Life cycle assessment in aerospace manufacturing processes: A review

The aerospace industry’s transition toward greener manufacturing under evolving climate regulations requires robust environmental assessment frameworks capable of supporting sustainable technology decisions. This study systematically reviews the application of life cycle assessment (LCA) to aerospace manufacturing processes, identifies methodological limitations, and proposes directions for advancing assessment practice. Following PRISMA 2020 guidelines, 29 studies were identified from Scopus, Web of Science, and IEEE Xplore and analysed across the four ISO 14040/44 LCA phases: goal and scope definition, life cycle inventory (LCI), life cycle impact assessment (LCIA), and interpretation. Key attributes extracted included LCA objectives, system boundaries, allocation procedures, data sources, data quality reporting, impact categories, geographic distribution, and functional unit (FU). All 29 studies were classified as attributional LCA (ALCA), with no studies identified applying consequential LCA (CLCA), highlighting a major gap in assessing market-level environmental consequences associated with manufacturing transitions. Methodological transparency remains limited, with 93% of studies not disclosing allocation procedures, 79% lacking clearly structured goal statements consistent with ISO 14040/44 reporting expectations, 93% provided no explicit structured data quality assessment, and 86% did not quantify uncertainty. End-of-life (EoL) modelling was uncommon, with only 24% of studies (7 of 29) applying cradle-to-grave or cradle-to-cradle system boundaries despite the high residual value and circularity potential of aerospace materials. Environmental impact assessment was dominated by global warming potential (GWP), which was the sole reported impact category in approximately 59% of studies (17 of 29), while broader categories such as resource depletion, water use, and toxicity remained comparatively underrepresented. Geographic coverage was concentrated in Europe (72%), with limited representation from North America, Asia, and Africa despite significant aerospace manufacturing activities in these regions. Unlike previous reviews focusing on complete aerospace systems or aviation operations, this review specifically examines manufacturing-stage LCA practices across process categories including additive manufacturing, machining, forming, joining, and surface treatment. The findings demonstrate that aerospace manufacturing LCA is expanding but remains constrained by limited methodological standardisation, reporting transparency, and cross-study comparability. Standardised reporting frameworks addressing allocation disclosure, data quality indicators, uncertainty quantification, and FU definition are required to strengthen the reliability and policy relevance of aerospace manufacturing LCA.