Journal of Cleaner Production 329 (2021) 129668

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

A review of monetary valuation in life cycle assessment: State of the art and
future needs
Andrea Martino Amadei, Valeria De Laurentiis, Serenella Sala *
European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Via Enrico Fermi 2749, I-21027, Ispra, VA, Italy

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Handling Editor: Prof. Jiri Jaromir Klemeš Monetary valuation is used in Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) to aggregate environmental impacts expressed with
different units of measure and therefore not directly comparable, in order to facilitate the communication and the
Keywords: use of LCA results in decision-making processes. Although several authors have discussed the advantages of using
Life cycle assessment monetary valuation in the weighting phase of LCA, its practical implementation is still challenging. The aim of
Monetization
this study is to critically assess the available monetary valuation approaches applicable in LCA and highlight
Monetary valuation
challenges and research needs towards the development of a set of monetary valuation factors to be applied to
Weighting
Life cycle impact assessment life cycle impact assessment methods, e.g., the European Environmental Footprint one. To this end, a literature
review was performed to collect and compare monetary valuation coefficients. The review highlighted significant
variability in the availability of monetary valuation coefficients across impact categories, with some (e.g.,
climate change) commonly analyzed, compared to others (e.g., terrestrial euthrophication) with very little in­
formation available to date. The collected monetary valuation coefficients were tested in a case study on the
environmental impacts of the consumption of an average European citizen. Results were compared with the per
capita household expenditure as a point of reference, yielding a contribution of the external damage ranging
from 15% to 41% of the per capita expenditure. The novelty of this work lies in performing an updated and
systematic assessment of the available monetary valuation approaches for LCA and investigating the variability
of the results that stem from the adoption of different approaches, paving the way towards an increased use of
LCA and environmental considerations in decision making processes.

1. Introduction
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methods are increasingly adopted by
business and policy makers to evaluate environmental impacts of value
chains. In the EU policy context, LCA is cited among the methods to be
used for assessing the impact of policies, in the Better regulation toolbox
(EC, 2015). According to the definition reported in the ISO standard
(ISO, 2006a), LCA is the compilation and evaluation of the inputs,
outputs, and the potential environmental impacts of a product system
throughout its life cycle. In the impact assessment phase of LCA, results
of the inventory analysis are associated to environmental impact cate­
gories and indicators through Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA)
methods, which firstly classify emissions into impacts categories (ICs) (e.
g., climate change, particulate matter, etc.) and secondly characterize
them to common units so as to allow comparison within the same impact
category (e.g., kg CO2 equivalent). Current available methods are
assessing impacts on more than 15 midpoint impact categories, e.g., the
sixteen which are adopted in the Environmental Footprint (EF) (EC,
2013a,b and related updates). Following this phase, results are inter­
preted in accordance to the goal and scope of the LCA study. Weighting
is not required by the ISO standards on LCA (ISO, 2006a,b), but is
commonly adopted in the LCA interpretation phase to support the
identification of the most relevant impact categories, and for enabling
the aggregation and comparison of results (Ahlroth et al., 2011). The
employed weights are selected considering specific value choices, to
evaluate the relative importance of the assessed impacts. Weights
commonly reflect the specific preferences of actors (such as experts,
citizens, etc.), the impacts variations due to geography or time, the ac­
tions’ urgency or political relevance, etc. (Pizzol et al., 2017).
The monetary valuation of environmental impacts represents one of
the possible approaches for the weighting step of LCA (Sala et al., 2018),
and is also crucial in environmental economics (Itsubo et al., 2012).
Since the 1930s, valuation of environmental impacts has become a
decisive part of environmental economic research (Read, 1963).

