 21

6.3.3 Cost allocation 22

6.3.4 Discounting 23

6.4 Externalities 24

Methodology for evaluating LCC

iii

6.5 Evaluation of impacts and sensitivity analysis 28

6.6 Other aspects 32

7 Concl u sions 34

8 Refe r e nces 37

9 Anne x A: A l i gnme n t of R E FRESH situa t ions w ith o t h er

fram e works 1

10 Annex B: Su m mary o f rev i ewed d o cumen t 2

List of Tables

Table 1: REFRESH situation: Prevention at source 8

Table 2: REFRESH situation: Co-product valorisation 9

Table 3: REFRESH situation: Valorisation as part of waste management10

Table 4: REFRESH situation: End of life treatment 10

Table 5: Amount of reviewed documents by approach and topic 11

Table 6: Cost categories in C-LCC 17

Table 7: Criteria for the inclusion of external costs 26

Table 8: Key costing assumptions to analyse for sensitivity 31

Table 9: Future cash flows: current vs. constant currency for 32

Table 10: Destinations of FUSIONS (2015) and Food Waste and Loss

Standard (2015) aligned to the four REFRESH situations. 1

Table 11: Overview of literature sources covered 2

Table 12: Detailed literature review 5

List of Figures

Figure 1: The 3 types of LCC 6

Figure 2: Examples of cost categorizations in E-LCC 19

List of Boxes

Box 1: Take out: LCC in food and food waste studies 13

Box 2: Take out: Functional units 15

Methodology for evaluating LCC

iv

Box 3: Take out: System boundaries 17

Box 4: Take out: Cost categories 21

Box 5: Take out: Cost bearers 22

Box 6: Take out: Cost allocation 23

Box 7: Take out: Discounting 24

Box 8: Take out: Externalities 28

Box 9: Take out: Evaluation of impacts 30

Box 10: Take out: Sensitivity analysis 32

Box 11: Take out: Other aspects 34

Methodology for evaluating LCC

i

Glossary

The definitions of the terms in the glossary have been taken from: A) ISO

standard for life cycle assessment (ISO 2006); B) Hunkeler et al. (2008); C) PEF

guide (EC 2013); D) Ciroth et al. (2011).

AllocationA

The partitioning of input or output flows of a process or a

product system between the product system under study and

one or more other product systems.

Co-productA

Any of two or more products coming from the same unit

process or product system.

Conventional

Life Cycle

CostingB

An assessment of all costs associated with the life cycle of a

product, directly covered by anyone or more of the actors in

the life cycle.

CostB

The cash or cash equivalent value sacrificed for goods and

services that are expected to bring a current or future benefit

to the organization.

Cradle to gateC

A partial product supply chain, from the extraction of raw

materials (Cradle) up to the manufacturer’s “gate”. The

distribution, storage, use stage and end of life stages of the

supply chain are omitted.

Cradle to graveC

A product’s life cycle that includes raw material extraction,

processing, distribution, storage, use and disposal or

recycling stages. All relevant inputs and outputs are

considered for all of the stages of the life cycle.

Cut-off

(criteria)A

Specifications of the amount of material or energy flow or the

level of environmental or economic significance associated

with unit processes or product system to be excluded from

the study.

DiscountingB

Converting future costs (and revenues or value) to equivalent

(net) costs at a common point in time (e.g. present year).

Environmental

costB

It can express environmental damage expressed in monetary

terms or the market-based cost of measures to prevent

environmental damage, including end of life processes.

Market-based costs are part of life cycle costing.

Environmental

impactC

Any change to the environment, whether adverse of

beneficial, that wholly or partially results from an

organisation’s activities, products or services (EMAS

regulation)

Environmental

Life Cycle

An assessment of all costs associated with the life cycle of a

product that are directly covered by any one or more of the

Methodology for evaluating LCC

ii

CostingB

actors in the product life cycle (e.g., supplier, manufacturer,

user or consumer, or end of life actor) with complementary

inclusion of externalities that are anticipated to be

internalized in the decision-relevant future. Environmental

LCC has to be accompanied by a life cycle assessment and is

a consistent pillar of sustainability.

ExternalitiesB

Environmental and social impacts not directly borne by any of

those taking part in the product life cycle, such as the firms,

consumers, or government bodies that are producing, using,

or handling the product

Functional unitA

Quantified performance of a product system for use as a

reference unit (comment: in the PEF guide the term “unit of

analysis” is used)

Life cycleA

Consecutive and interlinked stages of a product system, from

raw material acquisition or generation from natural resources

to final disposal

Life cycle

assessmentA

Compilation and evaluation of the inputs, outputs and the

potential environmental impacts of a product system

throughout its life cycle

Life cycle

impact

assessmentA

Phase of life cycle assessment aimed at understanding and

evaluating the magnitude and significance of the potential

environmental impacts for a product system throughout the

life cycle of the product

Life Cycle

Sustainability

AssessmentD

It evaluates environmental, social and economic impacts and

benefits in a life cycle perspective. It integrates LCA with LCC

and S-LCA (Social Life Cycle Assessment)

ProcessA

Set of interrelated or interacting activities that transforms

inputs into outputs

ProductA

Any goods or service

Product systemA

A collection of unit processes with elementary and product

flows, performing one or more defined functions, and which

models the life cycle of a product.

Societal Life

Cycle CostingB

An assessment of all costs, including costs of externalities,

associated with the life cycle of a product, covered by any

actor in society. Transfer payments are not considered in

societal LCC.

Methodology for evaluating LCC

iii

System

boundaryC

Definition of aspects included or excluded from the study. For

example, for a “cradle to grave” analysis, the system

boundary should include all activities from the extraction of

raw materials through the processing, distribution, storage,

use, and disposal or recycling stages. It may be graphically

represented through a system boundary diagram.

Transfer

(payments)B

Payments between governments and private persons or

organizations, involving taxes and subsidies. Payments for

public services, like for waste management, may fall under

this heading if paid (for example) by a local municipality from

taxes or levies.

Value addedB

The difference between the cost of products purchased and

the proceeds of products sold, as gross value added, being

the costs of labour and capital, including profits. Net value

added is obtained by subtracting depreciation from gross

value added.

List of abbreviations

ASTM

American Society for Testing and Materials International

C-LCC

Conventional Life Cycle Costing

E-LCC

Environmental Life Cycle Costing

EP&L

Environmental Profit and Loss

EVA

Economic Value Added

FAO

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

FLW

Food Losses and Waste

FU

Functional Unit

FUSIONS

Food Use for Social Innovation by Optimising Waste Prevention

Strategies

GDP

Gross Domestic Product

GHG

Greenhouse gas emissions

GWP

Global Warming Potential

HACCP

Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points

Methodology for evaluating LCC

iv

IRR

Internal Rate of Return

ISO

International Organization for Standardization

LCA

Life Cycle Assessment

LCC

Life Cycle Costing

LCSA

Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment

NGO

Non-Governmental Organization

NPV

Net Present Value

OECD

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development

PERT

Program Evaluation and Review Technique

REFRESH

Resource Efficient Food and dRink for the Entire Supply cHain

S-LCC

Societal Life Cycle Costing

SETAC

Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry

UCO

Used Cooking Oil

Methodology for evaluating LCC

1

1 Executive summary

This report reviews measures and methodologies for the evaluation of the life

cycle cost dimension of food waste. It aims at contributing to REFRESH sub-task

5.1.3 that will provide recommendations for the development of a standardized

system approach for integrating the life cycle cost and the environmental

dimension of different measures regarding food waste (prevention, valorisation

and waste management options). To analyse the major methodological

challenges, four REFRESH situations focusing on food waste have been defined

and described: prevention at source, co-product valorisation, valorisation as part

of waste management, and end of life treatment. The most relevant documents

(books, standards, scientific papers, reports, and others) were reviewed to

analyse:

Relevant definitions of Life Cycle Costing, with a focus on most recent

approaches;

Cases of application on food systems and food waste prevention, disposal,

management, valorisation;

Commonly used/recommended method for key aspects;

Areas of challenge/improvement.

The literature review showed that, amongst several costing approaches, the so

called Environmental LCC allows the integration of costing techniques and LCA

into a comprehensive assessment. Nevertheless, few examples of application of

LCC to food waste were available, most of them focusing on management

scenarios for (household) food waste. Only one study encompassed prevention

measures. Some of these specific gaps and challenges should be addressed within

REFRESH sub-task 5.1.3 and deliverable 5.3. In the specific, further guidance will

be provided on:

Identification and characterization of appropriate functional units and system

boundaries in accordance with LCA and coherent with the economic relevance

of processes;

Specific cost modelling, including categories, cost perspectives and discounting

rates;

Inclusion/exclusion criteria for food waste externalities, indirect effects, and

trade-offs.

Thus will be carried out by:

Using REFRESH situations to elaborate on method choices;

Including practitioners in LCC scoping;

identifying a set of questions that should be asked when scoping an LCC

Providing food waste specific examples.

Methodology for evaluating LCC

2

1 Introduction

The REFRESH project aims at contributing towards the EU Sustainable

Development Goal 12.3 of halving per capita food waste at the retail and

consumer level and reducing food losses along production and supply chains,

reducing waste management costs, and maximizing the value from un-avoidable

food waste and packaging materials.. To this end, a systemic approach has been

deemed necessary to analyse potential food waste prevention, valorisation, and

management routes, in terms both of environmental and economic impacts. Work

Package 5 aims at providing the environmental and cost dimension of these

valorisation routes and options by using life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle

cost (LCC) methodologies. In this perspective the first tasks were to identify

existing measures and methodologies and their application to food waste

valorisation and management. Task 5.1.2 thus aimed at collecting and analysing

the literature on life cycle costing with a focus on practical implementation on

food waste, in order to provide input to REFRESH sub-task 5.1.3.

Life cycle costing is a rather consolidated methodology aimed at calculating the

overall cost of a product or a service over its life span or life cycle. Despite being

used for a long time by both decision-makers and businesses, LCC was

standardized only with reference to specific product categories. Several

approaches can be found in the literature, mainly differing in terms of

perspective, costs included, and potential application. Conventional LCC (C-LCC)

techniques are mainly applied in the framework of decisions over products or

investments requiring high initial capital, such as buildings, energy systems,

transport systems, military equipment, and durable goods in general, with the

perspective of the producer or the consumer. Environmental Life Cycle Costing

(E-LCC) was developed in order to be compatible with LCA and should assess

costs occurred during the life cycle of products, services, and technologies,

directly covered by one or more actors. Besides, other costing methodologies with

a larger perspective aim at assessing also the overall direct and indirect costs

covered by the society. This is the case of Societal Life Cycle Costing, Cost-

Benefit Analysis and Full-Cost Accounting.

Despite a variety of applications, LCC was rarely used in the evaluation of food

systems and food waste management or valorisation. Few studies, mainly from

academic publications, assessed costs deriving from food waste with a life cycle

perspective. Thus, the following report aims at presenting results from the

literature review to a larger readership than academic and business LCC

practitioner. Information were collected and analysed in order to derive basic

recommendations and take outs that can be useful for relevant stakeholders

dealing with food waste prevention, valorisation, and management.

The second chapter of the report presents the methodology of the systematic

literature review, with a description of each step followed to identify sources,

collect relevant information, analyse and discuss the main results. The third

chapter discusses the more general aspects of the review, such as some historical

background and a description of the different LCC approaches. The fourth

presents the REFRESH situations: this section is the same as in D5.1. The fifth

Methodology for evaluating LCC

3

presents: an overview of LCC application to food systems and food waste

management, disposal, or valorisation; a discussion of the specific aspects

identified in the methodology of the review. Information of this chapter is based

on the literature review. The final chapter summarizes results from the literature

review and highlights the main take outs for next tasks of Work Package 5.

2 Methodology of the review

A systematic literature review was carried out to collect information on both

theoretical and methodological aspects of the evaluation of food waste cost

dimension. In order to ensure consistency between task 5.1.2 and task 5.1.1 as

preparatory work for task 5.1.3, a similar methodology was followed, envisaging

5 steps:

i) Scope definition

Coherently with the general aim of the Work Package 5 and the specific

objectives of the Task 5.1.2, the review aimed at identifying:

Relevant definitions of Life Cycle Costing, with a focus on most recent

approaches;

Cases of application on food systems and food waste prevention, disposal,

management, valorisation;

Commonly used/recommended method for key aspects;

Areas of challenge/improvement.

ii) Literature identification

Relevant documents were identified by searching scientific databases, internet

search engines, and existing knowledge. The following keywords were used in the

literature search: “LCC”, “life cycle costing”, “food waste”. Additional documents

were identified also during the review (e.g. because they were referenced to in a

reviewed document) and added to the whole corpus. Collected documents were

categorized according to the source typology:

Books from international publishers;

International standards and policy guidelines;

Papers published in academic journals with a focus on life cycle cost of food waste

and valorisation;

Reports from International Organizations and past European projects;

Grey literature;

Business sustainability reporting tools.

