Search

Most life cycle assessment (LCA) studies use the attributional methodology. This approach attributes a share of global environmental impacts to one or multiple functions provided by a normatively circumscribed system. Multifunctional systems that are not technologically subdivisible between co‐functions are frequently encountered in LCA studies. It then becomes necessary to resort to co‐production modeling techniques, like the substitution approach. The use of substitution modeling in attributional LCA (ALCA) is, however, discouraged amongst practitioners, due to the alleged violation of central requirements of the attributional methodology. The objective of this research is to shed light on common misconceptions about the compatibility of substitution with ALCA. The first misconception is that the use of substitution in ALCA violates the conservation of total environmental impacts. We find that this idea arises from a confusion regarding the attribution of impacts to the secondary product(s). The second misconception stipulates that substitution is not coherent with the state‐descriptive characteristic of ALCA. We conclude that we can describe a given system as resulting from an inferred (substitution) change, rather than as disrupted by this change. Finally, we discuss the choice of the substituted technology, and argue there is a logic to marginal substitution in ALCA. We therefore recommend accepting substitution modeling in ALCA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]