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: serenella.sala@ec.europa.eu (S. Sala).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129668
Received 8 October 2020; Received in revised form 2 November 2021; Accepted 7 November 2021
Available online 9 November 2021
0959-6526/© 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
A.M. Amadei et al.
Fig. 1. Overview of the followed methodological approach.
Monetary valuation is the practice of converting measures of social and
biophysical impacts into monetary units and is used to determine the
economic value of non-market goods, i.e., goods for which no market
exists (Pizzol et al., 2015).
Monetary valuation in LCA was firstly addressed in 1999 by Finn­
veden et al. (1999). This review analyzed several methods (e.g., the
Environmental Priority Strategies (EPS) system, the Ecoscarcity method,
economic valuations based on impact analysis approaches, etc.),
concluding that inconsistencies, data gaps and assumptions were
limiting factors for their implementation in LCA. Subsequently, Finn­
veden et al. (2006) presented a method for the monetary valuation of
environmental impacts in LCA, based on taxes and fees on emissions and
resources used in Sweden (the Ecotax method). The Ecotax method
represented a unique solution to the use of distinct monetary valuation
approaches in various LCA impact categories. The authors recognized
the challenges of comparing LCA results based on different monetary
valuation approaches (e.g., based on willingness to pay, based on in­
dividual’s revealed or stated preferences, etc.). Although several authors
have later discussed the advantages of using monetary valuation in the
weighting phase of LCA (Finnveden et al., 2009; Ahlroth et al., 2011;
Ahlroth, 2014), the practical implementation of this approach in LCA
were still considered to be challenging. This aspect was confirmed in the
review performed by Pizzol et al. (2015), that underlined the presence of
rooms for improvement concerning monetary valuation in LCA. In this
work, several methods were classified based on a scoring system, iden­
tifying the most suitable monetary valuation methods in the context of
LCA. Furthermore, Pizzol et al. (2015) highlighted how different mon­
etary valuation approaches may be required when assessing LCA im­
pacts at “endpoint” (i.e., when the indicator includes the entire
environmental mechanism) or “midpoint” (i.e., when the indicator is
chosen somewhere between the emission and the endpoint of the envi­
ronmental mechanism) levels (Bare et al., 2000). More recently, Arendt
et al. (2020) highlighted how the wide variety of available monetary
valuation approaches requires careful attention from practitioners and
method developers, since the monetary damage values obtained when
applying them in LCA studies can vary significantly according to the
2
Journal of Cleaner Production 329 (2021) 129668
choice of approach.
The information available from literature highlighted several chal­
lenges concerning the use of monetary valuation approaches in LCA.
LCA assesses potential impacts which do not refer to specific situations
but are generalizable and aggregated over space and time. Therefore,
the monetary valuation of potential impacts should result in monetary
valuation coefficients (MVCs) applicable to different contexts (Pizzol
et al., 2015), which is not straightforward. It was also recognized how
the potential benefits of applying monetary valuation in LCA are con­
strained by the limited development of MVCs, especially for some ICs
(Arendt et al., 2020). Monetary valuation has however a great potential
to be applied for the interpretation of environmental impacts derived
through LCA, as monetary units may be easier to relate to for most au­
diences, compared to weights derived with different approaches (Pizzol
et al., 2015). There is value in identifying the order of magnitude of
environmental impacts converted into monetary terms in view of
placing them in relation to the real economy, and in this way facilitating
decision making (Alberici et al., 2014).
When exploring options for the development of a weighting
approach for the EF, a monetary valuation approach was discarded as
these approaches were considered not sufficiently mature (Sala et al.,
2018). The goal of the present work is to review existing approaches to
monetary valuation in the context of LCA, identifying available sets of
MVCs and investigating their differences. To reach this goal, this study
builds on previous comprehensive reviews in the field of monetary
valuation methods (such as, Pizzol et al., 2015; Arendt et al., 2020), and
aims at expanding the assessment of MVCs and at exploring their suit­
ability to monetize midpoint impacts calculated according to the EF
method, taken as an example. A case study was developed to test the
application of selected coefficients and critically discuss the variability
of the results obtained considering different methods. The present study
allows to better understand the differences and commonalities of the
available monetary valuation approaches and the variability of existing
MVCs. Limitations of their application were discussed to unveil the
research needs for the future development of a comprehensive set of
MVCs to be used in combination with the most common life cycle impact
A.M. Amadei et al.
Fig. 2. Overview of the classification of monetary valuation approaches
and methods.
categories, such as those of the EF method.
2. Methods
The present study reviews and analyzes the monetary valuation ap­
proaches and sets available in the literature for the monetary valuation
of midpoint impacts according to the 16 impact categories assessed by
the EF method, which are: climate change [kg CO2 eq.]; ozone depletion
[kg CFC-11 eq.]; human toxicity, cancer [CTUh]; human toxicity, non-
cancer [CTUh], particulate matter [disease incidences]; ionizing radia­
tion, human health [kBq U235 eq.]; photochemical ozone formation,
human health [kg NMVOC eq.]; acidification [mol H+ eq.]; eutrophi­
cation, terrestrial [mol N eq.]; eutrophication, freshwater [kg P eq.];
eutrophication, marine [kg N eq.]; land use [points - pt]; ecotoxicity,
freshwater [CTUe]; water use [m3 water eq. of deprived water]; resource
use, fossils [MJ] and resource use, minerals and metals [kg Sb eq.]. To
this end, a five-stepped approach was followed: (i) a search was per­
formed to collect studies in the field of LCA and monetary valuation; (ii)
studies proposing MVCs suitable for one or more EF impact categories
were selected, excluding studies that were not providing any new MVCs;
(iii) these studies were analyzed in detail, MVCs were collected and their
suitability for the monetary valuation of impacts according to the EF
method was evaluated; (iv) MVCs were adjusted for inflation to the
selected reference year (2019), classified per ICs and based on the un­
derpinning monetary valuation approach, and when possible assessed in
terms of MVCs variability; (v) to provide a practical application of the
collected MVCs, a case study was performed, aimed at evaluating in
monetary terms the impact of the average European citizen, by applying
the literature MVCs suitable for the EF midpoint ICs. All the performed
methodological steps are summarized in Fig. 1.
2.1. Selection criteria and analysis of the reviewed literature
A search was performed on the Scopus® database (Scopus, 2020) to
derive an initial list of literature references aligned with the goal of the
study using the following keywords: “monetization”, “monetary valua­
tion”, “monetary weighting”, “monetarization”, “LCA”, “Life cycle
3
Journal of Cleaner Production 329 (2021) 129668
assessment”, “damage”, “emissions” and “environment”.
As this work builds on a previous review by Pizzol et al. (2015),
relevant papers cited in this review were added to the papers selected
through the Scopus® database search. The references of the gathered
papers were carefully analyzed in view of including any other relevant
work, not included in the first literature screening. From the resulting
list of collected papers, those providing a set of MVCs were selected. The
selected papers were then analyzed considering the following elements:
(i) the environmental impact categories covered, (ii) the compatibility
with the EF ICs, (iii) the monetary valuation approach adopted to derive
MVCs and (iv) the clarity of the information available (e.g., transparency
and clarity of the method used to derive the proposed coefficient). A
MVC was considered suitable for the EF if it was derived for one or more
EF ICs and expressed using the same as the one indicated in the EF ICs (e.
g., €/kg CO2eq).
The results section reports the MVCs gathered and the valuation
approaches and methods adopted to derive them, classified for each
impact category. An overview of the monetary valuation approaches
and methods considered is presented in Fig. 2. This work uses the
classification of monetary valuation approaches (defined as classes of
monetary valuation methods based on specific internally-consistent
hypothesis and principles) and monetary valuation methods (defined
as different versions of the same monetary valuation approach, based on
the same principle but differing in the practical implementation or in
technical aspects) provided by Pizzol et al. (2015), included in Fig. 2.
Additional monetary valuation approaches and methods were
included to complement those presented by Pizzol et al. (2015). In
particular, the “damage cost” monetary valuation approach was
included, which evaluates the damage derived from an emission or from
other changes in natural capital. Under the monetary valuation methods
labelled “Abatement cost”, all the approaches quantifying the potential
cost of the marginal replacement measure that avoids/prevents the
damage were considered. Two new categories were also included: (i) the
“Mixed approaches” category includes all cases when the approach
adopted is a mix of two or more distinct approaches from the approaches
listed in Fig. 2; (ii) the “Other approaches” category includes instead all
approaches and methods not elsewhere classified (e.g., combination of
different literature sources). Amongst the reviewed studies, some pro­
vided MVCs directly applicable to environmental impacts calculated
following the EF: in these cases, no further adaptation is required. In the
remaining cases, the need to perform additional elaborations to ensure
the compatibility between the MVCs and the EF method was high­
lighted, and some practical examples of how this could be achieved were
provided (Supplementary Information – Section 1).
2.2. Adjusting the monetary valuation coefficients for inflation
In all cases in which MVCs were provided in euros for years other
than the reference year, these were adapted following equation (1),
based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI) formula (Inflation Tool, 2020).
Final valuei = Present valuej *
CPIfinal, i
(1)
CPIinitial,j
where:
• Final value: represents the MVCs for the year i adjusted for inflation;
• Present value: represents the MVCs in the year j (this is the year set as
the “Present year”);
• CPIfinal,i: represents the CPI value for the year i;
• CPIfinal,i: represents the CPI value for the year j (this is the year set as
the “Present year”).
The values of the CPI indexes have been derived from the Eurostat
database (Eurostat, 2020b).
A.M. Amadei et al.
Table 1
Overview of the “key” literature sources in the field of monetary valuation.
Literature source Reference
EPS method Steen (2000a,b)
ECOTAX2002 approach Finnveden et al. (2006)
Stepwise2006 method Weidema et al. (2009)
Shadow Prices handbook Bruyn et al. (2010)
ECOVALUE08 valuation set Ahlroth et al. (2011)
2.3. Application to a case study on the environmental impact of an
average EU citizen
The gathered MVCs were tested in a dedicated case study, applying
MVCs to the average EU citizen ‘Consumer Footprint’, referring to the
year 2010, retrieved from Sala and Castellani (2019). The consumer
footprint is calculated by building the life cycle inventories of more than
150 representative products for five areas of consumption (food,
mobility, housing, household goods, and appliances). The inventories
are then characterized using the 16 ICs of the EF method. Hence, the
Consumer Footprint represents the potential environmental impacts of
household consumption (for the entire EU population and per-capita).
In the proposed case study, the MVCs collected from the literature
were combined with the environmental profile of the Consumer Foot­
print: MVCs were used to convert environmental impacts in monetary
terms, by simply multiplying the environmental impact by the monetary
factor. When multiple MVCs were available for the same IC and the same
monetary valuation method, the average was considered. Only MVCs
directly applicable to the EF were considered.
The results were compared with the per-capita expenditure linked to
households’ final consumption in the EU in 2010, actualized to the year
to the year 2019 (Eurostat, 2020a).
3. Results and discussion
In this section the results of the study are presented, describing the
information gathered from the reviewed literature and the related
monetary valuation approaches.
As described in Section 2.1, a search was performed consulting the
Scopus® database (Scopus, 2020), which resulted in a total of 58 papers.
Selected studies from those referenced by Pizzol et al. (2015) and from
the reference list of the initial studies collected, were then added to the
initial list of studies (resulting in 44 additional papers and reports). A
selection was afterwards performed, according to the criteria presented
in Section 2.1, resulting in 18 studies selected for review.
Several studies were excluded as they reported only MVCs directly
taken from a list of few “key” literature sources. These sources are still
commonly cited despite being in some cases more than 10 years old. The
most cited works are summarized in Table 1.
Table 2 reports the MVCs collected from the final selection of studies.
Coefficients that can be directly applied to impacts calculated with the
EF method are underlined in Table 2. All MVCs have been adapted to
€2019 values (see Section 2.2). In their study, Schneider-Marin and Lang
(2020) report a range of coefficients (high and low), derived from
different literature sources, for the assessed impact categories. In this
case, the interval is provided in Table 2. As an additional note, the MVC
equals to 0 €2019/kg CFC-11 eq., reported by Schneider-Marin and Lang
(2020), derives from the eco-cost-value ratio model (Vogtländer et al.,
2001) which already includes ozone depleting causing substances in the
accounting of the global warming prevention costs. The MVC indicated
in Bruyn et al. (2010) is the same for both the damage cost approach and
the avoidance cost approach, given that the authors derived damage
costs estimated based on the abatement cost. The MVC reported in
Trinomics (2020) for ozone depletion is the same as the one reported in
Bruyn et al. (2018) since it is directly taken from this reference. The
same is true for the MVC of ionizing radiations, photochemical ozone
4
Journal of Cleaner Production 329 (2021) 129668
formation and eutrophication (freshwater and marine). The Trinomics
(2020) reports also indicates MVCs obtained combining different sour­
ces, derived from an exchange with the Joint Research Centre of the
European Commission (EC-JRC) (this is the case of human toxicity,
cancer; human toxicity, non-cancer, water use and land use), and is the
only study proposing a set of obtained MVCs explicitly to be used in
combination with the EF method. These specific monetary valuation
approaches and methods obtained by combining different sources, have
been categorized under “other approaches”. The studies by Steen
(2000a,b) and Ahlroth and Finnveden (2011) propose instead MVCs
derived through a combination of different approaches (labelled under
“mixed approaches”). The coefficients derived from the ReCiPe 2008
method (Goedkoop et al., 2009), (Goedkoop et al., 2013) are MVCs used
to convert midpoint damages into endpoint damages, where the latter is
expressed in monetary terms.
While for some impact categories the same unit of the MVC is used by
all literature sources collected (e.g., climate change, ozone depletion), in
other cases the units vary widely (e.g., particulate matter, with a total of
4 different units; and photochemical ozone formation, with a total of 6
different units). The adoption of different units of measure hinders the
comparability across studies and the compatibility of several valuation
coefficients with the indicators used in the impact categories of the EF
method.
Some MVCs are reported in literature for “aggregated” ICs that do
not follow the EF structure: this is the case of (i) eutrophication, which is
commonly presented as an aggregated category comprising both
terrestrial and freshwater eutrophication and (ii) human toxicity, which
is commonly presented as an aggregated category comprising both
human toxicity, cancer and human toxicity, non-cancer. This aspect is a
limiting factor to the potential application of these coefficients in the EF
context.
An overview of the monetary valuation approaches and methods
adopted to derive the coefficients presented in Table 2, is provided in
Table 3 and illustrated in Fig. 3. The performed review highlighted a
lack of consensus on a specific monetary valuation method (both across
all impact categories and within each impact category), although results
indicate that damage cost and abatement cost (in particular those
considering the distance to a policy target) are the most commonly
adopted ones.
In the analysis of the literature collected, it was not always
straightforward to understand how MVCs were derived, since the un­
derlying information explaining the methodological choices and calcu­
lations performed was sometimes incomplete or not clear enough. As
this might represent a barrier against the application of developed
MVCs, it is recommended that future studies suggesting new sets of
MVCs, provide clear and transparent background information on how
each MVC is derived.
As illustrated in Fig. 3 and detailed in Table 3, the sample size of
MVCs available in literature is limited and the availability of valuation
coefficients is not balanced across ICs, with some already extensively
analyzed (e.g., climate change, ozone depletion, acidification)
compared to others (e.g., terrestrial eutrophication, land use) for which
very little information is available.
Whenever more than three studies had derived a MVC for an impact
category (expressed with the same metric and unit) using the same
valuation approach, the results obtained were compared to assess the
variability of existing valuation coefficients (Table 4).
Even when MVCs are comparable, they present variations ranging
from one order of magnitude (e.g., climate change, ozone depletion, and
resource use, fossil) to three orders of magnitude (e.g., ionizing radia­
tions). It should be highlighted that no more than 6 comparable MVCs
have been found in literature for the same IC. The lack of information
available for the monetary valuation of EF ICs is evident from Table 4
since a comparison was possible only for 6 of the 16 impact categories of
the EF. The consistency between the models underpinning the charac­
terization of environmental impacts for the EF and the models
A.M. Amadei et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 329 (2021) 129668