Single sources were thus inventoried in a detailed overview that can be found in

the Appendix (Table 11).

iii) Methodological aspects covered

Methodology for evaluating LCC

4

Life Cycle Costing literature presents two key differences to Life Cycle

Assessment: firstly, the application to food waste is a rather recent niche;

secondly, there are no overarching standard but only product-specific guidelines.

Therefore, publications were collected with reference to: LCC general approaches;

LCC application to food systems; LCC application to waste and food waste

management; food waste costing studies without a proper LCC methodology, but

deemed relevant for the scope of the review. Apart from the general theme of the

source (LCC, LCC food, LCC (food) waste) and the approach (conventional,

environmental, societal, other costing methodologies), when performing the

review, the following methodological aspects were covered:

Functional unit and system boundaries;

Cost categories, allocation and discounting;

Externalities: inclusion and methods for accounting;

Impact evaluation and sensitivity analysis;

Others.

These methodological aspects are developed in the section of the sixth chapter of

this report. Starting from the identified topics, a review template form was built

and used to collate information from each source. Completed templates can be

found in the Appendix (Table 12).

iv) Analysis of information

Review templates allowed for cross reading of specific methodological aspects,

e.g. if and how functional unit is used by different LCC approaches or studies. The

different methodological aspects were analysed during the literature review in

order to provide an overview and examples of application.

v) Recommendation and outlook

As last step, findings from the analysis of information were combined and inter-

dependencies highlighted. Additional comments were provided in regard to what

methodology aspects need to be further addressed in Task 5.1.3. According to

the project plan the life cycle environmental and costing dimensions are only

combined in task 5.3, however, it was important for the task members to seek

close alignment and inter-disciplinary so to identify communalities and differences

and provide some initial observations from this early interaction.

3 What is Life Cycle Costing

The idea of calculating the impact of products and services in terms of costs in a

life span or life cycle perspective1 is rather old. In the literature review, three

main approaches were identified (see Figure 1). The so called Conventional Life

Cycle Costing (C-LCC) techniques are rather well-established both in the

1 The temporal (life span) and the product system (life cycle) costing perspectives may be overlapping or

different depending on the actor(s) included in the analysis as cost bearers.

Methodology for evaluating LCC

5

academic literature, in the public sector, and in business accounting. Already in

the ‘30s the US General Accounting Office started to include operating and

maintenance costs in public procurement. Later, in the 70s mandatory LCC was

included in US public purchase of weapon systems and buildings, and in the same

period several European countries started to use it (Hunkeler et al. 2008).

Recently, the European Commission (DG enterprise and industry) commissioned a

study on the potential contribution of LCC in the sustainable construction sector

(Langdon 2007). Therefore, most of LCC techniques were applied in the

framework of decisions over products or investments requiring high initial capital,

such as buildings, energy systems, transport systems, military equipment, and

durable goods in general.

In order to couple LCA with socio-economic impact assessments, a specific SETAC

(Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry) working group elaborated a

new approach compatible with LCA, the Environmental Life Cycle Costing (E-

LCC) (Hunkeler et al. 2008). According to their proposal, an E-LCC should assess

costs occurred during the life cycle of a product and directly covered by one or

more actors in the product life cycle, while conventional LCC usually focuses on

real and internal costs covered by the main producer or user (Hunkeler et al.

2008). This means that while conventional LCC mainly focuses on the product,

service or investment life span, potentially excluding upstream and downstream

segments or processes, E-LCC focuses on the life cycle in its LCA-related

meaning, thus including all stages from feedstock supply to consumption and/or

end of life. Therefore, an E-LCC should have the same product system as LCA,

defined by ISO 14040/44 (Swarr et al. 2011). Besides this basic difference, an E-

LCC could also include those externalities that will be probably internalized in the

decision relevant future, for example CO2 taxes, and all relevant subsidies and

taxes. For these reasons, an E-LCC is thought to be carried out together or after

an LCA (Hunkeler et al. 2008). Results can, in fact, be plotted to identify win-win

scenarios, compare costs of different environmental measures, analyse cost

hotspots along the supply chain, etc. Some results from LCA can also be

integrated and monetized as externalities, as long as there is a foreseeable

internalization in the relevant future and double counting is avoided (Hunkeler et

al. 2008, Swarr et al. 2011). E-LCC was also recently included as economic pillar

of the proposed Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA) together with

environmental LCA and Social LCA (Valdivia et al. 2011).

The SETAC working group also provided a draft definition and some

methodological background for the so called Societal Life Cycle Costing (S-

LCC) (Hunkeler et al. 2008). This approach has a larger perspective and includes

all costs covered by anyone in society, whether today or in the long-term future.

This means that besides costs assessed by conventional and environmental LCC,

also additional social and environmental externalities are considered and

converted into monetary terms. Therefore, S-LCC aims at being a stand-alone

method, as long as all externalities are monetized (no double counting) and

transfer payments (taxes and subsidies) are subtracted. Given that the

perspective is encompassing the overall society, this approach can be relevant for

policy making to identify larger effects and indirect cost of production systems

and alternatives. However, since definitions and methods are not standardized

Methodology for evaluating LCC

6

yet, depending on specific choices, S-LCC can be similar to other approaches such

as Cost-Benefit Analysis and Full-Cost Accounting (Hunkeler et al. 2008).

Figure 1: The 3 types of LCC

Source: Hunkeler et al. 2008

4 REFRESH Situations

To structure the thinking on what the methodological challenges are when

evaluating different measures regarding flows from the food chain, relevant

REFRESH situations have been defined, described in this section.

5.1 Purpose and link to other activities

To structure the thinking of REFRESH task 5.1.1 and task 5.1.2 in view of task

5.1.3: ‘standard system approach for evaluating the environmental dimension

and life cycle cost of food waste’, four REFRESH situations are defined which form

the skeleton around which the later task of 5.1.3 will be built. The situations try

to group different types of circumstances – situations – under which food and

food waste will leave the food supply chain and be treated through different

routes (destinations). The hypothesis is that similar situations will require similar

methodological choices and thus should give a good structure around which to

develop a methodology framework. At this stage this merely is a stepping stone

to guide the authors thinking and as such will be developed further during task

5.1.3.

Methodology for evaluating LCC

7

These situations are meant to guide in both environmental and cost assessments;

hence, the description of the situations are present in both reports: D5.1 and

D5.2 which covers methods for cost assessment.

There are many food commodities that are used in the food supply chain, but

which might also be used in other types of goods, e.g. vegetables oils might be

used in personal care products. There are also many supply chains producing

several outputs which feed into different supply chains, e.g. bio-diesel production

also produces glycerol, a common ingredient in many food products. It is not

helpful if all possible sources and supply chains which feed into the food supply

chain are mapped out. REFRESH, therefore, like FUSIONS focuses on flows from

the food supply chain and thus the focus for the situations is there.

5.2 Description of REFRESH situations

The following four situations are defined: prevention at source, valorisation

maintaining quality, valorisation as part of waste management and end of life

treatment.

Important features of these REFRESH situations are:

They can take place at any point/process in the life cycle.

They can take place within the remit of any stakeholder.

More than one situation can occur at the same life cycle stage, e.g. part of an

output is valorised at source, and part becomes input to a waste management

system and is then in turn valorised.

More than one situation can occur at different life cycle stages within a life cycle

under investigation.

All final destinations can be accommodated (hypothesis).

While the presented order of situations has some alignment to the waste

hierarchy, all examples given within a situation will not have similar

environmental impact.

The situations are described in detail below. How destinations of food waste used

in FUSIONS (2015) and Food Loss & Waste Protocol (FLW 2015) align to the four

REFRESH situations are provided in Table 10 in Annex A.

5.2.1 Prevention at source

Waste prevention (see Table 1), which is the highest priority of the waste

hierarchy, is defined as the prevention of waste at source through avoidance,

reduction and reuse, but excluding off site recycling. The Waste Framework

Directive especially in Article 3, clause 12-13, states that prevention means

taking measures before a substance, material or product has become waste,

which reduce: (a) the quantity of waste, including through the re-use of products

or the extension of the life span of products; (b) the adverse impact of the

generated waste on the environment and human health; (c) the content of

Methodology for evaluating LCC

8

harmful substances in materials and products (Zorpas and Lasaridi 2013). Despite

the order of priority in the waste hierarchy, only a few studies measure waste

prevention in the context of waste management (Laurent et al. 2014).

As an initial thought model, the authors propose that prevention at source can

only take place if there has been waste of resources, either by generation of food

waste or production of other outputs which were utilized but not as such a desired

output (i.e. produced on purpose), otherwise it cannot be prevented. If there was

never wastage of resources in the first place, there cannot be prevention. Put

differently, not doing the prevention measure would lead to wasted or inefficient

use of resources.

Depending on where in the life cycle the prevention takes place, more or fewer

processes will be affected. If through a new technology more can be harvested,

then this will only affect the agricultural stage; if food waste is prevented at the

consumer level, then the prevention will show benefits for the whole life cycle up

to that stage. While prevention is generally seen as reducing environmental

impacts, there might also be trade-offs, e.g. if less is needed there might be

poorer scale of economy in some instances, or actions for prevention might result

in environmental burden (e.g. energy for better preservation), which need

considerations.

It is worth keeping any rebound effects, as highlighted by Laurent et al. (2014),

in mind when discussing system boundaries later in the project.

Table 1: REFRESH situation: Prevention at source

Prevention at source: the flow is avoided

Technology routes

Examples

- Redesign and optimisation of

processes

- New technology

- Re-work of material

- Behavioural change

- Reworks on manufacturing, which

was previously discarded as waste,

e.g. content of wrongly packaged

product is repacked

- More efficient change over from one

product or flavour to another

- Consumers to use up their

purchased food in time so they do

not have to throw away spoilt food

- Retailers marking down the price to

sell items close to use-by-date

(reduces wastage at retailer, but

not necessarily at consumer end)

5.2.2 Co-product valorisation

Co-product valorisation, see Table 2, can be at any point in the life cycle,

including the consumer stage which itself does not produce a marketable output

Methodology for evaluating LCC

9

linked to the existing product chain but still can produce material outputs, e.g.

peelings which can be valorised. For this situation it is important that outputs of

the valorisation need to replace another marketable product. Some of the

environmental burden from the upstream supply chain will be attributed to the

outputs going into this situation.

The advantage of co-product valorisation over valorisation as part of waste

management is that it utilizes, in general, outputs for which the source and origin

are known, which are uncontaminated, high quality material flow, which therefore

may allow usage within the food supply chain.

Table 2: REFRESH situation: Co-product valorisation

Co-product valorisation: The flow is valorised into a

product that replaces another marketable product. The

generator of the flow sees a value with the flow.

Technology routes

Examples

- Animal feed production

- Biobased material and biochemical

processing

- Bio-energy production

- Fermentation

- Use of bagasse for energy

production

- Use of by-product plant material for

bioplastics, such as PLA

- Use of fish industry residues as

input for feed production

- On-site treatment of manufacturing

food waste in AD (it is of value for

the generator)

- On-site recycling (for a different use

than its original) e.g. used coffee

grounds as fertiliser for office plants

assuming it replaces fertilizer

- On-site composting

- Home composting (if compost

replaces shop bought compost or

substances used for soil

improvement).

5.2.3 Valorisation as part of waste management

Valorisation as part of waste management (Table 3) can be at any point in the life

cycle. The material flow may be mixed with other materials for further treatment

with the aim to utilize the material before final disposal. This stage can include a

change of owner of the material flow and may be accompanied by a loss of

traceability or an increase in contaminations. It starts, e.g. by being collected

within a municipal waste management system. The output from this valorisation

still replaces a marketable product.

Methodology for evaluating LCC

10

Table 3: REFRESH situation: Valorisation as part of waste management

Valorisation as part of waste management: the flow is

mixed with other materials and treated in waste treatment

process that gives a product that replaces another

marketable product. The generator of the flow wants to

discard the flow (sees no value).

Technology routes

Examples

- Composting by waste management

companies

- plough in if for the purpose of soil

enhancement

- Not harvested if for the purpose of

soil enhancement

- Anaerobic digestion

- Co-generation/Incineration if with

energy recovery

- Bio gas production in an anaerobic

digestion

- Incineration linked to district

heating system

5.2.4 End of life treatment

The purpose of this situation is to handle material, reduce its quantity and

stability for final disposal. The technologies are not designed to maximize any

valuable outputs. For instance, a landfill is not designed to optimize methane

production, quite the contrary. Examples are given in Table 4.

Table 4: REFRESH situation: End of life treatment

End of life treatment: the treatment does NOT result in

any product that replaces another marketable product

Technology routes

Examples

- Plough in

- Not harvested with no change in

fertilizer use

- Incineration without energy

recovery

- Wastewater treatment

- Landfill with and without gas

recovery

- Discards to land or sea

- Incineration without energy

recovery

- Composting as treatment to

stabilise material

- A consumer pouring spoilt milk

down the drain and no biogas

production from waste water

treatment plant

- Left over product in a production

line washed out during line change

over

Methodology for evaluating LCC

11

6 LCC and food waste: state of art and

methodological aspects

6.1 Application of LCC to food systems and food waste

As mentioned, LCC has traditionally been applied to analyse products or

investments with high initial acquisition costs, usually durable and expensive

goods. Therefore, the use of LCC for food products and food waste streams has

been only recent and minimal. A general overview is provided in Table 5 while

more details can be found in the Annex B10 (Table 11 and Table 12).

