A Comparative Analysis of Waste-as-a-Feedstock Accounting Methods in Life Cycle Assessments

Global waste generation is a ubiquitous challenge, driving a paradigm shift towards viewing waste as a valuable resource for a circular economy across diverse sectors. While innovative waste-to-resource pathways are crucial, rigorous Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is essential to ensure the pathways are an important part of current practices. However, LCA application to waste valorization varies, leading to incomparable results due to differing methodological choices. This paper examines three key nuances in waste-as-resource LCAs: the zero-burden assumption, the biogenic carbon neutrality assumption, and the benchmark assumption for emissions avoidance. Using a waste gasification to hydrogen case study, we demonstrate how these methodological decisions impact LCA outcomes. Our findings reveal that waste composition significantly influences the results and highlight challenges associated with biogenic carbon accounting under various system boundary assumptions. Emissions avoidance accounting requires multi-functional unit perspectives and robust benchmark selection. This paper clarifies these accounting approaches, empirically illustrates their influence, and discusses broad implications for accurate sustainability assessment, emphasizing the critical role of transparent LCA choices for effective policy and investment in circular economy solutions.