Table 2
List of MVCs and relative unit of measure. €2019 values.
Ref. Climate Ozone depletion Human toxicity Particulate Ionizing Photochemical ozone Acidification
change matter radiation formation
Cancer Non-cancer

Alberici et al. (2014) 4.63E-02 1.15E+02 [€/kg 4.31E-02 [€/kg 1–4 DB eq.] 1.62E+01 1.08E-03 2.30E-03 [€/kg 2.15E-03 [€/kg
[€/kg CO2 eq.] CFC-11 eq.] [€/kg PM10 [€/kBq U235 NMVOC eq.] SO2 eq.]
eq.] eq.]
van Essen et al. (2019) 1.05E-01 – – – – – 1.18E+00 [€/kg –
[€/kg CO2 eq.] NMVOC eq.]
Weidema et al. (2009) 1.11E-01 1.34E+02 [€/kg 3.62E-01 [€/kg C2H3Cl eq.] 9.10E+01 [kg 2.68E-05 4.95E-04 1.03E-02 [€/m2
[€/kg CO2 eq.] CFC-11 eq.] PM2.5 eq.] [€/Bq C14 [€/m2*ppm*h] UES]
eq.]
Goedkoop et al. – – – – – – – –
(2013)
Finnveden et al. 8.53E-02 1.62E+02 [€/kg 2.03E-01 [€/kg 1–4 DB eq.] – – – 2.44E+02 [€/kg
(2006) [€/kg CO2 eq.] CFC-11 eq.] SO2 eq.]
Ahlroth and 1.34E-01 – 7.67E-01 [€/kg 1–4 DB eq.] – – 3.45E+00 [€/kg 3.83E+00 [€/kg
Finnveden (2011) [€/kg CO2 eq.] C2H4 eq.] SO2 eq.]
Davidson et al. (2005) 6.93E-02 4.16E+01 [€/kg – – – – 2.77E+00 [€/kg 5.54E+00 [€/kg
[€/kg CO2 eq.] CFC-11 eq.] ethylene] SO2 eq.]
Vogtländer et al. 1.65E-01 – – – 1.78E+01 [fine – 7.22E+01 [€/VOC 9.24E+00 [€/kg
(2001) [€/kg CO2 eq.] dust] eq.] SOx eq.]
Bruyn et al. (2010) 2.95E-02 3.54E+01 [€/kg – – 5.89E+01 [kg – 5.89E+00 [€/kg 7.00E-01 [€/kg
(abatement cost) [€/kg CO2 eq.] CFC-11 eq.] PM10 eq.] NMVOC eq.] SO2 eq.]
Bruyn et al. (2010) 2.95E-02 4.61E+01 [€/kg 2.43E-02 [€/kg 1–4 DB eq.] 6.07E+01 1.01E+00 1.39E+01 [vkg 7.52E-01 [€/kg
(damage cost) [€/kg CO2 eq.] CFC-11 eq.] [€/kg PM10 [€/kBq U235 NMVOC eq.] SO2 eq.]
eq.] eq.]
Bruyn et al. (2018) 5.97E-02 3.20E+01 [€/kg 1.04E-01 [€/kg 1–4 DB eq.] 4.13E+01 4.86E-02 1.21E+00 [€/kg 5.24E+00 [€/kg
[€/kg CO2 eq.] CFC-11 eq.] [€/kg PM10 [€/kBq U235 NMVOC eq.] SO2 eq.]
eq.] eq.]
De Nocker and 5.29E-02 5.20E+01 [€/kg 7.04E+05 1.53E+05 3.60E+01 1.03E-03 5.08E-01 [€/kg 4.55E-01 [€/kg
Debacker (2018) [€/kg CO2 eq.] CFC-11 eq.] [€/CTUh] [€/CTUh] [€/kg PM2.5 [€/kBq U235 ethene] SO2 eq.]
eq.] eq.]
Trinomics (2020) 1.04E-01 3.20E+01 [€/kg 9.19E+05 1.66E+05 7.98E+05 1.22E-03 1.21E+00 [€/kg 3.50E-01 [€/mol
[€/kg CO2 eq.] CFC-11 eq.] [€/CTUh] [€/CTUh] [€/disease [€/kBq U235 NMVOC eq.] H+ eq.]
incidences] eq.]
Steen (2000a,b) 1.42E-01 7.56E+02 [€/kg – – – 1.84E+01 [€/kg –
[€/kg CO2 eq.] CFC-11 eq.] NMVOC eq.]
Giunta et al. (2018) – – – – – – –
Kaenchan and – – – – – – –
Gheewala (2017)
Schneider-Marin and Low: 2.11E-02 Low: 0 High: – – – Low: 2.95E-01 High: Low: 1.87E+00
Lang (2020) (Low; High: 6,85E-01 3.16E+01 [€/kg 1.06E+01 [€/kg High: 1.59E+01
High) [€/kg CO2 eq.] CFC-11 eq.] C2H4 eq.] [€/kg SO2 eq.]
Cao et al. (2015) – – – – – – –
Finnveden et al. 3.26E-01 – 3.21E-01 [€/kg 1–4 DB eq.] 3.12E+01 – 3.09E+00 [€/kg 3.43E+00 [€/kg
(2013) [€/kg CO2 eq.] [€/kg PM10 C2H2 eq.] SO2 eq.]
eq.]