The review showed that food or food waste are only rarely addressed in Standard

and policy guidelines, Grey literature, and Business Sustainability Reporting.

Indeed, most of Standards are referring to C-LCC and focus on decisions over

products or investments requiring a high initial capital, such as buildings or

energy sectors. The only explicit mention to a potential LCC of food was found in

the EU policy guideline on Public Procurement, with reference to catering

services. However, it mainly refers to the life cycle cost of refrigerators and

freezers (a relevant hotspot for both environmental and costing impacts of food)

but not directly to food or (avoided) food waste. No LCC application of food

systems or food waste has been identified in business sustainability reporting of

food industries. Most of the time, an environmental life cycle perspective is

provided in these reports.

Some discussion and guidance of food-related LCC could be retrieved in books.

Specifically, it was argued that LCC has in general a rather microeconomic

perspective. Further, the different costing approaches lead to diverse

applications. The following examples were found in the literature:

C-LCC can be seen as a discounted cash flow analysis and used to evaluate large

investments, such as new food processing plants or machineries. Life cycle

costs related to these durable goods can then be attributed to single products

basing on yield or other allocation criteria. Potentially, it can be combined to

selected life cycle inventory results, such as energy use or emissions.

E-LCC is carried out in combination with LCA. In this case, costs are directly

matched or attributed to input flows identified in LCA, thus following the same

functional unit and the same system boundaries (see following sections).

An S-LCC example analysed costs related to both the agricultural and industrial

phases (cradle to gate) of conventional and organic olive oil: lower costs

occurred in organic olive oil because of the reduced external impact deriving

from fertilizers and pesticides (Notarnicola et al. 2004).

Table 5: Amount of reviewed documents by approach and topic

Topic

Approach

C-LCC

E-LCC

S-LCC and

Others

Methodology for evaluating LCC

12

LCSA

LCC general

6

3

1

LCC food

2

4

1

-

LCC (food) waste

1

8

3

7

Note: documents may fall under several categories at the same time

As far as waste management is regarded, LCC is considered as a useful tool for

both the analysis of current systems and the evaluation of economic consequence

of scenarios. However, different approaches can assess different goals. For

example, C-LCC has not an environmental focus, thus focuses on the economic

viability or impacts of a certain treatment or the identification of best performing

solutions. E-LCC is usually simultaneous with LCA and, in addition to C-LCC, it can

also show the distribution of net costs or savings within the waste supply chain.

Finally, S-LCC is reputed to be useful in estimate broader welfare impacts

(Martinez-Sanchez et al. 2015). Two papers applying LCC to waste management

were included in the review for their methodological relevance (Rigamonti et al.

2016, Martinez-Sanchez et al. 2015).

Examples of food waste LCCs were found in academic publications. Most of them

applied life cycle costing to previous or contextual LCA and are thus classifiable as

E-LCC of food waste. In one case a comparison between different LCC approaches

was carried out, including an S-LCC (Martinez-Sanchez et al. 2016). This is also

the only known source for LCC of food waste prevention, though only at a

consumer level. Only one paper used LCSA to assess used cooking oil disposal

options (Vinyes et al. 2013). Almost all of these studies focused on the analysis of

urban food waste management, mainly but not exclusively from the consumption

segment. In one case the focus was on restaurants and catering waste (Escobar

et al. 2015). Other papers did not use LCC in a strict sense or explicitly, but they

were nevertheless considered in the review. A series of 3 papers dealt with costs

related to food waste in South Africa, respectively at the household level, along

the supply chain, and incorporating inedible food waste (Nahman et al. 2012,

Nahman and de Lange 2013, de Lange and Nahman 2015). Only one paper

focused on food waste recovery by charities and NGOs through an Input-Output

framework, evaluating recovery costs, saved food value, calories, embodied

water, energy, and greenhouse gases (Reynolds et al. 2015). As mentioned,

details about methodological aspects are discussed in the next sections.

Finally, other relevant information was found in reports from previous European

Projects (FUSIONS 2015) and International Organizations (FAO 2014). Despite

LCC not being mentioned or applied, these studies are specifically related to food

waste and are explicitly evaluating also socio-economic impacts of food waste. In

the specific, the report from Fusions project was particularly interesting from the

point of view of potential economic trade-offs of food waste reduction measures

on the interaction between demand and supply of food and prices (FUSIONS

2015). The FAO (2014) study proposed a Full-Cost Accounting framework with a

Methodology for evaluating LCC

13

societal perspective for the monetary evaluation of socio-economic and

environmental impacts of global FLW. The approach included direct financial

costs, an evaluation of ecosystems good and services lost, and of social costs

deriving from natural resources degradation.

Box 1: Take out: LCC in food and food waste studies

The use of LCC in food waste studies is rather limited and mainly related to (food) waste

management. Most of this literature can be retrieved in academic publications or reports. E-

LCC is usually used as economic assessment in combination with an LCA study. Only one

LCC study encompassed food waste prevention at the consumer level as a possible scenario.

Finally, other methodological approaches could represent a reference for certain specific

aspects (e.g. externalities; trade-offs; etc.).

6.2 Functional units and system boundaries

Functional units and system boundaries are essential methodological aspects in

the analysis of LCC methodologies. Considering that results from this report

should pave the way for developing measures and methodologies for the LCA and

LCC of food waste and that these approaches should be consistent, it was

deemed necessary to identify whether and how different LCC approaches deal

with system functions, units, and boundaries.

6.2.1 Functional units

As described in the previous chapter, C-LCC is not characterized by the same

perspective as LCA. Therefore, functional units are not always explicitly

mentioned, despite the applicability to several products, processes, services, and

assets. Indeed, some standards indicate that the C-LCC should include costs

related to a specified function or item of equipment. For instance, some standards

focus on life cycle cost related to the function “owning or operating” a building

(ASTM 2015). Other standards state that in a detailed life-cycle costing, costs of a

quantum of individual elements or components of the constructed asset should be

summed up to produce a LCC estimate (ISO 2008).

The definition of system function and its reference unit is instead more relevant

for E-LCC, being integrated with LCA. Both books deriving from the SETAC

working group stressed that also in E-LCC the functional unit should be consistent

with provisions of ISO 14040/44 (2006) especially when LCA and LCC are

conducted together on the same system. So, while the E-LCC perspective could

include or exclude one or more actor or stakeholder, and have a different goal

and scope, it should maintain the same functional unit as in LCA. Some examples

of goal and scope are also listed: identify total costs for an actor; assess

competitiveness (of cost of ownership); company management; marketing;

trade-offs or win-win with environmental measures or between different costs;

optimization of maintenance. The scope should present information not only on

function and its unit, but also on the product/service under study, system

Methodology for evaluating LCC

14

boundaries, allocation, methods of interpretation, data sources and quality, value

choices, etc. (Hunkeler et al. 2008, Swarr et al. 2011).

Some examples of functional units found in the various literature are: 1 kWh of

generated electricity, 1 refrigerator, washing of laundry of a certain typology of

household, a standard public transport heavy duty bus, a washing machine,

electronic waste management, a constructed asset, etc. (see Table 12). In the

case of LCC of food systems, functional units depend on the focus of the study. If

the main segment under investigation is the agricultural phase, area-based

(hectares) functional units are used, especially to assess the financial viability of

long term cultivations (e.g. orchards) (Pergola et al. 2013, Mohamad et al. 2014).

However, also kilograms of production were used as alternative FU to take into

account yield differences. Obviously, FUs are different when further segments

such as processing and consumption are considered (Notarnicola et al. 2004) or if

the product studied has more ingredients (Schmidt Rivera and Azapagic 2016).

As far as waste systems and food waste are concerned, functional units used in

reviewed literature are generally mass based and coherent with LCA when the

two methods are combined.

The two studies on municipal solid waste (MSW) analysed environmental and

economic impacts related to 1 ton of collected and treated waste (Rigamonti et al.

2016, Martinez-Sanchez et al. 2015). In the case of food waste specific studies,

regardless of the approach (LCC or not), cost and value loss from wasting food or

from its various disposals is usually referred to a mass based unit or a specific

quantity. Some examples are:

1 ton of (household) food waste managed in different scenarios (Kim et al. 2011);

Yearly amount of edible/inedible food waste from a country/globally;

Average organic waste from restaurants and catering per person per year

(Escobar et al. 2015);

Yearly amount of used cooking oil generated in a neighbourhood (Vinyes et al.

2013).

Besides the general typology of unit used, it has been underlined during the

review that further specifications should be provided to clarify the definition on

FUs. Certain characteristics of FU should be disclosed in the goal and scope

description. For example, one paper specifically mentioned that the FU was

expressed in wet weight (Takata et al. 2012). Another aspect is the inclusion of a

specific reference to generated, collected, or treated food waste. In fact, different

food waste collection systems (e.g. UCO collection) can have different efficiencies,

thus resulting in higher or lower amounts of waste treated, but with the same

function (Vinyes et al. 2013).

Finally, in two cases, FU was related to the end product of the valorisation

process (Schievano et al. 2015, Daylan and Ciliz 2016). Given that these studies

aimed at assessing costs related to energy products (electricity from biogas and

ethanol from lignocellulosic by-products), functional units were expressed in kWh

generated and km travelled, respectively. Obviously, while mass based FU allows

Methodology for evaluating LCC

15

confronting all treatments, in the case of FUs related to very different final

products/functions, a comparison may be more difficult.

Box 2: Take out: Functional units

In C-LCC functional units are not always mentioned and only some standards indicate that

LCC should include costs related to a specified function (e.g. “owning or operating” a

building). In E-LCC the functional unit should be consistent with provisions of ISO 14040/44

especially when LCA and LCC are conducted together on the same system. Most of FUs

related to waste management or food waste were mass based. It must be stated if FU is

referred to (food) waste collected, managed, treated, or to end products.

6.2.2 System boundaries

As for functional units, also for system boundaries a clear definition and guidance

is more relevant in E-LCC approaches than in C-LCC. Nevertheless, some

indications are provided by international standards dealing with C-LCC. In

particular, they recommend including all known material costs associated with the

functional unit of an item or group of items. For instance, system boundaries of

ownership of Personal Property C-LCC should include not only the acquisition

value, but also activities related to the studied item, such as costs from

acquisition through utilization and disposition (ASTM 2013). C-LCC usually takes

into account costs or cash flows, i.e. relevant costs arising from acquisition

through operation to disposal (ISO 2008). Consequently, other costs such as

incomes, non-construction costs, externalities and environmental costs are not

taken into account in C-LCC.

In the case of E-LCC, it is quite established that also for system boundaries,

coherence with LCA and compliance with ISO 14040/44 (2006) should be pursued

(Hunkeler et al. 2008, Swarr et al. 2011). However, two basic exceptions are

underlined by most of the references. The first exception allows a potential E-LCC

practitioner to use different criteria for the inclusion or exclusion of certain

processes from the analysis. In the specific, in E-LCC cut-off can be based on

financial significance (Swarr et al. 2011). In fact, given that the goal is to analyse

costs, all process related to the system under study that are causing a relevant

share of costs can be included, regardless of their relevance for the

environmental analysis. This is the case of activities such as: research and

development, training, marketing, product design, etc. It must be highlighted

that in certain studies, the use of an environmental or economic cut-off could

radically change final results. For example in a reviewed study on differences

between home-made and ready-made meals, only input flows from a previous

LCA were considered for the cost analysis, without considering for example

personnel costs for manufacturers or time used for cooking at home (Schmidt

Rivera and Azapagic 2016). Thus, the choice of a specific cut-off criterion should

be disclosed, justified and checked for sensitivity.

Methodology for evaluating LCC

16

The second exception is that in E-LCC the analysis perspective can be of one or

more given market actors. This would allow also focusing only on the supply chain

segment where costs are higher or more relevant from the study perspective.

Depending on the point of view, costs associated with upstream or downstream

process could be treated with different methods. An example can be the use of

producer price or average market price for material inputs or feedstock instead of

modelling background process (Hunkeler et al. 2008, Swarr et al. 2011).

In general, economic, social and environmental system boundaries could be

different in terms of process cut-off and geographical scope. However, if a LCA

and an E-LCC are carried out simultaneously, they should be identified in the

same way and consistently with the goal and scope. For example, in the case of

analysis of food system, according to Settanni et al. (2010), it can be possible to

have different perspectives:

If the economic analysis is focused on durable goods (e.g. investment in a new

food processing plant), then also the environmental analysis should have the

same perspective (life cycle of the asset used in food production).

If the physical life cycle of the food product is the main focus, then LCC should

have the same perspective, linking costs to specific flows, processes and life

cycle phases.

In all the reviewed papers on LCC of food systems, the second perspective was

used, with the food product or cultivation being the functional unit. As for LCAs,

also in LCC of food, physical system boundaries can be either cradle to grave or

cradle to gate (of farm or processor). Depending on the LCC approach, costs

deriving from upstream processes may be included, especially when LCC is

carried out together with an LCA. Furthermore, time boundaries should be

described. Food products in fact are not durable, but their production system may

have a long life span. Thus, this means that future costs of durable goods (e.g.

maintenance or final disposal) used in the production system could be allocated

to the product studied. Similarly, in case of perennial cultivation systems, the

whole life span of plants can be considered (Notarnicola et al. 2004, Mohamad et

al. 2014, and Pergola et al. 2013).

These findings can be relevant also in the case of LCC applied to waste and food

waste. In both MSW management studies, a grave to grave/gate perspective is

used. All segments from collection to treatment and final disposal or use are

included (Rigamonti et al. 2016, Martinez-Sanchez et al. 2015). In the reviewed

studies on food waste, system boundaries could be categorized in two not

mutually exclusive typologies:

Studies with a focus on value loss, costs and impacts from disposal;

Studies with a focus on disposal options evaluation.

In the first typology, food waste generated in each step of the supply chain can

be included and its overall cost and economic impact is calculated, including

average treatment and eventual externalities. Most of these studies were not

properly LCC, thus they not described explicitly system boundaries (Nahman et

al. 2012, Nahman and de Lange 2013, de Lange and Nahman 2015). In the

second typology, most of the studies adopt a “grave to gate” perspective. The

Methodology for evaluating LCC

17

boundaries can thus include one or several segments from: discharge, collection,

transportation, treatment. Use of recovered materials or energy, as well as by-

products are not always mentioned or included. However, sales of recovered

products or avoided production of displaced products can be included as revenues

(see following section) (Kim et al. 2011, Escobar et al. 2015, Takata et al. 2012,

and Martinez-Sanchez et al. 2016).

Box 3: Take out: System boundaries

While in C-LCC system boundaries may include acquisition (or investment), utilization, and,

eventually, disposition, in E-LCC coherence with LCA should be pursued. Two basic

exceptions are: financial relevance cut-off; multi-actor perspective with inclusion or

exclusion of upstream/downstream segments. In LCCs of food, physical system boundaries

can be either defined as cradle to grave, cradle to gate (of farm or processor or consumer).

Time boundaries should be described. In (food) waste management studies, a grave to

grave/gate perspective was used, unless the focus was on food value loss (not CC studies).

6.3 Cost modelling

During the literature review, it appeared that several crucial methodological

aspects in LCC are related to cost modelling. When analysing costs related to the

life cycle of a product, several choices must be made in terms of categories of

costs included, their aggregation, the allocation of costs, and the discounting of

future costs. This section reports literature review results regarding these

aspects.

6.3.1 Cost categories

As described in the previous chapter, C-LCC focus on material costs of a function

or an item, from its conception to its disposition. Table 6 shows the main

categories considered in C-LCC.

Table 6: Cost categories in C-LCC

C-LCC Cost categories

Categories

Examples

- Initial investment costs

Planning

Design

Engineering

Site acquisition and preparation

Construction

Methodology for evaluating LCC

18

Purchase

Installation

Financing costs

Related to investment decision

Recurring operating and

maintenance costs and capital

replacement costs

Scheduled and unscheduled maintenance

Repairs

Energy

Water

Property taxes

Insurance

Resale value or salvage/disposal

costs

Disposal inspections

Disposal and demolition

Reinstatement to meet contractual

requirements

Taxes, etc.

Source: Authors elaboration on standards (See sections 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, and 2.5 of Table 12)

The above listed categories are taken into account in the investigated standards

and some studies, sometimes joint or split in sub categories. In fact, according to

the goal of the study, costs can be divided in other kind of typologies, such as:

procurement and ownership; recurring and nonrecurring; material, labour, repair

and maintenance; others.

In E-LCC cost categorization can be quite different due to the needed coherence

with LCA and the potential inclusion of several actors (and perspectives).

According to books from the LCC SETAC working group, an E-LCC cost modelling

should follow the related goal and scope. A product tree or life cycle must be

defined; relevant costs should then be identified and classified in a cost

breakdown. Complete sources of data (including time, geography, currency,

uncertainty) should be disclosed (Hunkeler et al. 2008, Swarr et al. 2011). Figure

2Error! Reference source not found. shows the possible level of details that

can be used to categorize costs.

Reviewed literature on LCC of food systems provided some examples of relevant

cost categories that may be included in this sector. In general, flows usually

considered in LCA, such as raw materials and various inputs, energy uses,

packaging and waste, are also relevant for LCC. Other cost categories related to

labour, certifications (organic food, HACCP, etc.), interests, depreciation, quotas,

and insurances, are sometimes included. In the case of food processing plants,

several capital and operating costs can be considered. These items can be

relevant in the case of an investigation of food waste prevention measures in food

processing (e.g. investment for new machineries/techniques reducing losses).

Several other categories to be included are food-related taxes, transport (e.g.

Methodology for evaluating LCC

19

refrigerated or animal transport), and disposal. As far as revenues from sales and

subsidies are regarded, they were included in the comparisons between

cultivation systems (conventional and organic products - Notarnicola et al. 2004)

or to determine value added along the supply chain (meals - Schmidt Rivera and

Azapagic 2016)). Also in this case, the review results suggest that investigation

on food waste prevention measures could benefit from the inclusion of these

categories: an example may be the modelling of potential increase of sales,

although uncertain impacts on prices must be taken into account (See Par. 6.4).

The categorization of these costs was different according to reviewed studies. In

some studies, grouping was following the parallel LCA (with a division by life cycle

phase), in others costs were grouped according to economic typology (present

and future investment, operational, etc.), related agricultural activity (e.g.

pruning, disease control, irrigation, etc.), or by cultivation phase (e.g. orchard life

phase).

Figure 2: Examples of cost categorizations in E-LCC

Source: Authors elaboration on Hunkeler et al. 2008

As far as LCCs of waste management are regarded, in one study (Rigamonti et al.

2016) costs were divided according to the specific stage, meaning collection

(including transport and a first processing), treatment, and final disposal. All

costs were net of profits from the sale of recovered energy or materials, and net

of transfers. Capital use costs were included in terms of depreciation, accruals,

and return on investments. The model provided by the other study (Martinez-

Sanchez et al. 2015) classified costs in budget costs (in all 3 LCC approaches),

transfers (only in C-LCC and E-LCC) and externality costs (only in SLCC).

Methodology for evaluating LCC

20

According to the authors, budget costs needs to be considered in different ways

according to the LCC approach: factor prices (market price minus transfer) for C-

LCC and E-LCC; shadow prices (factor price per “net tax factor”) in S-LCC.

Transfers were divided in flows that redistribute income between stakeholders

(e.g. taxes or subsidies) and pecuniary externalities that occur to offset facilities

(substitution of heat, electricity, etc.). Furthermore, externalities that are priced

and covered within the system (e.g. tax) become transfers. C-LCC included all

budget costs (factor price) and transfers. E-LCC included also anticipated

transfers (externalities expected to be internalized). S-LCC accounted for budget

costs and externalities in terms of shadow prices. All activities/technologies were

defined per ton of food waste, with a bottom-up approach. The first step was to

divide waste system into activities or waste stages (separation, collection,

transportation etc.); per each activity cost items like machinery, salaries, fuel and

maintenance costs were disaggregated; to each of these items, a physical

(quantity) and economic (cost) parameter were assigned. Finally, each item was

classified as budget, transfer or externality cost.

Food waste related studies that are not applying LCC usually focus on the direct

loss of food value, usually through average market price of wasted food. The cost

of disposal can be also included in the evaluation, by using average costs of

landfilling with some externalities. If the inedible fraction is included another cost

that can be considered is the opportunity cost of conventional treatment against,

for example, biogas production or composting, using prices of substitute products

as proxies (Nahman et al. 2012, Nahman and de Lange 2013, de Lange and

Nahman 2015). One study evaluated the economic impact of food waste recovery

for food donations in terms of both monetary value of rescued food waste and

“costs” for the economic system, through an Input Output methodology

(Reynolds et al. 2015). The report from FUSIONS reported potential costs of

prevention measures suggested by OECD (FUSIONS 2015). Cost items were

classified by supply chain stage and by typology of measure (infrastructure and

hardware, technology, and information). Several of these examples may be

relevant for an LCC study on food waste prevention. In the FAO (2014) study on

full cost accounting of FLW, direct internal and external costs were included, plus

scarcity cost estimates from the increased pressure on land. Impacts on other

stakeholders were discussed in terms of potential costs and benefits, but not

included. Also when an LCC approach is applied, different cost items and

categorizations can be found in the literature, with varying degree of detail and

depending on system boundaries. Probably the largest and most detailed cost

models can be found in Kim et al. (2011) and Martinez-Sanchez et al. (2016). In

most of the other case, a rather limited amount of items and categories is used

by authors to describe their cost modelling. However, it is possible to say that

labour costs, energy and material inputs, machineries and their maintenance are

always considered. The categorization is sometimes carried out in terms of

stages, other times in terms of cost typology.

Methodology for evaluating LCC

21

Box 4: Take out: Cost categories

Standards recommend including in C-LCC: investment costs; financing costs; recurring

operating and maintenance costs; capital replacement costs; resale value or

salvage/disposal costs. An E-LCC cost modelling should define a product tree, identify and

classify costs in a breakdown with appropriate level of detail. In food LCC, raw materials and

various inputs, energy uses, packaging and waste, are included, as well as other cost

categories related to labour, certifications (organic food, HACCP, etc.), interests,

depreciation, quotas, and insurances, food-related taxes, transport (e.g. refrigerated or

animal transport), disposal, revenues from sales, and subsidies. In LCCs of (food) waste

management, labour costs, energy and material inputs, machineries and their maintenance

are considered. The categorization is sometimes carried out in terms of stages, other times

in terms of cost typology. Food waste related studies that are not applying LCC usually

focus on the direct loss of food value.

6.3.2 Cost bearers

In general, categorizations are not mutually exclusive and can be used together

depending on the cost bearers included. In fact, while several stakeholders can be

part of the same life cycle of a product, not every actor is bearing the same

categories of costs. Thus, depending on the system boundaries (cradle to gate vs.

cradle to grave) an E-LCC may include costs for producers (e.g. design,

production, and marketing), costs for distributors (e.g. transport, storage, and

sale), costs for consumers (e.g. purchase, use, and maintenance), and costs for

waste companies. In the case of Societal LCCs, also governments, country and

global societies may be included as cost bearers (Hunkeler et al. 2008, Swarr et

al. 2011). The identification of cost bearers leads to the inclusion of different

upstream and downstream cost and should be disclosed in the description of the

cost model. Since several perspectives and actors may be included in the same

cost model, it is suggested to aggregate costs with caution, depending on the

goal of the study (Hunkeler et al. 2008, Swarr et al. 2011). For example, a

diverse aggregation is required if the focus is on specific costs along the supply

chain or on net distribution of costs between different stakeholders. An

appropriate level of detail is required basing on the purpose of the LCC. Similarly

to an LCA, costing impacts can be grouped according to the life cycle stage

and/or appropriately summed to express total costs from a certain perspective.

In almost all the reviewed case studies, costs are assessed from just one

perspective or there is no diversification of costs according to potential bearers.

Only in two studies, models for reporting costs for different stakeholders are

provided. The first paper (Schmidt Rivera and Azapagic 2016) related to food

included the following perspectives: life cycle cradle to grave; value added up to

distribution (retail price minus retail life cycle cost); life cycle up to consumer (no

disposal); consumer (retail price plus cost of consumption). The second paper

(Martinez-Sanchez et al. 2015) related to waste management, in the C-LCC

application, divided costs by the following foci: 1) costs for the entire system; 2)

Methodology for evaluating LCC

22

costs for households (waste fee); 3) costs incurred by incinerator operator; 4)

costs incurred by collection operator.

Box 5: Take out: Cost bearers

Not every actor is bearing the same categories of costs, thus an E-LCC may include different

perspectives (e.g. costs for producers, distributors, consumers, waste companies. Various

costs can be grouped by life cycle stage and appropriately summed to express total costs

from a certain perspective. For (food) waste management costs could be thus divided among

the waste management company, the households, the collectors, and other involved actors.

6.3.3 Cost allocation

Another important aspect regarding cost categorization is related to data

collection and the geographical diversity of accounting systems. Companies from

different countries may report costs or allocate costs to goods in various ways

depending on legal requirements. This is particularly relevant when addressing

indirect expenses (such as overheads) that need to be attributed to products

through some allocation. While cost allocation is not mentioned in standards

related to C-LCC, it is rather relevant aspect in E-LCC as it is carried out together

with LCA. The SETAC Working Group (Swarr et al. 2011) highlighted that the ISO

(2006) suggests avoiding allocation by partitioning processes or by expanding

system boundaries in LCA. On the contrary, in E-LCC costs are often to be

allocated if needed. Thus in order to ensure consistency, the hierarchy provided

by ISO (2006) should be followed. In case of LCA system partitioning, allocation

amongst various outputs can be carried out for costs of personnel, capital, goods

and services, basing on physical measures (weight, volume, etc.) or market value

methods (estimate value at production or future income from sale) (Swarr et al.