Ref. Eutrophication Land use Ecotoxicity Water use Resource Resource use,
freshwater use, Fossils minerals &
Terrestrial Freshwater Marine
metals

Alberici et al. (2014) – 2.15E-01 [€/kg 1.94E+00 – 3.18E-12 2.15E-01 5.39E-02 7.54E-02 [€/kg
P eq.] [€/kg N eq.] [€/species*yr*m3] [€/m3] [€/kg oil eq.] Fe eq.]
van Essen et al. (2019) – – – – – – – –
Weidema et al. (2009) 1.74E-02 1.34E-01 [€/kg NO3 eq.] 1.61E-01 9.51E-06 [€/kg eq. – 5.40E-03 –
[€/m2 UES] [€/m2 TEG] [€/MJ]
arable]
Goedkoop et al. (2013) – – – – – – [**] 5.70E-02 [€/kg
Fe eq.]
Finnveden et al. (2006) – 3.87E+00 [€/kg PO43− eq.] – 1.25E+01 [€/kg 1–4 – 5.26E-03 –
DB eq.] [€/MJ eq.]
Ahlroth and Finnveden – 2.79E+01 [€/kg PO4 eq.] – – – 1.56E-02 –
(2011) [€/MJ eq.]
3−
Davidson et al. (2005) – 1.25E+01 [€/kg PO4 eq.] . – – – –
Vogtländer et al. (2001) – 4.40E+00 [€/kg PO43− eq.] – – – – –
Bruyn et al. (2010) – 1.28E+01 8.25E+00 – – – – –
(abatement cost) [€/kg PO43− [€/kg N eq.]
eq.]
Bruyn et al. (2010) – 2.10E+00 1.28E+01 7.21E-01 – – – –
(damage cost) [€/kg PO43− [€/kg N eq.] [€/m2a]
eq.]
Bruyn et al. (2018) – 1.96E+00 3.28E+00 8.91E-02 3.81E-02 [€/kg 1–4 – – –
[***] [€/kg P [***] [€/kg N [€/m2a] DB eq.]
eq.] eq.]
(continued on next page)

5
A.M. Amadei et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 329 (2021) 129668

Table 2 (continued )

Ref. Eutrophication Land use Ecotoxicity Water use Resource Resource use,
freshwater use, Fossils minerals &
Terrestrial Freshwater Marine
metals

De Nocker and Debacker – 2.12E+01 [€/kg PO43− eq.] 1.59E-06 3.92E-05 [€/CTUe] 7.09E-02 [m3 6.88E-03 1.65E+00 [€/kg
(2018) [€/kg C water eq.] [€/MJ] Sb eq.]
deficit]
Trinomics (2020) – 1.95E+00 3.27E+00 1.78E-04 3.89E-05 [€/CTUe] 5.08E-03 [€/m3 1.32E-03 1.67E+00 [€/kg
[€/kg P eq.] [€/kg N eq.] [€/pt] eq. deprived [€/MJ] Sb eq.]
water]
Steen (2000a,b) – – – – – – – 1.92E+04 [€/kg
Sb eq.]
Giunta et al. (2018) – – – – 5.70E+01 [€/kg 1–4 – – 3.63E-02 [€/kg
DB eq.] Fe eq.]
Kaenchan and Gheewala – – – – 1.34E-03 [€/kg 1–4 – – 6.01E-02 [€/kg
(2017) DB eq.] Fe eq.]
Schneider-Marin and – Low: 1.88E+00 High: 1.67E+01 – – – 1.76E-02 1.92E+01 [€/kg
Lang (2020) (Low; [€/kg PO43− eq.] [€/MJ] Sb]
High)
Cao et al. (2015) – – – [*] – – – –
Finnveden et al. (2013) – 7.66E+01 1.03E+01 – – – 1.37E-02
[€/kg P eq.] [€/kg N eq.] [€/MJ]

[*]: Country-specific values [$ 2011/ha.yr]. In the paper, the biophysical indicators are converted into economic units considering regional specifications.
[**]: Individualist: 4.13E-02 [€ 2019/kg oil eq.]; Hierarchical/Egalitarian: 1.32E-01 [€ 2019/kg oil eq.].
[***]: Note that Bruyn et al. (2018) suggest using this MVC if it is not precisely known where the pollution occurs, since it is based on ‘water, unspecified’ in Goedkoop
et al. (2013).

considered for the MVCs in the reviewed literature is difficult to be
ensured.
An overview of the potential direct applicability of the gathered
MVCs to the impact categories and indicators of the EF method is re­
ported in Fig. 4. It is immediately clear how for some ICs several options
for MVCs calculated with this method are already available (e.g., climate
change, ozone depletion, acidification), while for others (e.g., terrestrial
eutrophication, land use) monetary valuation methods are still at an
early stage of development and none or few coefficients exist that are
suitable to be used in combination with the EF ICs.
Results of the present analysis indicate that terrestrial eutrophication
is one of the least analyzed impact categories in literature, as it presents
only one MVC which is not suited for the EF. Although ICs such as
ionizing radiation, freshwater eutrophication and fossil resource
depletion manifest more than 50% of MVCs directly applicable to the EF,
7 other ICs (i.e., particulate matter, photochemical ozone formation,
acidification, land use, ecotoxicity freshwater, water use and resource
use, minerals and metals) exhibit 50% or less compatibility with the EF
for the reported MVCs. These findings highlight the need for future
research to provide MVCs for less represented impact categories.
In view of testing the gathered MVCs with the EF ICs, a case study
was developed, by performing a monetary valuation of the environ­
mental impacts of the average EU citizen, as obtained by Sala and Cas­
tellani (2019). The results of the case study are illustrated in Fig. 5.
Results indicate that climate change and resource use (fossils and
minerals and metals) manifest the highest monetized impact compared
to other ICs. For some ICs the results exhibit a certain agreement even
when calculated with different methods (e.g., climate change). This is
aligned with the results shown in Tables 2 and 4 and might highlight
how the development of MVCs is more advanced for some ICs compared
to others. To provide an indication of the environmental impacts of an
average EU citizen in monetary terms, the sum of all maximum and
minimum values reported in Fig. 5 was derived. The resulting monetized
environmental impacts range from 2352.75 €2019/per-capita to 6571.41
€2019/per-capita. This interval is partly overlapping with the range of
values suggested by Arendt et al. (2020), who performed a similar ex­
ercise, obtaining a range of 224.06–7941.3 €2019/per-capita, but to­
wards the higher end. Just to have an idea of the relative magnitude of
these estimates, a comparison with the EU per capita expenditure
related to household’s final consumption has been made (16127
€2019/per-capita). The monetary damage caused by the average EU cit­
izen due to his/her environmental impact resulted to be in the order of
15%–41% of the per capita expenditure related to household con­
sumption. Notwithstanding that a direct comparison between MVCs
derived adopting different monetary valuation approaches is limited by
the intrinsic methodological diversity, it is important to reflect about the
calculated damages given their magnitude and range..
Even if not many MVCs are available to date for LCA purposes, the
presence of several monetary valuation approaches and methods con­
stitutes an obstacle towards the comparison of the existing MVCs. An
LCA practitioner may find it challenging to choose a consistent set of
MVCs if methodologies vary across impact categories, as reported also
by Arendt et al. (2020). In place of a detailed uncertainty analysis of the
MVCs suggested (based on the assumptions made and considering
different potential sources of uncertainty), a comparison against other
existing MVCs is instead commonly performed in the studies reviewed.
Guidelines could be provided in view of limiting incongruences and lack
of compatibility between different studies and suggest how to perform
an uncertainty analysis for providing more robust MVCs. Moreover, said
guidelines could provide an overview of existing sets of MVCs (currently
scattered across the literature) and give specific recommendations on
which monetary valuation method and related MVCs should be applied
given the context of the study.
The selection of a specific geography is a limiting factor for the
implementation of MVCs. To adapt the findings of this study focusing on
the EU to a broader perspective (e.g., global) or to other specific conti­
nents/countries, all the country-specific differences should be consid­
ered. Results could in fact drastically vary across regions based on the
adopted monetary valuation approaches and the energy and environ­
mental justice variables influencing the set of MVCs of choice. Following
an approach similar to the one suggested by Cao et al. (2015), the
introduction of dedicated coefficients for all world countries (e.g., de­
tailing the adaptation capacity to anthropic and/or natural events and
the exposure to such events) could ensure that the specificities of each
world region are taken into account when deriving MVCs. The present
work contributes towards the discussion aimed at improving the inter­
face between environmental and economic assessment, especially when
LCA is used in policy and decision-making contexts. Results from the
case study (Fig. 5) highlight the strategic role of monetary valuation of
environmental impacts. The comparison of the monetary impacts with