2011). If possible, cost breakdown should be made at unit process level, by

linking flows of cost inputs to the related output (e.g. number of working hours of

personnel or machinery per ton of product, etc.). Particular methodological

challenges are the allocation of indirect costs (as overheads or components

costs). A simple system is to assign an established overhead rate to all products.

Another possible allocation criterion is the number of working hours. As

mentioned for cut-off rules, also in the case of allocation it must be paid attention

to the representativeness of the allocation base for both costs and environmental

impacts. It is thus suggested to perform a sensitivity analysis. In case of LCA

system expansion, the basic rule provided by the SETAC (Swarr et al. 2011) is to

ensure consistency of system boundaries also for LCC. In order to expand LCC

boundaries, costs representing the avoided products displaced must be

subtracted. One way of dealing with this is to consider coproducts as avoided

costs and include revenues from their sale as negative costs.

In the reviewed food LCCs, the allocation of overhead and similar costs is usually

not specified. The same applies to the allocation of costs to coproducts. In one

case (Schmidt Rivera and Azapagic 2016) all considered costs were attributed to

the functional unit although some revenues from the sale of chicken waste to

Methodology for evaluating LCC

23

rendering industry were included. Similarly, in Notarnicola et al. (2004), oil husk

was mentioned as co-product of oil milling and economic allocation was used for

the LCA inventory, but no specific indication is provided for the costing part.

In waste management LCCs, no coproduction was considered and all costs were

allocated to the functional unit. In Martinez-Sanchez et al. (2015) so called one-

off costs (such as capital, etc.) were allocated by converting lump sums (in

present or future values) into annuities and dividing annuities by annual usage

rates (€/y divided per t/y). Annual usage rates can differ from annual capacity

(e.g. incinerator operating at lower level because of avoided wastage) and can

change depending on the technology. The same principle was used to allocate

annual fixed costs to tons of waste treated, while variable costs and transfers

were allocated by multiplying physical amounts of inputs needed per their

price/transfer amount.

As far as food waste studies are regarded, costs or impacts are allocated on the

mass of food wasted and/or treated. Only one study mentioned overheads

specifying that a standard ratio was assumed (Escobar et al. 2015). In another

study dealing with collection centres (Vinyes et al. 2013), all costs and economic

outputs needed to be allocated since centres treat different type of waste. The

share related to the specific flow under study (UCO) was used as criterion. In

case of multi-output systems (Kim et al. 2011, Escobar et al. 2015), a

consequential approach was used also in the LCCs by translating co-products with

market value into avoided costs (revenues) for the producer, as if they were (e.g.

electricity from cogeneration, digester sludge, glycerol, and compost).

Box 6: Take out: Cost allocation

In E-LCC costs are often to be allocated if needed according to the hierarchy provided by

ISO. Cost breakdown should be made at unit process level. Indirect costs can be allocated

either by number of working hours or by an established overhead rate. In multi-output

systems, a consequential approach can be used by translating co-products with market

value into avoided costs (revenues).

6.3.4 Discounting

The other relevant aspect related to cost modelling is discounting of future costs,

e.g. the conversion of cash flows occurring at different times, to an equivalent

cost in a fixed point in time. The selection and use of appropriate rates of

discount is extensively covered in the LCC literature, and the influence of different

choices of discount rate on the outcome of calculations is also widely covered. For

instance, the ISO 15686:5 (ISO 2008) argues that present value should be

calculated by discounting future cash flows to the base date, and should be used

for comparing alternatives over the same period of analysis. Present value

calculations should be used to calculate the present monetary sum that should be

allocated for future expenditure on an asset. Likewise, the ASTM E917 (ASTM

2015) specifies that the discount rate selected should reflect the investor’s time

Methodology for evaluating LCC

24

value of money, which means that the discount rate should reflect the rate of

interest that makes the investor indifferent between paying and receiving a dollar

now or at some future point in time. The discount rate is used to convert costs

occurring at different times to equivalent costs at a common point in time. As

reported by Langdon (2007), in practice clients and other users of LCC in the

construction sector appear to adopt more generalized approaches. Public sector

procurers tend to favour much lower levels of discount than their private sector

counterparts – in some countries the appropriate public financing authorities

(Government Departments of Finance or Treasury) recommend rates that are

typically between 2% and 5% net of inflation – i.e. real discount rates). In the

private sector discount rates adopted tend to be more akin to investment hurdle

rates (and vary between some 2-14% ‘real’) (Langdon 2007).

As far as E-LCC is regarded, the literature tends to make a distinction between

the discounting of cash flows and the discounting of results. The first represents

the allocation of costs deriving from capital (e.g. investment), future costs (e.g.

maintenance and final disposal of machineries) and taxes, long term external

costs (e.g. leaching from landfilling), and future revenues. According to SETAC

working group a discounting of cash flows (with a time frame similar to

depreciation period) can be carried out and should be appropriately justified and

then examined for sensitivity (Hunkeler et al. 2008). They propose some

guidance on the specific rate, suggesting avoiding discounting when life cycle is

shorter than 2 years, to use lending rate for consumers, expected bond rate for

government, internal rate of return for manufacturers. Discounting of results is

instead not recommended, as E-LCC is based on the same steady-state

assumption of LCA. Results may be discounted in case of Societal (with some

assumptions) and Conventional LCC (although not applied) (Hunkeler et al. 2008,

Swarr et al. 2011).

Despite the relevance of this issue, discounting was not specified or applied so

frequently in the studies reviewed. In the case of food LCCs, just one study

(Mohamad et al. 2014) applies a 1.25% discount rate, while Martinez-Sanchez et

al. (2015) applied discounting to future operating and maintenance costs as well

as revenues, despite this contrasts with the suggestion from SETAC working

group.

Box 7: Take out: Discounting

In C-LCC a discount rate is usually selected and used. In E-LCC a discounting of cash flows

(with a time frame similar to depreciation period) can be carried out, while discounting of

results is not recommended. However, discounting was not specified or applied so

frequently in the studies reviewed.

6.4 Externalities

Externalities are defined as being quantifiable cost or benefit that occurs when

the actions of organizations and individuals have an effect on people other than

Methodology for evaluating LCC

25

them Hunkeler et al. (2008). Externalities are positive if their effects are benefits

to other people and negative or external costs, if the external effects are costs on

other people and therefore have a negative influence. Since these externalities

are external to the constructed asset or function, they are only taken into account

in E-LCC and S-LCC, and not in C-LCC. Externalities can include various external

costs, such as environmental cost, social costs and benefits and other costs which

can impact the business reputation or the functional efficiency. Some authors

define externalities as transfer, whenever externalities are priced and covered

within the system (e.g. tax). When externalities are non-compensated effects on

individuals’ welfare, they can be environmental or not, e.g. noise or time spent

for waste sorting (Martinez-Sanchez et al. 2015).

To be introduced into an 'accounting' LCC process, environmental costs must be

expressed in monetary terms. In other words, environmental costs should be

quantified and monetized so they can be considered as an additional cost input in

a LCC analysis. However, depending on which external costs are included, may

impact the ranking of alternative options. Environmental costs may come from

LCA analyses on environmental impacts, and measure for example the external

costs of global warming contribution associated with emissions of different

greenhouse gases. Environmental costs can be calculated also in respect of

acidification (grams of SO2, NOX and NH3), eutrophication (grams of NOX and

NH3), land use (m2*year) or other measurable impacts. Typically, C-LCC analyses

do not include a wider range of externalities or non-construction costs, such as

finance costs, business costs and income streams (ISO 2008). Nevertheless,

there is an increasing need to include also social and environmental cost and

benefits in public procurement accounting, so C-LCC should also include these

externalities, although it is difficult to account for or forecast them (Perera et al.

2009)). For instance, the Directive 2009/33/EC on the promotion of clean and

energy-efficient road transport vehicles initiated the implementation or

externalities in green public procurement. Indeed, under this Directive,

contracting authorities and entities are obliged to take energy consumption and

emissions into account in their purchases of road transport vehicles. One of the

ways of doing this is by assigning a cost to these factors in the evaluation of bids.

The Annex to the Directive provides a set of common costs to be applied in this

case. This allows emissions to be priced for inclusion in the evaluation and

comparison of bids. Categories of costs are specified according to the energy

content of different fuel types and the lifetime mileage of different vehicle

categories (EC 2016).

Similarly, externality costs in businesses nowadays should not only include

staffing, productivity and user costs but also environmental cost (e.g. impact cost

from food waste): these can be taken into account in a LCC analysis but should

be explicitly identified. Data for LCA and sustainability assessment is widely

available and quite extensive. Companies however are mainly concerned with

climate change impacts – for which CO2 emissions and energy use are the two

main environmental indicators. Different methodologies have been also developed

in order to evaluate environmental external cost related to a service or a product.

For instance, the EP&L – Environmental Profit and Loss account developed by

Trucost, places a financial value on environmental impacts along the entire value

chain of a business to help companies combine sustainability metrics with

Methodology for evaluating LCC

26

traditional business management. Though companies pay fees for services such

as water abstraction, energy use, waste disposal and land use, the true costs of

these environmental impacts are usually externalized and unaccounted for. An

EP&L assesses how much a company would need to pay for the environmental

impacts it causes, providing a shadow price for risk and opportunity analysis

(Trucost 2016).

Within E-LCCs, a distinction has to be made in the definition of externalities

between standards and papers, books and reports. On one hand, standards

related to E-LCC define that externalities can have an impact on society in

general, but should not be included in the LCC analysis, unless it is explicitly

requested to do so. On the other hand, some authors in books, papers and

reports state that externalities could be included (Hunkeler et al. 2008,

Notarnicola et al. 2004, Martinez-Sanchez et al. 2015, Vinyes et al. 2013, Valdivia

et al. 2011, and Langdon 2007). According to the definition from SETAC Working

Group, an E-LCC will always include externalities as they are included in LCA

(Hunkeler et al. 2008). Thus in the costing part no externalities already included

in the environmental assessment should be take into account in order to avoid

double counting. However, some external costs could be included. They should be

market based or resemble other money flows (e.g. taxes and tariffs) and

distinguished from the cost deriving from external effects. All externalities that

may become real money flows in the decision relevant-future could be included in

a systematic way. An example for this is a scenario of future internalization of

taxes or subsidies from certain environmental impacts. Table 7 shows the criteria

for the inclusion of external costs.

In S-LCC, all impacts from LCA and LCC are monetized, so it should theoretically

avoid double counting (if transfers and taxes are subtracted) and provide a net

welfare impact on the whole society. However, it cannot always be generalized

and in the literature some authors include externalities in different ways in the

LCC approaches (C-LCC, E-LCC, and S-LCC).

Table 7: Criteria for the inclusion of external costs

External cost categories inclusion criteria

Covering all significant types of effects without overlapping (e.g. LCA and SLCA)

Characterized in indicators

Possible to model a quantitative relation with the human activity

Monetized

Source: Authors elaboration on Hunkeler et al. 2008

In food related LCCs, externalities can have a certain influence in the ranking of

alternative options (Settanni et al. 2010), but only one study included

externalities from energy and chemicals (Notarnicola et al. 2004): the scores of

economic impacts of the production of organic and conventional olive oil are

radically different if external costs are included. In another paper (Schmidt Rivera

and Azapagic 2016) LCA and LCC were combined, thus no externalities were

Methodology for evaluating LCC

27

included in the costing part. Only in one of the two waste management studies

(Martinez-Sanchez et al. 2015), external costs were included in the S-LCC

multiplying unit emissions per FU by accounting prices of emission, which can

represent society’s willingness to pay for avoiding emissions/impacts or

abatement costs. 3 potential externalities where be included: direct, upstream

(from commodities and goods production), downstream (from displaced

productions, as in recycling). Positive net externality costs were registered for

source separation and collection of waste, ash landfilling and neutralization of air

control residues. Negative net externalities were reported for energy and material

recovery. Authors also listed some critical issues regarding the externalities:

Certain externalities (e.g. resource scarcity) may be already reflected, although

partially, by market prices (especially short term availability) and by transfers

(e.g. taxes), thus some double counting may occur.

Time is an important issue: current emissions can have future damages that may

be discounted, and current waste management can have future emissions to

be accounted and discounted; in both case, future annual damage costs

should be considered in present value through transparent discount rates.

Assumptions made on the inclusion/exclusion and valuation techniques of

externalities may affect the outcomes of S-LCC: for example, time spent by

household in sorting could be valued (or not) as a cost/burden for families

(thus a positive external cost) or as a benefit (thus a negative external cost).

As far as food waste is regarded, the monetisation of social and environmental

impacts is proposed in order to engage decision-makers on sustainable resource

use (FAO 2014). It is suggested that not only economic costs, but also

environmental costs, and social (well-being) costs should be included. In the

latter category primary (individual and direct) and secondary (society as a whole)

costs could be considered. Nevertheless, not all food waste costing examples are

considering externalities. In Nahman et al. (2012), external costs of landfilling

(leaching and gas as well as transports and disamenities) were included in the

disposal of food waste, but without a LCC approach.

When LCC was used, externalities were included in Kim et al (20011) and in

Vinyes et al. (2013). The first conducted an environmental LCC and compared the

management of 1 ton of food waste in 8 different scenarios. They included the

benefits deriving from by-products and CO2 reduction. Thereby they considered

the unit market price for substituted products and the carbon price trading in the

carbon market. In the second study, the comparison of 3 UCO (used cooking oil)

collection systems included monetized CO2 emissions in the LCC as an external

cost, but in order to avoid double counting they were not considered in the final

scoring process. Similarly, 3.13 conducted a simultaneous LCA and LCC study

comparing looped and non-looped food waste recycling facilities, without

including and quantifying CO2 emissions in monetary value in the analysis.

Methodology for evaluating LCC

28

Box 8: Take out: Externalities

Externalities are quantifiable cost or benefit that occurs when the actions of organizations

and individuals have an effect on people other than them. They must be expressed in

monetary terms. An E-LCC includes externalities in the LCA part, but externalities that may

become real money flows in the decision relevant-future could be included in the costing

part. In food waste LCC externalities were included in two cases (monetization of CO2

emissions) but they were not scored in case of joint LCA-LCC evaluation.

6.5 Evaluation of impacts and sensitivity analysis

The impact assessment in LCC presents some differences when compared to LCA.

In fact, being expressed in terms of costs, the inventory already provides an

evaluation of impact. Nevertheless, several financial and non-financial analyses

may be used to evaluate consequences on revenues, cost hotspots, correlations,

breakeven points, etc. In fact, especially when several cost bearers may be

identified, a low overall cost for a certain scenario could actually be redistributed

unevenly. Thus, cost impacts needs to be evaluated. Likewise, sensitivity analysis

can and should be carried out in this phase of an LCC study to further discuss

results and highlight potential criticism in methods, value choices, data, and

variables.

Evaluation techniques can be diverse according to the approach applied. In

general, C-LCC is more characterized by financial evaluation techniques. Net

present value (NPV), internal rate of return (IRR), and payback time (simple or

discounted) are usually calculated after inventory of costs and revenues. Different

methods can be found in the literature, but they will not be presented here in

detail (for some examples: Dhillon 2010). It must be noted that these financial

evaluation tools are usually well-known by businesses and managers, while their

use by other stakeholders (e.g. public procurers) and the communication of

results to a larger audience (e.g. consumers) may be less obvious. Among the

reviewed studies, only one paper (Mohamad et al. 2014) showed results for NPV

and IRR calculations: in the specific, investment (initial and future) costs were

compared, as well as annual operating costs divided by stage. Then total costs

and revenues and net cash flow were compared across the whole life span.

Finally, basing on different product price levels (olives), NPV and IRR were

derived for both the scenarios analysed. In another paper (Pergola et al. 2013),

only cumulative costs over the life cycle were calculated.

However, both in public procurement and in business sustainability reporting,

these tools are increasingly coupled or integrated with more holistic assessments.

For example, the EU Clean Vehicles Directive on the promotion of clean and

energy-efficient road transport vehicles states that operational energy and

environmental impacts should be taken into account. Regarding business

sustainability reporting, some methodologies such as the Total Impact

Measurement & Management developed by PwC (2015), aim at improving the

Methodology for evaluating LCC

29

granularity of the reporting, by splitting the breakdown of impacts into the three

categories of direct, indirect and induced impacts.

When E-LCC is applied - with or after an LCA - the evaluation of costs is usually

less focused on financial management aspects and more interested in supply

chain effects and in the identifications of trade-offs or win-win situations between

the environmental and the economic impacts. Both books by the SETAC working

group on LCC (Hunkeler et al. 2008, Swarr et al. 2011) state that interpretation

of results is a key phase also in LCC and the provision contained in ISO 14040/44

(2006) should be applied especially for uncertainty, consistency, and

completeness checks. Results analysis may include hot spot identification, NPV

analysis, payback period, annuities, and IRR. However, LCC results should be

reported and analysed together with LCA results. Some options are:

Portfolio presentations of impacts through the use of common tables and

eventually graphs with different impact categories for LCA and different costs

for LC stages/scenarios;

Plotted results of selected LCA and LCC results (e.g. GWP per LCC in different

alternatives);

Potential use of normalization to derive aggregated indicators (such as the return

on environment or the economic-environmental return).

Among the studies reviewed (regardless of the topic), only two used a portfolio

presentation. The first (Kim and Ahn 2011) compared 4 variants of a refrigerator.

Results were presented on separate matrices for LCA and LCC. Then, for each

variant, a matrix showed LCA and LCC scores and percentage change in relation

to the basic version. Percentage changes for all the variants for both LCA and LCC

were then ranked through a graph, so to identify the least impacting variant. In

the second (Schmidt Rivera and Azapagic 2016) LCC and several environmental

results of different meal scenarios were summarized and ranked with a qualitative

approach in a “heat map”. A colour ranking was assigned to each scenario in each

criterion, rankings were then summed per each scenario (assuming equal

importance), and final scores were compared again for an overall ranking (the

lower the sum the higher the ranking). In three cases, selected LCA and LCC

results were plotted to identify win-win solutions. In the first case (Kim and Ahn

2011) GHG emissions and LCC of various energy sources were plotted to evaluate

a potential correlation, using mean data from previous studies or literature

(including standard deviation). In the second (Escobar et al. 2015), various LCA

results and LCC were plotted with slopes measuring the trade-off between profits

and selected environmental impacts. In the third (Rigamonti et al. 2016), a

composite environmental indicators (energy and material recovered per ton of

waste) was plotted against the economic indicator (costs per ton of waste), in

order to identify the best possible win-win scenario. In the same study, it is also

suggested the possibility to further combine the indicators in an aggregated

index, which represent the third option among the abovementioned ones. More

precisely, multiplying specific market values of materials and energy recovered

from food waste per the amount recovered, it is possible to derive a monetary

environmental indicator (€ recovered per ton of waste). Then, it can be

confronted with the cost indicator. However, authors also signalled that economic

multipliers can change over time and space. Another example of this aggregation

Methodology for evaluating LCC

30

could be found in a study on UCO management (Vinyes et al. 2013). Since a

LCSA was used, in order to have total scores per scenario, authors first

distinguished indicators in negative and positive, basing to their contribution to

sustainability (e.g. costs are negative). Values for each indicator were then

converted in comparative percentages (100% is the worst or best scenario).

Different scales (1-5) for negative (100%=1) and positive indicators (100%=5)

were used to assign scores. Total scores per scenario and assessment were

calculated as sum and then recalculated in relative terms (0-1): the closer to 1

the higher the contribution to sustainability.

Besides combining or plotting LCA and LCC results, other evaluations may be

carried out apart from life cycle cost assessment. One evaluation tool used in two

studies was profits/value added calculation. In the first paper (Escobar et al.

2015) the authors stressed how since the study assessed costs and revenues, the

economic value added (EVA) and the profit could have been measured. The first,

being calculated as revenues minus the costs of intermediate inputs, should give

an estimation of the economic impact of the system on the gross domestic

product (GDP). However, a breakdown of costs is needed to calculate the EVA so

profits were chosen as indicator. They were derived as the revenues minus the

costs of material inputs, labour, capital and purchased services, thus offering an

estimation of earnings of an enterprise. In the second paper (Schmidt Rivera and

Azapagic 2016), before combining LCA and LCC results, it was determined the

value added along the supply chain from cradle to distribution, by subtracting the

life cycle cost up to distribution to the retail price. Then, differences in both LCC

and VA were compared across the various scenarios (meals). As mentioned in

Par. 6.3.2, also different cost bearer perspectives can be used to categorize and

then evaluate costs (see Martinez-Sanchez et al. 2015). Finally, if studies include

revenues or benefits (such as incomes from by-products or external positive

costs) they may be used to estimate a benefit/cost ratio (as in Kim et al. 2011).

Box 9: Take out: Evaluation of impacts

C-LCC is more characterized by financial evaluation techniques (NPV, IRR, payback time). In

E-LCC evaluation of costs is usually more interested in supply chain effects and in the

identifications of trade-offs or win-win situations. Thus LCC results should be reported and

analysed together with LCA results. Some options are: portfolio presentations; plotting of

results; potential normalization for aggregated indicators.

Since data quality and value choices are very relevant, sensitivity analysis must

be applied. In any case, sensitivity analysis is required to confirm the validity of

the study and to measure the connections between parameters and calculated

outputs. Sensitivity analyses can be undertaken to examine how variations across

a (plausible) range of uncertainties can affect the relative merits of the options

being considered and compared. These ranges should be probable, within the

limits of what is anticipated and fit within the study goal. These analyses can help

to identify which input data have the most impact on the LCC result and how

robust the final decision is.

Methodology for evaluating LCC

31

Table 8 shows potential key assumptions that can have the biggest effects on C-

LCC and E-LCC outcomes.

Table 8: Key costing assumptions to analyse for sensitivity

Key costing assumptions to analyse for sensitivity

Discount rates

Period of analysis

Incomplete or unreliable service life or maintenance, repair and replacement cycles

Cost data based on assumptions

Expected variations in prices, also due to normative changes

Value choices

Sensitivity analysis can be an important guide to assessing what additional

information it is worthwhile collecting and what the most significant assumptions

to be made are. It can also be used to consider how flexible or variable

requirements can be during the period of analysis or the life cycle. The change in

outputs should be presented as a function of variation in parameters, as well as

eventual changes in ranking of alternatives. Both Monte Carlo and analytical

hierarchy process can be applied.

Despite its importance, sensitivity analysis was used in only two LCC study. In the

first (Escobar et al. 2015), authors stressed particularly the aspects of data

quality and uncertainty. In the specific, it is stated that, despite being rarely

used, uncertainty analysis are important to assess several issues such as

“taxation, wages, discount rates, changes in market prices driven by surpluses

and market trends”. Therefore, technical and economic parameters were defined

as probability distributions, rather than assigning specific values, and for most

input and output prices, equipment lifespan and various technical parameters a

distribution was defined (either uniform, PERT, or real). Then, Monte Carlo

simulations were conducted to analyse stochastic uncertainty and correlations of

differentials between scenarios and varying parameters were showed on tornado

diagrams.

In the second, focused on food (Schmidt Rivera and Azapagic 2016), authors

carry out a comparative analysis on the same scenarios contained in the LCA

study. They first identified cost hotspots and differences in LCC and then they

carried out a sensitivity analysis on the influence of ingredient sourcing and

cooking appliances on the meal cost, as they were the more relevant factors.

When sensitivity is not applied, it is however possible to apply other potential

methods, as a break even analysis on major cost factors. An example is provided

by Martinez-Sanchez et al. (2015), where a break-even analysis was carried out

and presented on certain crucial difference between the two scenarios

(conventional waste management and organic waste source separation). In the

specific, they assess:

Methodology for evaluating LCC

32

what price level for the digestate is needed to raise enough revenues in Sc.2;

what is the minimum number of households sharing a container to reach a 75%

reduction in difference between scenarios;

what positive external cost value should be attributed to time spent in sorting

waste, to balance the extra costs of separately treat organic waste.

Box 10: Take out: Sensitivity analysis

Sensitivity analysis should be used to test the validity of the study and to measure the

connections between parameters or value choices and outputs (such as discount rates,

period of analysis, cost data, price variations, etc.). Despite its importance, sensitivity

analysis was used in only two LCC study, and another study only applied a break even

analysis.

6.6 Other aspects

Other issues were raised in the examined literature. One of the main

methodological aspects to be considered is the currency issues. According to the

SETAC Working Group, costs incurred in different regions should be homogenized.

Costs incurred in different time may be stated as such. Nevertheless, the ASTM

E917 (2015) proposes different methodology depending on the type of currency

and situations (see Table 9).

Table 9: Future cash flows: current vs. constant currency for

Expressed in

Type of cash flows

Fixed

amounts

e.g. loan

payments

Diffe rent rate

than inflation

e.g. energy costs

Other costs

Current currency

General inflation

included in projecting

future costs

No adjustments

Estimate on the basis

of the specific rate of

price change

Use rate of general

price inflation

Constant currency

General inflation

excluded in projecting

future costs

No adjustment

Multiply base-time

value by differential

rate of price change

No adjustment

Methodology for evaluating LCC

33

Source: Authors elaboration on ASTM 2015

Among the studies reviewed, only in one case currency value was clearly stated

(Daylan and Ciliz 2016), with a time reference.

Another relevant aspect is data availability and quality, which is underlined as one

possible focus for future research. Data regarding costs are not always available.

Literature suggests that also databases and published prices may be used for

background processes. Also cost data and functions may be used but it must be

paid particular attentions as this may lead to inaccuracies. For example, transfers

or revenues may be included or excluded. Besides, several sources underlined the

importance of geography. For example accounting systems vary from country to

country and from firm to firm and also different transfers may be applied in

different geographical contexts (even within a country). When using prices,

volatility should be assessed, for example through normalization of data for cross-

country comparisons and through scenarios as cost items may be volatile, stable

or subject to scale. Scenario development, forecasting, or cost estimation

methods may be employed in case of missing information. Thus, a critical review

is strongly suggested in case of disclosed LCC. Literature also suggests that

research may focus on benchmarking with common cost figures.