6
A.M. Amadei et al.
Table 3
Description of the approaches of literature references which provide a set of MVCs for one or more impact categories.
Ref.
Alberici et al. (2014)
van Essen et al. (2019)
Weidema et al. (2009)
Goedkoop et al. (2013)
Finnveden et al. (2006)
Ahlroth and Finnveden (2011)
Davidson et al. (2005)
Vogtländer et al. (2001)
Bruyn et al. (2010) (abatement cost &
damage cost)
Bruyn et al. (2018)
De Nocker and Debacker (2018)
Trinomics (2020)
Steen (2000a,b)
Giunta et al. (2018)
Kaenchan and Gheewala (2017)
Schneider-Marin and Lang (2020) (Low;
High)
Cao et al. (2015)
Finnveden et al. (2013)
a
Note that Bruyn et al. (2018) suggest using this MVC if it is not precisely known where the pollution occurs, since it is based on ‘water, unspecified’ in Goedkoop
et al. (2013). Acronyms explained:EF ICs: CC = climate change; ODP = ozone depletion; HTOX_nc = human toxicity non-cancer; HTOX_c = human toxicity, cancer;
PM = particulate matter; IR = ionizing radiations; POF = photochemical ozone formation; AC = acidification; TEU = eutrophication, terrestrial; FEU = eutrophication,
freshwater; MEU = eutrophication, marine; LU = land use; ECOTOX = ecotoxicity freshwater; WU = water use; FRD = resource use, fossils; MRD = resource use,
minerals and metals. Other ICs included: HTOX = human toxicity; EUt = eutrophication (some studies did not provide coefficients at the same level of aggregation of
the EF).
Journal of Cleaner Production 329 (2021) 129668
Description of the monetary valuation approaches and methods per impact category
CC: Damage cost (Literature review, with internalization of CO2 value for ETS (EU ETS , 2020)).
FRD, MRD: Market price (Observed preferences. Resource depletion marginal cost. Reflects the cost surplus caused by the increased
marginal cost of extraction).
WU: Market price (Observed preference. Derived from Puma (2011), and its relationship between water scarcity. It models the
relationship between water scarcity and willingness to pay for the benefits that water provides).
ODP, HTOX, PM, IR, POF, AC, FEU, MEU, ECOTOX: Damage cost.
CC: Abatement cost (Avoidance cost. The cost to achieve a particular policy target).
POF: Damage cost.
CC, ODP, HTOX, PM, IR, POF, AC, TEU, EUt, LU, ECOTOX, FRD: Budget constraint (Willingness to pay).
FRD, MRD: Market price (Observed preference. Replacement of conventional fossil resources with non-conventional fossil resources due
to a marginal increase in extraction). For FRD, a ‘Individualist’ MVC and a ‘Hierarchical/Egalitarian’ MVC are available.
CC, ODP, HTOX, AC, EUt, ECOTOX, FRD: Averting behaviour (Revealed preference. Taxes and fees in Sweden).
CC: Market price (Observed preferences).
FRD: Market price (Observed preference. Depletion cost - scarcity rent).
POF: Mixed approach (Contingent valuation and market prices).
HTOX, AC, EUt: Contingent valuation (Willingness to pay).
CC, ODP, POF, AC, EUt: Abatement cost (Avoidance cost. Reduction cost approach: assigns to emissions a price related to the cost of
reducing emissions to target levels).
CC, PM, POF, AC, EUt: Averting behaviour (Pollution prevention cost. The costs of the last and most expensive measures that have to be
taken to bring the economy in a given region to a sustainable level).
CC, ODP, PM, POF, AC, FEU, MEU: Abatement cost (Avoidance cost, policy targets).
CC, ODP, HTOX, PM, IR, POF, AC, FEU, MEU, LU: Damage cost.
CC: Mixed approach (Damage cost combined with abatement cost).
FEU, ECOTOX: Damage cost (Monetizing recipe endpoint characterization factors with the economic value of a Potentially disappeared
fraction of species (PDF), as explained in Section 5.4 of Bruyn et al., 2010. This value is equivalent to the one derivable from the charge
levied for effluent emissions to surface waters in the Netherlands). For FEU see note a.
MEU: Abatement cost (Avoidance cost, using the charge paid for discharges to Dutch surface waters).
ODP, HTOX, PM, IR, POF, AC, LU: Damage cost.
CC: Abatement cost (Prevention cost. The costs for the global economy to limit the emission of greenhouse gases to levels that limit global
warming to 2 ◦ C).
EUt: Literature review (Includes studies applying the willingness to pay approach, the restoration cost approach, or the prevention cost
approach).
ECOTOX: Contingent valuation (Willingness to pay).
WU, MRD: Market price (Observed preference. Resource depletion cost. Refers to additional costs for future generations, e.g. for mining
or importing water over larger distances. These additional costs are based on market prices for e.g. additional energy us).
FRD: Market price (Observed preference. Based on the EcoIndicator99 method Goedkoop and Spriensma (2000). Each time an amount -
e.g., kg - of a resource is used, the quality of the remaining resources is slightly decreased and the effort to extract the remaining resources
is increased).
ODP, HTOC_c, HTOX_nc, PM, IR, POF, AC, LU: Damage cost.
CC: Abatement cost (Avoidance cost).
HTOX_c, HTOX_nc: Based on the DALY value derived from van Essen et al. (2019) combined with DALY/CTUh_c,nc derived from
Vargas-Gonzalez et al. (2019).
LU: Adaptation of the model proposed by Cao et al. (2015), with De Laurentiis et al. (2019) and with the CFs derived from LANCA® (
Horn and Maier, 2018) for each land use type and for each country.
WU: Adaptation of Alberici et al. (2014) with the global average non-country-specific EF3.0 CF for emissions of m3 water eq. deprived
water due to water use derived from the EF method (Fazio et al., 2018).
FRD, MRD: Market price (Observed preference, resource depletion cost).
ODP, PM, IR, POF, AC, FEU, MEU, ECOTOX: Damage cost.
CC, ODP, POF, MRD: Mixed approach (Partial application of the market-price approach and contingent valuation).
ECOTOX, MRD: Averting behaviour (Prevention cost. Marginal abatement cost).
ECOTOX, MRD: Budget constraint (willingness to pay).
CC: Low, Abatement cost (Compensation cost considering the most cost-efficient, “low-hanging fruits” for CO2 prevention. Derived from:
atmosfair gGmbH, 2019); High, Damage cost (Derived from: Matthey and Bünger, 2019).
ODP: Low, Averting behaviour (Marginal prevention cost. Derived from: Vogtlander, 2012); High, Averting behaviour (Prevention cost.
The highest possible cost level for the government per unit of emission control. Derived from: Bruyn et al., 2018).
POF: Low, Damage cost (Derived from: Adensam et al., 2002); High, Averting behaviour (Derived from: Vogtlander, 2012).
AC: Low, Damage cost (Derived from: Adensam et al., 2002); High, Damage cost (Derived from: Bünger and Matthey (2018); Matthey and
Bünger (2019)).
EUt: Low, Damage cost (Derived from: Adensam et al., 2002), High, Damage cost (Estimates derived considering willingness to pay and
market prices) (Derived from: Ahlroth, 2009).
FRD: Market price (Observed preference. Value of the non-renewable primary energy embedded in the material, derived from:
Vogtlander, 2012).
MRD: Market price (Observed preference. Derived from: Steen and Palander, 2015).
LU: Abatement cost (Potential additional economic costs that society must bear to compensate for the change in the ecosystem service.
Reduction of a given ecosystem service due to land use).
POF, AC, FEU, MEU: Contingent valuation (Willingness to pay).
FRD: Market price (Observed preference. Difference between market price and marginal production cost).
CC, HTOX, PM: Damage cost.
7
A.M. Amadei et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 329 (2021) 129668