Finally, other relevant aspects related to food and food waste were identified in

reviewed literature. Food products and systems are mentioned frequently as a

potential focus of further LCC research (Settanni et al. 2010). Food waste

prevention was not present in the reviewed studies on food, but food by-products

and waste were sometimes considered. For example, in the paper on meals

(Schmidt Rivera and Azapagic 2016) FLW are included as a source of cost

(disposal losses and waste) and/or revenues (chicken waste). Differences across

the scenarios (frozen vs. chilled, ready- vs. home-made organic vs. conventional)

led to different the values of initial inputs (chicken and vegetables), amount of

chicken waste, levels of products losses and wastes, and final food waste. This

has also effects on final costs, as when manufacture and distribution are frozen,

food waste tends to be lower, and food waste is minimized when the meal is

home-made.

From a methodological point of view, it is particularly important to provide a

complete definition of the food waste assessed. In fact, as underlined in Takata et

al. (2012), food waste valorisation scenarios and their costs can be largely

influenced by the food waste quality at the source and by the destination. In most

of reviewed papers, food waste is implicitly defined as household food waste but

no further specification is provided on its composition (edible, non-edible, etc.).

Usually, authors used a zero-burden approach, thus excluding upstream activities

generating waste flows, but it was explicitly mentioned only once.

Another interesting aspect is that for the valorisation of several agro-industrial

residues and organic waste (thus also food losses and waste) a price could be

paid either by tax payers, or by valorisation plant owners (e.g. biogas)

(Schievano et al. 2015). This aspect needs to be properly assessed in the case of

a comparative LCC (e.g. prevention vs. treatment) in order to avoid double

counting or inconsistencies in considering transfers, taxes, and price paid for

feedstock.

Methodology for evaluating LCC

34

Finally, another set of critical aspects to be assessed is related to external

impacts of food waste prevention or valorisation. As highlighted in the FUSIONS

project (FUSIONS 2015) trade-offs can arise from investments/actions of FLW

reduction or prevention. FLW prevention can have uncertain impacts on the

demand and supply of food that a LCC approach should probably take into

consideration. Lower food prices resulting from food waste reduction could

actually lead to a higher consumption and to some extent also in more food

waste. Likewise, if consumers are reducing food waste, producers would produce

less, requiring less manpower. Finally, an investment in losses reduction could

have uncertain outcomes in the long term from price reduction. Similarly, the use

of agro-industrial residues and organic waste (thus also food losses and waste)

for example in biogas plants, could result in lower biomass supply costs for plant

owners, thus reducing reliance on energy crops, the related impacts and markets.

It is not clear whether these avoided impacts should be included and how

(Schievano et al. 2015). In a similar way, the upgrading of FLW into animal feed

could have not only effects in terms of cost improvement for animal feed facilities

but also cascade effects on substitute products (Takata et al. 2012).

Box 11: Take out: Other aspects

Other LCC methodological aspects are currency issues, data availability and quality, scenario

development, and cost estimation methods. As far as food waste is regarded, prevention

was not present in the reviewed studies, and then specific challenges should be identified

and addressed, such as the definition of the food waste assessed, its qualities at source, the

specific destination. Transfers and prices paid to valorise certain residues and food wastes

must be taken into account in order to avoid double counting. Finally, trade-offs can arise

from investments/actions of FLW reduction or prevention.

7 Conclusions

Work Package 5 aims at providing the environmental and cost dimension of food

waste prevention and valorisation routes and options by using life cycle

assessment (LCA) and life cycle cost (LCC) methodologies. Task 5.1.2 thus aimed

at collecting and analysing the literature on life cycle costing with a focus on

practical implementation on food waste.

As far as the LCC general approach is regarded, the main finding of the report is

that an E-LCC approach would allow integrating costing techniques and LCA into a

comprehensive assessment of food waste prevention and valorisation impacts.

Regardless of the approach, in reviewed literature, LCC use in food waste studies

was rather limited and mainly related to management. E-LCC was usually used as

economic assessment within a LCA study. No LCC study encompassed prevention

measures, thus specific challenges should be identified and addressed.

A functional unit coherent with LCA is usually suggested and used, especially in E-

LCC. Most of FUs related to waste management or food waste were mass based.

Methodology for evaluating LCC

35

It must be clearly defined if FU is referred to (food) waste collected, managed,

treated, or to end products. Similarly, in E-LCC system boundaries should be

coherent with LCA but two exceptions can be made: financial relevance can be

used as cut-off criteria; several actor perspectives (with different

upstream/downstream segments) can be used. In (food) waste management

studies, a grave to grave/gate perspective was used, unless the focus was on

food value loss (not LCC studies).

In C-LCC usually the following costs are included: initial investment costs;

financing costs; recurring operating and maintenance costs; capital replacement

costs; resale value or salvage/disposal costs. All these costs can be considered

also in an E-LCC, but the cost modelling should define a product tree or life cycle,

classify all relevant costs in a breakdown with appropriate level of detail and

relate them to the functional unit (e.g. at a unit process level). In food LCC, raw

materials and various inputs, energy uses, packaging and waste, are included, as

well as other cost categories related to labour, certifications (organic food,

HACCP, etc.), interests, depreciation, quotas, and insurances, food-related taxes,

transport (e.g. refrigerated or animal transport), disposal, revenues from sales,

and subsidies. In LCCs of (food) waste management are regarded, labour costs,

energy and material inputs, machineries and their maintenance are always

considered. The categorization is sometimes carried out in terms of stages, other

times in terms of cost typology. Food waste related studies that are not applying

LCC usually focus on the direct loss of food value.

Another relevant aspect is allocation. In E-LCC costs are often to be allocated if

needed according to the hierarchy provided by ISO (2006). Besides, indirect costs

can be allocated either by number of working hours or by an established

overhead rate. In multi-output systems, a consequential approach can be used by

translating co-products with market value into avoided costs (revenues).

Discounting can be applied to cash flows (with a time frame similar to

depreciation period) regardless of the LCC approach. In E-LCC, however,

discounting of results is not recommended.

Externalities can be included as quantifiable costs or benefits, expressed in

monetary terms, depending on the approach. In E-LCC it is suggested to include

as costs only those externalities that are expected to become real money flows in

the decision relevant-future. In food waste LCCs, for example, CO2 emissions

could be monetized in the LCC, but in case LCA and LCC results are combined or

showed together then double counting of the same impact should be avoided.

However, two basic problems may arise: on one side not every externality is

associated to an LCA impact; not every environmental impact or externality can

be fully or partially monetized. C-LCC is more characterized by a financial

management perspective. Several evaluation techniques (NPV, IRR, payback

time) exist. They can be applied to E-LCC as well, but usually in this approach the

evaluation of costs is more interested in supply chain effects and in the

identifications of trade-offs or win-win situations. Thus LCC results are reported

and analysed together with LCA results through portfolio presentations, plotting,

and normalization. According to most standards and books, a sensitivity analysis

should be used to test the validity of the study and to measure the connections

between parameters or value choices and outputs (such as discount rates, period

of analysis, cost data, price variations, etc.). Despite its importance, sensitivity

Methodology for evaluating LCC

36

analysis was used in only two LCC study, and another study only applied a break

even analysis.

Finally, other aspects should be addressed. For example, the relevance of

currency, issues of data availability and quality, and cost estimation methods.

Furthermore, as far as food waste is regarded, it must be mentioned the

importance of the characterization of food waste assessed, the identification of

potential transfers and prices paid by operators, the eventual inclusion and

analysis of trade-offs and indirect effects triggered by FLW prevention or

valorisation.

Methodology for evaluating LCC

37

8 References

American Society for Testing and Materials International (ASTM). 2015. Standard

Practice for Measuring Life-Cycle Costs of Buildings and Building Systems. ASTM E917 -

15. West Conshohocken, PA, USA.

American Society for Testing and Materials International (ASTM). 2013. Standard

Practice for Determining the Life-Cycle Cost of Ownership of Personal Property. ASTM

E2453 - 13. West Conshohocken, PA, USA.

Valdivia, Sonia, Ugaya, Cássia M. L., Sonnemann, Guido, Hildenbrand, Jutta, Ciroth,

Andreas, Finkbeiner, Matthias, Klöpffer, Walter, Mazijn, Bernard, Prakash, Siddharth,

Vickery-Niederman, Gina, Traverso, Marzia. 2011. Towards a life cycle sustainability

assessment: making informed choices on products. UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative.

Ciroth, A. and Franze, J. 2009. Life Cycle Costing in SimaPro. Available at

http://www.simapro.de/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/LCCinSimaPro_english.pdf,

Accessed on 15 November 2015.

Daylan, B. and Ciliz N. 2016. “Life cycle assessment and environmental life cycle

costing analysis of lignocellulosic bioethanol as an alternative transportation fuel.”

Renewable Energy 89: 578-587.

de Lange W. and Nahman A. 2015. “Costs of food waste in South Africa: Incorporating

inedible food waste.” Waste Management 40:167–172.

Dhillon, B. S. 2010. Life cycle costing for engineers. Boca Raton: CRC Press Taylor and

Francis Group, LLC.

European Commission (EC). 2013.”Commission Recommendation of 9 April 2013 on

the use of common methods to measure and communicate the life cycle environmental

performance of products and organisations”. Official Journal of the European Union, 56:9-

91, ISSN 1977-0677.

European Commission (EC). 2016. “Life-cycle costing”.

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/gpp/lcc.htm. Accessed on 25 October 2015.

Escobar, Neus, Ribal, Javier, Clemente, Gabriela, Rodrigo, Alfredo, Pascual, Andrés,

Sanjuán, Neus. 2015. “Uncertainty analysis in the financial assessment of an integrated

management system for restaurant and catering waste in Spain”, International Journal of

Life Cycle Assessment 20 (11):1491–1510.

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 2014. Food Wastage Footprint. Full-cost

accounting. Final Report. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization.

Finkbeiner, M. (ed.). 2011. Towards Life Cycle Sustainability Management. Springer.

FLW. 2015. Food Loss & Waste Protocol Accounting and Reporting Standard (FLW

Standard). Parts I through III. Draft as of March 20, 2015.

FUSIONS. 2015. Deliverable D1.6, Criteria for and baseline assessment of

environmental and socio-economic impacts of food waste, Final Report.

Methodology for evaluating LCC

38

Hunkeler, David, Lichtenvort, Kerstin, Rebitzer, Gerald (eds.). 2008. Environmental Life

Cycle Costing. Pensacola: CRC Press.

International Standard Organisation (ISO). 2006. “ISO 14040 Environmental

management—Life cycle assessment: Principles and framework.” Geneva.

International Standard Organisation (ISO). 2000. “ISO 15663-1 Petroleum and natural

gas industries — Life cycle costing — Part 1: Methodology.” Geneva.

International Standard Organisation (ISO). 2001a. “ISO 15663-2 Petroleum and

natural gas industries — Life cycle costing — Part 2: Guidance on application of

methodology and calculation methods.” Geneva.

International Standard Organisation (ISO). 2001b. “ISO 15663-3 Petroleum and

natural gas industries - Life cycle costing - Part 3: Implementation guidelines.” Geneva.

International Standard Organisation (ISO). 2008. “ISO 15686-5 Buildings and

constructed assets - Service-life planning - Part 5: Life-cycle costing.” Geneva.

Kim, H. and Ahn, T.K. 2011. ”Analysis on Correlation Relationship Between Life Cycle

Greenhouse Gas Emission and Life Cycle Cost of Electricity Generation System for Energy

Resources.” In Towards Life Cycle Sustainability Management. Springer. p. 459 - 468.

2011.

Kim, M. H., Song, Y. E., Song, H. B., Kim, J. W., Hwang, S. J. 2011. “Evaluation of food

waste disposal options by LCC analysis from the perspective of global warming: Jungnang

case, South Korea.” Waste Management 31(9-10):2112–2120.

Langdon, David. 2007. Life cycle costing (LCC) as a contribution to sustainable

construction: a common Methodology - Final Report.

Laurent, A., Bakas, I., Clavreul, J., Bernstadt, A., Niero, M., Gentil, E., Christensen, T.

H. 2014. “Review of LCA studies of solid waste management systems – Part I: Lessons

learned and perspectives.” Waste Management 34(3):573-588.

Martinez-Sanchez, Veronica, Kromann, Mikkel A., Astrup, Thomas F. 2015. “Life cycle

costing of waste management systems: Overview, calculation principles and case

studies.” Waste Management 36:343–355.

Martinez-Sanchez, Veronica, Tonini, Davide, Møller, Flemming, Astrup, Thomas F.

2016. “Life cycle costing of food waste management in Denmark: importance of indirect

effects.” Environmental Science & Technology. Article ASAP.

Mohamad, Ramez S., Verrastro, Vincenzo, Cardone, Gianluigi, Bteich, Marie R., Favia,

Mariafara, Moretti, Michele, Roma, Rocco. 2014. “Optimization of organic and

conventional olive agricultural practices from a Life Cycle Assessment and Life Cycle

Costing perspectives.” Journal of Cleaner Production 70:78-89

Nahman, A. and de Lange W. 2013. “Costs of food waste along the value chain:

Evidence from South Africa.” Waste Management 33(11):2493–2500.

Nahman, A., de Lange W., Oelofse S., Godfrey L. 2012. “The costs of household food

waste in South Africa.” Waste Management 32(11):2147–2153.

Methodology for evaluating LCC

39

Notarnicola, B., Tassieli, G., Nicoletti, G. M. 2004. “Environmental and economic

analysis of the organic and conventional extra-virgin olive oil.” New Medit 2:28-34.

Perera, O., Morton, B., Perfrement, T. 2009. Life Cycle Costing. A Question of Value. A

white paper from IISD, International Institute for Sustainable Development.

Pergola, M., D'Amico, M., Celano, G., Palese, A.M., Scuderi, A., Di Vita, G., Pappalardo,

G., Inglese, P. 2013. “Sustainability evaluation of Sicily’s lemon and orange production:

An energy, economic and environmental analysis.” Journal of Environmental Management

128:674-682.

PwC. 2015. Leading the way – impact examples. Total Impact Measurement &

Management. http://www.pwc.com/gx/en/services/sustainability/publications/total-

impact-measurement-management/impact-examples.html. Accessed on 30 November

2015.

Reynolds, Christian J., Piantadosi, J., Boland J. 2015. “Rescuing Food from the

Organics Waste Stream to Feed the Food Insecure: An Economic and Environmental

Assessment of Australian Food Rescue Operations Using Environmentally Extended Waste

Input-Output Analysis.” Sustainability, 7:4707-4726.

Rigamonti, Lucia, Sterpi, Irene, Grosso, Mario. 2016. “Integrated municipal waste

management systems: An indicator to assess their environmental and economic

sustainability.” Ecological Indicators 60:1–7.

Schievano, A., D'Imporzano, G., Orzi, V., Colombo, G., Maggiore, T., Adani, F. 2015.

“Biogas from dedicated energy crops in Northern Italy: electric energy generation costs.”

GCB Bioenergy, 7:899–908.

Schmidt Rivera, Ximena C., Azapagic, Adisa. 2016. “Life cycle costs and environmental

impacts of production and consumption of ready and home-made meals.” Journal of

Cleaner Production, 112:214-228.

Settanni E., Notarnicola, B., Tassielli, G. 2010. “Combining Life Cycle Assessment of

food products with economic tools.” In Environmental assessment and management in the

food industry. Woodhead Publishing. p. 207-218.

Sonesson, U.; Berlin, J.; Ziegler, F. (eds). 2010. Environmental assessment and

management in the food industry. Woodhead Publishing.

Swarr, T.E., Hunkeler, D., Klopffer, W., Pesonen, H.L., Ciroth, A., Brent, A.C., Pagan,

R. 2011. Environmental Life Cycle Costing: a code of practice. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

Takata, Miki, Fukushima, Kazuyo, Kino-Kimata, Noriko, Nagao, Norio, Niwa, Chiaki,

Toda, Tatsuki. 2012. “The effects of recycling loops in food waste management in Japan:

based on the environmental and economic evaluation of food recycling.” Science of The

Total Environment, 432:309–317.

Trucost. 2015. EP&L (Environmental Profit and Loss account).

http://www.trucost.com/environmental-profit-and-loss-accounting. Accessed on 29

November 2015.

Vinyes, Elisabet, Oliver-Solà, Jordi, Ugaya, Cassia, Rieradevall, Joan, Gasol, Carles M.

2013. “Application of LCSA to used cooking oil waste management.” International Journal

of Life Cycle Assessment, 18:445–455.

Methodology for evaluating LCC

40

Zorpas, A.A., and Lasaridi, K. 2013. “Measuring waste prevention.” Waste

Management, 33(5):1047-1056.

Methodology for evaluating LCC

1

9 Annex A: Alignment of REFRESH situations with other

frameworks

Table 10 shows how FUSIONS and FLW standard destinations align to the REFRESH situations. Most notably prevention

was not within the scope of either of these documents.

Table 10: Destinations of FUSIONS (2015) and Food Waste and Loss Standard (2015) aligned to the four REFRESH

situations.

Situations

Prevention

at source

Co-product valorisation

Valorisation as part of

waste management

End of life treatment

Destinations in

FUSIONS

Animal feed (B1), biobased

material and biochemical

processing (B2), Bioenergy

(B6)

Composting (B3), plough

in/not harvested (B4) (if

for the purpose of soil

enhancement), anaerobic

digestion (B5), Co-

generation (B7)

Plough in / not harvested (B4)

(if not for the purpose of soil

enhancement), Incineration

(B8), Sewer (B9), Landfill

(B10), Discards (B11)

Destinations in FLW

standard

Animal feed, bio-based

materials and biochemical

processing, fermentation

Codigestion / anaerobic

digestion, composting /

aerobic digestion,

incineration (if with energy

recovery), land

application, Plough in / not

harvested (if for the

purpose of soil

enhancement)

Incineration (if without energy

recovery), landfill, Plough in /

not harvested (if not for the

purpose of soil enhancement),

open burn, refuse / discarded

or dumped to land or sea,

sewer

Methodology for evaluating LCC

2

10 Annex B: Summary of reviewed document

Table 11: Overview of literature sources covered

(* indicates that the document is not fully/properly LCC; further specification is provided in corresponding tables)

1. Bo oks

LCC

general

LCC

food

LCC

(food)

waste

1.1 Dhillon 2010

√

1.2 Hunkeler et al. 2008

√

1.3 Swarr et al. 2011

√

1.4 Finkbeiner 2011

√

1.5 Sonesson et al. 2010

√

2. Standard and policy guidelines

2.1 ISO 2000, 2001a, 2001b

√

2.2 ISO 2008

√

2.3 ASTM 2015

√

2.4 ASTM 2013

√

2.5 EC 2016

√

Methodology for evaluating LCC

3

3. Papers from journals

3.1 Kim et al. 2011

√

3.2 Nahman et al. 2012

√*

3.3 Nahman and de Lange 2013

√*

3.4 de Lange and Nahman 2015

√*

3.5 Escobar et al. 2015

√

3.6 Rigamonti et al. 2016

√*

3.7 Schmidt Rivera and Azapagic 2016

√

3.8 Notarnicola et al. 2004

√

3.9 Mohamad et al. 2014

√

3.10 Pergola et al. 2013

√

3.11 Schievano et al. 2015

√*

3.12 Daylan and Ciliz 2016

√

3.13 Takata et al. 2012

√

3.14 Martinez-Sanchez et al. 2015

√*

3.15 Vinyes et al. 2013

√

3.16 Reynolds et al. 2015

√*

3.17 Martinez-Sanchez et al. 2016

√

Methodology for evaluating LCC

4

4. Reports

4.1 Ciroth et al. 2011

√

4.2 Perera et al. 2009

√

4.3 FUSIONS 2015

√*

4.4 FAO 2014

√*

5. Grey literature

5.1 Ciroth and Franze 2009

√

5.2 Langdon 2007

√

6. Business Sustainability Reporting

6.1 PwC 2015 and Trucost 2015

√

Methodology for evaluating LCC

5

Table 12: Detailed literature review

Books

1.1

TITLE

Life cycle costing for engineers

AUTHOR(S) and/or

ORGANIZATION

Dhillon, B. S.

GENERAL THEME(S)

LCC

It reviews past literature (1988-2008) and covers several aspects related to LCC economics, such as

interest rates, depreciation methods, formulas, data sources, models and estimation methods,

especially for specific costs (quality, reliability, maintenance, etc.). Costing models are provided for

some product categories (computer systems, transports, civil engineering structures and energy

systems).

LCC APPROACH(ES)

Conventional

Life cycle costing models and methods presented are from the conventional approach, mostly related

to producer’s perspective. Life cycle cost is defined as “the sum of all costs incurred during the life

span of an item or system (i.e., the total of procurement and ownership costs).”

FUNCTIONAL UNIT(S)

No specific guideline

SYSTEM BOUNDARIES

No specific guideline

COST ALLOCATION

No specific guideline

COST CATEGORIES

Procurement and Ownership; Recurring and Nonrecurring; Material; Labour; Repair; Maintenance;

Methodology for evaluating LCC

6

Others.

EXTERNALITIES

No specific guideline

IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Present value, calculated with different methods.

OTHER RELEVANT

ASPECTS

-

RECOMMENDATIONS

AND COMMENTARY

Useful as source for some basic models and formulas (e.g. simple vs. compound interest, present

value calculation, others).

No specific guideline on food waste assessment.

1.2

TITLE

Environmental Life Cycle Costing

AUTHOR(S) and/or

ORGANIZATION

Hunkeler, D.; Rebitzer, G.; Lichtenvort, K., (eds.);

GENERAL THEME(S)

LCC

This book presents the results of the SETAC-Europe Working Group on Life Cycle Costing, which aimed

at developing Environmental LCC (EnvLCC) as second pillar of sustainability assessment (together with

LCA and societal assessments).

LCC APPROACH(ES)

Environmental mainly, but also conventional and societal.

Conventional LCC assesses all costs related to the life cycle of a product and directly covered by the

main producer or user. Only real and internal costs are considered, sometime end of life or use costs

are excluded. The perspective is mostly that of 1 actor, either the manufacturer or the user or

consumer. A conventional LCC usually is not accompanied by LCA results.

Environmental LCC assesses all costs deriving from the life cycle of a product and directly covered by

Methodology for evaluating LCC

7

1 or more actors in the product life cycle (supplier, manufacturer, user or consumer, and/or end of life

actor), including those externalities that are anticipated to be internalized in the decision relevant

future (definition as suggested by Rebitzer and Hunkeler 2003). It thus requires the inclusion of all life

cycle stages and anticipated costs, as well as a separate LCA, with the same product system according

to ISO 14040/44. The perspective can be that of 1 or more actors. If relevant, subsidies and taxes are

included.

Societal LCC includes all costs covered by anyone in the society, whether today or in the long-term

future. It thus assesses also additional external costs by transforming impacts in monetary terms. The

perspective is from society overall. Subsidies and taxes are excluded as they have no net effect.

FUNCTIONAL UNIT(S)

Various, according to goal and scope of EnvLCC, but consistent with ISO 14040/44: “The functional

unit should be a given utility resulting in different reference flows”. For EnvLCC should be the same as

in LCA.

SYSTEM BOUNDARIES

The same product system as for LCA (according to ISO 14040/44) with the perspective of 1 or more

given market actors.

Possible to include R&D or marketing activities, especially if they fall above the common cut-off

threshold.

Cradle-to-gate costs (e.g. material prices) can be used in LCC for upstream processes: this means

different processes included in LCA and LCC.

COST ALLOCATION

In case of multioutput systems, costs of personnel, capital, goods and services should be allocated,

based on market prices. Other allocation method is the gross sales value method, basing on a “split-

off point”. Particular methodological challenges are the allocation of indirect costs (as overheads or

components costs).

COST CATEGORIES

Both costs and revenues can be included (especially when dealing with coproducts), and it should be

specified how revenues are dealt with.

Four way of categorizing costs: “economic cost categories, life cycle stages, activity types, and other

Methodology for evaluating LCC

8

cost categories” with examples. It is suggested to use the latter category of costs.

Important to define the cost bearer(s) as different upstream and downstream costs could be included.

Cost aggregation and discounting: discounting of results is inconsistent and not recommended with

the steady-state environmental LCC, while discounted cash flows for money flows occurring at

different times within 1 product life cycle is commonly applied. Sensitivity analysis is suggested for

different discounting rates. Results may be discounted in case of Societal (with some assumptions)

and conventional LCC (although not applied).

EXTERNALITIES

External costs are market based or resemble other money flows (e.g., taxes and tariffs). They are

distinguished from the cost deriving from external effects.

In E-LCC all externalities that may become real money flows in the decision relevant-future would be

included in a systematic way. Criteria for inclusion of external cost categories are:

- they should cover all significant types of effects without overlapping (e.g. LCA and SLCA)

- should be characterized in indicators

- it should be possible to model a quantitative relation with the human activity

- it should be monetized

IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Several methods can be used such as net present value, annuities, internal rate of return, and

payback period.

Influence of uncertain parameters used in LCC should be assessed through a sensitivity analysis.

Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis should focus on assumed data, expected variations, value choices

(as discounting rate). Monte Carlo or analytical hierarchy process can be applied.

LCA and LCC results should be analysed together to identify win-win solutions or trade-offs, using

portfolios of LCA-impacts and LCC results (no single scores). Potential use of normalization (e.g.

Return on environment or econo-environmental return)

Methodology for evaluating LCC

9

OTHER RELEVANT

ASPECTS

Scenario development, forecasting, or cost estimation methods (see Dhillon) may have to be

employed in case of missing information. Thresholds can be applied, as in LCA.

Steady state vs. quasi-dynamic: EnvLCC usually uses steady state models for time value of money.

Collection method: accounting systems vary from country to country and from firm to firm.

Currencies: costs incurred in different regions should be transformed, while costs incurred in different

times can be stated as such.

Confidentiality and use of price as cost estimation.

RECOMMENDATIONS

AND COMMENTARY

-

1.3

<

Methodology for evaluating LCC

Abstract and Figures