Fig. 3. Number of monetary valuation

methods and type of approaches per Impact
Category.
EF ICs: CC = climate change; ODP = ozone
depletion; HTOX_nc = human toxicity non-
cancer; HTOX_c = human toxicity, cancer;
PM = particulate matter; IR = ionizing ra­
diations; POF = photochemical ozone for­
mation; AC = acidification; TEU =
eutrophication, terrestrial; FEU = eutrophi­
cation, freshwater; MEU = eutrophication,
marine; LU = land use; ECOTOX = ecotox­
icity freshwater; WU = water use; FRD =
resource use, fossils; MRD = resource use,
minerals and metals.
Other ICs included: HTOX = human toxicity;
EUt = eutrophication (some studies did not
provide MVC at the same level of aggrega­
tion of the EF).

the per-capita household consumption expenditures gives an idea of the
magnitude of the externalities associated to EU consumption.
4. Conclusions
This review focused on monetary valuation of environmental im­
pacts and life cycle assessment. The collected literature was investigated
in view of understanding the available information and the most recent
developments in the application of monetary valuation in LCA and in
particular about the monetary valuation of impacts according to EF
impact assessment method.
Evidence shows that the availability of MVCs varies significantly
across impact categories. Some impact categories are commonly
analyzed in literature with several MVCs available from different sour­
ces (e.g., climate change and ozone depletion), whilst other impact
categories are not extensively studied and few MVCs are available to
date (e.g., eutrophication, terrestrial and land use). Clear and exhaustive
information detailing the underpinning methodology/calculations
applied for deriving the MVCs, is not always available. MVCs resulting
from diverse monetary valuation methods are inherently different.
When MVCs are comparable (same unit ad same approach), results show
a variability between one and three orders of magnitude.

Table 4
Comparison of the different MVCs derived from the literature adopting the same valuation approach.
Impact category Number of comparable MVCs Min Max Average Sources Monetary valuation method

EF ICs
CC [€2019/kg CO2] 4 2.95E-02 6.85E-01 2.72E-01 Min: Bruyn et al. (2010) Damage cost
Max: Schneider-Marin and Lang (2020)
CC [€2019/kg CO2] 6 2.11E-02 1.05E-01 6.38E-02 Min: Bruyn et al. (2010) Abatement cost
Max: Vogtländer et al. (2001)
ODP [€2019/kg CFC-11 eq.] 5 3.20E+01 1.15E+02 5.55E+01 Min: Bruyn et al. (2018) Damage cost
Max: Alberici et al. (2014)
PM [€2019/kg PM10 eq.] 4 1.62E+01 6.07E+01 3.73E+01 Min: Alberici et al. (2014) Damage cost
Max: Bruyn et al. (2010)
IR [€2019/kBq U-235 eq.] 5 1.03E-03 1.01E+00 2.13E-01 Min: De Nocker and Debacker (2018) Damage cost
Max: Bruyn et al. (2010)
POF [€2019/kg NMVOC eq.] 5 2.30E-03 1.39E+01 3.51E+00 Min: Alberici et al. (2014) Damage cost
Max: Bruyn et al. (2010)
AC [€2019/kg SO2 eq.] 6 2.15E-01 1.59E+01 4.07E+00 Min: Alberici et al. (2014) Damage cost
Max: Schneider-Marin and Lang (2020)
FRD [€2019/MJ] 5 1.32E-03 1.76E-02 1.10E-02 Min: Alberici et al. (2014) Market price a
Max: Schneider-Marin and Lang (2020)
Other ICs
HTOX [€2019/kg 1–4 DB eq.] 4 2.43E-02 3.21E-01 1.23E-01 Min: Bruyn et al. (2010) Damage cost
Max: Finnveden et al. (2013)
a
Market prices were considered comparable even if they were derived considering different economic aspects. EF ICs: CC = climate change; ODP = ozone depletion;
PM = particulate matter; IR = ionizing radiations; POF = photochemical ozone formation; AC = acidification. Other ICs included: HTOX = human toxicity.

8
A.M. Amadei et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 329 (2021) 129668

available, even if some impact categories present in certain cases MVCs

Fig. 4. Number of MVCs available in literature which are directly applicable to
the impact category of the Environmental Footprint method, per Impact Cate­
gory.
EF ICs: CC = climate change; ODP = ozone depletion; HTOX_nc = human
toxicity, non-cancer; HTOX_c = human toxicity, cancer; PM = particulate
matter; IR = ionizing radiations; POF = photochemical ozone formation; AC =
acidification; TEU = eutrophication, terrestrial; FEU = eutrophication, fresh­
water; MEU = eutrophication, marine; LU = land use; ECOTOX = ecotoxicity
freshwater; WU = water use; FRD = resource use, fossils; MRD = resource use,
minerals and metals.
A finding of this work is that many literature studies refer to few
“key” literature sources when dealing with monetary valuation of
environmental impacts. These sources are still commonly mentioned
despite being in some cases more than 10 years old. This underlines a
lack of solid and well received recent developments in this field,
although recent studies have been identified which aim at proposing a
consistent weighting set for LCA purposes (and explicitly considering the
EF in one case). A complete and homogeneous set of MVCs suited to
weight impacts according to the EF impact assessment method is not yet
which are compatible with the EF impact categories.
A case study was performed to test the available MVCs suitable for
the EF midpoint ICs. When compared with the per-capita expenditure
related to household consumption in the EU28, resulting environmental
costs exhibit a certain agreement for some ICs, notwithstanding the
different monetary valuation approaches adopted, with climate change
and resource use (fossils and minerals and metals) manifesting the
highest monetized impact compared to other ICs.
The novelty of this work lies in performing an updated and system­
atic assessment of monetary valuation approaches for LCA available in
the literature and investigating the variability of the results that stem
from the adoption of different approaches. The findings of this study
could prove useful to researchers and LCA practitioners in search of
existing MVCs to be applied when performing an LCA study, and for
researchers developing new sets. This work highlighted that further
research is needed to derive MVCs suited for the EF, in particular
regarding those ICs for which very little information is available to date.
Results indicate a large variability in MVCs derived adopting the same
monetary valuation methods, underlining the need for further meth­
odological refinements. Clarity in the underpinning information could
furthermore facilitate the application of the developed MVCs.
Other aspects that could potentially affect the application of mone­
tary valuation approaches in LCA are the need to update them over time
to consider the evolution of the economic scenarios and to take into
account context-specific factors when using them for different
geographies.
Given the recognizable approaches and the related limitations for the
monetary valuation of impacts, guidelines providing alternative MVCs
which are derived from different methods could give the LCA practi­
tioners more insights on variability of results. Guidelines could suggest
how the monetary valuation methods and related MVCs should be used
according to different decision contexts.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.

Fig. 5. Overview of monetary impacts calculated for the Consumer Footprint (Sala and Castellani, 2019) with the MVCs collected from literature and suitable with
the ICs of the EF method. Comparison of the results with the EU28 per capita household expenditure for 2010, actualized to 2019.
EF ICs: CC = climate change; ODP = ozone depletion; HTOX_nc = human toxicity non-cancer; HTOX_c = human toxicity, cancer; PM = particulate matter; IR =
ionizing radiations; POF = photochemical ozone formation; AC = acidification; TEU = eutrophication, terrestrial; FEU = eutrophication, freshwater; MEU =
eutrophication, marine; LU = land use; ECOTOX = ecotoxicity freshwater; WU = water use; FRD = resource use, fossils; MRD = resource use, minerals and metals.
Note: the EU28 per capita household expenditure for the year 2010 was derived from Eurostat (2020a). For TEU no MVCs are available.

9
A.M. Amadei et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 329 (2021) 129668

Acknowledgements EC (European Commission), 2015. Communication from the Commission to the

European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee
and the Committee of the Regions - Better Regulation for Better Results: an EU
The present study has been funded via an Administrative Arrange­ Agenda. COM(2015) 2015.
ment between the European Commission Directorate General of Envi­ EU ETS (EU Emissions Trading System), 2020. EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS).
ronment and the Joint Research Centre ’Technical support for the https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets_en (Accessed 28 September 2020).
Eurostat, 2020a. Purchasing Power Parities (PPPs), Price Level Indices and Real
Environmental Footprint and the Life Cycle Data Network (EF4) DG Expenditures for ESA 2010 Aggregates. https://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/sh
ENV′ 070201/2019/811467/AA/ENV.B.1. ow.do?dataset=prc_ppp_ind&lang=en. (Accessed 11 January 2021).
Eurostat, 2020b. Annual Data (Average Index and Rate of Change). HICP 2015 = 100.
https://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=prc_hicp_aind
Appendix A. Supplementary data &lang=en. (Accessed 28 August 2020).
Fazio, S., Castellani, V., Sala, S., Schau, E., Secchi, M., Zampori, L., Diaconu, E., 2018.
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi. JRC Technical Reports. Supporting Information to the Characterisation Factors of
Recommended EF Life Cycle Impact Assessment Method. New Models and
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129668. Differences with ILCD Contents. https://doi.org/10.2760/671368. European
Commission.
References Finnveden, G., 1999. A Critical Review of Operational Valuation/Weighting Methods for
Life Cycle Assessment. Swedish Environ. Prot. Agency. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu
/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.472.2326&rep=rep1&type=pdf. (Accessed 4
Adensam, H., Bruck, M., Fellner, M., Geissler, S., 2002. Externe Kosten. Studie im Auftrag
August 2021).
des Bundesministeriums für Wirtschaft und Arbeit. Wien. https://silo.tips/downloa
Finnveden, G., Eldh, P., Johansson, J., 2006. Weighting in LCA based on ecotaxes:
d/externe-kosten-externe-kosten-im-hochbau-band-i. (Accessed 17 September
development of a mid-point method and experiences from case studies. Int. J. Life
2020).
Cycle Assess. 11, 81–88. https://doi.org/10.1065/lca2006.04.015.
Ahlroth, S., 2009. Valuation of environmental impacts and its use in environmental
Finnveden, G., Hauschild, M.Z., Ekvall, T., Guinée, J., Heijungs, R., Hellweg, S.,
systems analysis tools. PhD Dissertation. Royal institute of Technology. http://www.
Koehler, A., Pennington, D., Suh, S., 2009. Recent developments in life cycle
diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A280992&dswid=-7351 (Accessed
assessment. J. Environ. Manag. 91, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
11 November 2021).
jenvman.2009.06.018.
Ahlroth, S., 2014. The use of valuation and weighting sets in environmental impact
Finnveden, G., Håkansson, C., Noring, M., 2013. A New Set of Valuation Factors for LCA
assessment. Resour. Conserve. and recycle 85, 34–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
and LCC Based on Damage Costs – Ecovalue 2012, 6th Int. Conf. Life Cycle Manag.
resconrec.2013.11.012.
Gothenbg. 2013 2011–2014. http://conferences.chalmers.se/index.php/LCM/L
Ahlroth, S., Finnveden, G., 2011. Ecovalue08-A new valuation set for environmental
CM2013/paper/viewFile/537/138. (Accessed 13 January 2021).
systems analysis tools. J. Clean. Prod. 19 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Giunta, M., Bressi, S., D’Angelo, G., 2018. Life cycle cost assessment of bitumen stabilised
jclepro.2011.06.005, 1994–2003.
ballast: a novel maintenance strategy for railway track-bed. Construct. Build. Mater.
Ahlroth, S., Nilsson, M., Finnveden, G., Hjelm, O., Hochschorner, E., 2011. Weighting
172, 751–759. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.04.020.
and valuation in selected environmental systems analysis tools–suggestions for
Goedkoop, M., Heijungs, R., Huijbregts, M., Schryver, A. De, Struijs, J., Zelm, R. Van,
further developments. J. Clean. Prod. 19, 2–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
2009. ReCiPe 2008. Potentials, pp. 1–44. https://www.leidenuniv.nl/cml/ssp
jclepro.2010.04.016.
/publications/recipe_characterisation.pdf (Accessed 8 January 2021).
Alberici, S., Boeve, S., Breevoort, P. Van, Deng, Y., Förster, S., Gardiner, A., van
Goedkoop, M., Heijungs, R., Huijbregts, M., De Schryver, A., Struijs, J., Van Zelm, R.,
Gastel, V., Grave, K., Groenenberg, H., de Jager, D., Klaassen, E., Pouwels, W.,
2013. ReCiPe 2008. A Life Cycle Impact Assessment Method Which Comprises
Smith, M., de Visser, E., Winkel, T., Wouters, K., 2014. Subsidies and Costs of EU
Harmonised Category Indicators at the Midpoint and the Endpoint Level, pp. 1–126.
Energy. Ecofys, by order of: European Commission. https://ec.europa.eu/energy/s
First edition (version 1.08). http://www.rivm.nl/sites/default/files/2018-11/Re
ites/ener/files/documents/ECOFYS%202014%20Subsidies%20and%20costs%20of
CiPe%202008_A%20lcia%20method%20which%20comprises%20harmonised%
%20EU%20energy_11_Nov.pdf. (Accessed 11 January 2021).
20category%20indicators%20at%20the%20midpoint%20and%20the%20endpoint
Arendt, R., Bachmann, T.M., Motoshita, M., Bach, V., Finkbeiner, M., 2020. Comparison
%20level_First%20edition%20Characterisation.pdf. (Accessed 8 January 2021).
of different monetization methods in LCA: a review. Sustain. Times 12, 1–39.
Goedkoop, M., Spriensma, S., 2000. The Eco-indicator 99: a damage oriented method for
https://doi.org/10.3390/su122410493.
life cycle impact assessment methodology. PRé Consultants B.V. https://pre-sustain
atmosfair gGmbH, 2019. FAQs Zur CO2-Berechnung. https://www.atmosfair.de/de/faqs
ability.com/articles/eco-indicator-99-manuals/. (Accessed 10 November 2021) The
/zur_co%E2%82%82-berechnung/. (Accessed 28 September 2020).
Hague, Netherlands.
Bare, J.C., Hofstetter, P., Pennington, D.W., De Haes, H.A.U., 2000. Midpoints versus
Horn, R., Maier, S., 2018. LANCA®- Characterization Factors for Life Cycle Impact
endpoints: the sacrifices and benefits. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 5 (6), 319–326.
Assessment. Version 2.5. http://publica.fraunhofer.de/documents/N-379310.html.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02978665.
(Accessed 25 June 2020).
Bruyn, S. de, Korteland, M., Markowska, A., Davidson, M., Jong, Femke deBles, M.,
Inflation Tool, 2020. How to Calculate Today’s Value of Money after Inflation? htt
Sevenster, M., 2010. Annexes - Shadow Prices Handbook, pp. 1–128. https://www.
ps://www.inflationtool.com/euro/2012-to-present-value?amount=1. (Accessed 11
cedelft.eu/en/publications/1032/shadow-prices-handbook-valuation-and-weighting
January 2021).
-of-emissions-and-environmental-impacts. (Accessed 11 January 2021).
ISO (International Organization for Standardization), 2006a. ISO 14040. Environmental
Bruyn, S. de, Bijleveld, M., Graaff, L. de, Schep, E., Schroten, A., Vergeer, R., Ahdour, S.,
Management – Life Cycle Assessment – Principles and Framework. Geneva,
2018. Environmental Prices Handbook. Delft, CE Delft, Oct. 2018 Publ. https://
Switzerland.
www.cedelft.eu/en/publications/2191/environmental-prices-handbook-eu28-v
ISO (International Organization for Standardization), 2006b. ISO 14044. Environmental
ersion. (Accessed 16 September 2020).
Management – Life Cycle Assessment – Requirements and Guidelines. Geneva,
Bünger, B., Matthey, A., 2018. Ökonomische Bewertung von
Switzerland.
Umweltschäden–Methodenkonvention 3.0 zur Schätzung von Umweltkosten.
Itsubo, N., Sakagami, M., Kuriyama, K., Inaba, A., 2012. Statistical analysis for the
Umweltbundesamt, Dessau-Roßlau. BMG-G-10050. https://www.umweltbundesamt.
development of national average weighting factors-visualization of the variability
de/sites/default/files/medien/1410/publikationen/2018-11-12_methodenko
between each individual’s environmental thought. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 17,
nvention-3-0_methodische-grundlagen.pdf. (Accessed 12 January 2021).
488–498. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0379-x.
Cao, V., Margni, M., Favis, B.D., Deschênes, L., 2015. Aggregated indicator to assess land
Kaenchan, P., Gheewala, S.H., 2017. Budget constraint and the valuation of
use impacts in life cycle assessment (LCA) based on the economic value of ecosystem
environmental impacts in Thailand. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 22, 1678–1691. https://
services. J. Clean. Prod. 94, 56–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.01.041.
doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1210-x.
Davidson, M.D., Boon, B.H., Van Swigchem, J., 2005. Monetary valuation of emissions in
Matthey, A., Bünger, B., 2019. Methodenkonvention 3.0 Zur Ermittlung von
implementing environmental policy: the reduction cost approach based upon policy
Umweltkosten—Kostensätze (Stand 02/2019). Dessau-Roßlau, Germany:
targets. J. Ind. Ecol. 9, 145–154. https://doi.org/10.1162/108819805775248016.
Umweltbundesamt. https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/files/medien/
De Laurentiis, V., Secchi, M., Bos, U., Horn, R., Laurent, A., Sala, S., 2019. Soil quality
1410/publikationen/2019-02-11_methodenkonvention-3-0_kostensaetze_korr.pdf.
index: exploring options for a comprehensive assessment of land use impacts in LCA.
(Accessed 12 January 2021).
J. Clean. Prod. 215, 63–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.238.
Pizzol, M., Weidema, B., Brandão, M., Osset, P., 2015. Monetary valuation in life cycle
De Nocker, L., Debacker, W., 2018. Annex: Monetisation of the MMG Method (Update
assessment: a review. J. Clean. Prod. 86, 170–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
2017) 67. Openbare Vlaamse Afvalstoffenmaatschappij: Mechelen, Belgium. https
jclepro.2014.08.007.
://www.vlaanderen.be/publicaties/annex-monetisation-of-the-mmg-method-up
Pizzol, M., Laurent, A., Sala, S., Weidema, B., Verones, F., Koffler, C., 2017.
date-2017. (Accessed 7 January 2021).
Normalisation and weighting in life cycle assessment: quo vadis? Int. J. Life Cycle
EC (European Commission), 2013a. Communication from the Commission to the
Assess. 22, 853–866. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1199-1.
European Parliament and the Council - Building the Single Market for Green
Puma, S.E., 2011. PUMA’s Environmental Profit and Loss Account for the Year Ended 31
Products Facilitating Better Information on the Environmental Performance of
December 2010. http://danielsotelsek.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Pum
Products and Organizations. COM(2013) 196.
a-EPL.pdf. (Accessed 10 September 2020).
EC (European Commission), 2013b. Recommendation 2013/179/EU on the use of
Read, J.E., 1963. The Trail Smelter Dispute. Canadian Yearbook of International Law/
common methods to measure and communicate the life cycle environmental
Annuaire canadien de droit international, pp. 213–229. https://www.cambridge.or
performance of products and organisations, Annex III, OJ L 124, 4.5.2013, p. 1–210.
g/core/journals/canadian-yearbook-of-international-law-annuaire-canadien-de-droi
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32013H0179
(Accessed 11 January 2021).

10
A.M. Amadei et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 329 (2021) 129668

t-international/article/abs/trail-smelter-dispute/ Vogtlander, J., 2012. A Practical Guide to LCA for Students, Designers and Business
94ED1B02E3461AED65C93095FA7F9BFB. (Accessed 15 January 2021). Managers: Cradle-To-Grave and Cradle-To-Cradle. Appendix IV. Delft Academic
Sala, S., Castellani, V., 2019. The consumer footprint: monitoring sustainable Press, Delft.
development goal 12 with process-based life cycle assessment. J. Clean. Prod. 240, Vogtländer, J.G., Brezet, H.C., Hendriks, C.F., 2001. The virtual Eco-costs ’99: a single
118050. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118050. LCA-based indicator for sustainability and the Eco-costs - value ratio (EVR) model
Sala, S., Cerutti, A.K., Pant, R., 2018. Development of a Weighting Approach for the for economic allocation: a new LCA-based calculation model to determine the
Environmental Footprint. Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi. sustainability of products and services. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 6, 157–166. https://
org/10.2760/446145. doi.org/10.1007/BF02978734.
Schneider-Marin, P., Lang, W., 2020. Environmental costs of buildings: monetary Weidema, B.P., 2009. Using the budget constraint to monetarise impact assessment
valuation of ecological indicators for the building industry. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. results. Ecol. Econ. 68, 1591–1598. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
25, 1637–1659. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-020-01784-y. ecolecon.2008.01.019.
Scopus, 2020. Expertly Curated Abstract & Citation Database. https://www.scopus.co
m/search/form.uri?display=basic-. (Accessed 2 September 2020).
Steen, B., 2000a. A Systematic Approach to Environmental Priority Strategies in Product Glossary
Development (EPS). Version 2000 – General System Characteristics. Gothenburg,
Sweden. https://www.lifecyclecenter.se/publications/a-systematic-approach-to-en
LCA: Life Cycle Assessment
vironmental-priority-strategies-in-product-development-eps-version-2000-general
LCIA: Life Cycle Impact Assessment
-system-characteristics/. (Accessed 15 January 2021).
ICs: Impact Categories
Steen, B., 2000b. A Systematic Approach to Environmental Priority Strategies in Product
EF: Environmental Footprint
Development (EPS). Version 2000 – Models and Data of the Default Method.
MVCs: Monetary Valuation Coefficients
Gothenburg, Sweden. https://www.lifecyclecenter.se/publications/a-systematic-app
CPI: Consumer Price Index
roach-to-environmental-priority-strategies-in-product-development-eps-version-
EU: European Union
2000-models-and-data-of-the-default-method/. (Accessed 15 January 2021).
EC-JRC: European Commission Joint Research Centre
Steen, B., Palander, S., 2015. EPS 2015d Including Climate Impacts from Secondary
CC: Climate change
Particles. https://www.lifecyclecenter.se/publications/eps-2015d1-excluding-clima
ODP: Ozone depletion
te-impacts-from-secondary-particles/. (Accessed 16 September 2020).
HTOX_nc: Human toxicity, non-cancer
Trinomics, 2020. Final Report – External Costs. Study on Energy Costs, Taxes and the
HTOX_c: Human toxicity, cancer
Impact of Government Interventions on Investments in the Energy Sector.
PM: Particulate matter
Rotterdam. https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/91a3097c-17
IR: Ionizing radiations
47-11eb-b57e-01aa75ed71a1/language-en. (Accessed 27 January 2021).
POF: Photochemical ozone formation
van Essen, H., van Wijngaarden, L., Schroten, A., Sutter, D., Bieler, C., Maffii, S.,
AC: Acidification
Brambilla, M., Fiorello, D., Fermi, F., Parolin, R., El Beyrouty, K., 2019. Handbook
TEU: Terrestrial eutrophication
on the External Costs of Transport. Version 2019. https://op.europa.eu/it/publica
FEU: Freshwater eutrophication
tion-detail/-/publication/e021854b-a451-11e9-9d01-01aa75ed71a1/language-en/f
MEU: Marine eutrophication
ormat-PDF. (Accessed 11 January 2021).
LU: Land use
Vargas-Gonzalez, M., Witte, F., Martz, P., Gilbert, L., Humbert, S., Jolliet, O., van
WU: Water use
Zelm, R., L’Haridon, J., 2019. Operational life cycle impact assessment weighting
FRD: Resource use, fossil
factors based on planetary boundaries: applied to cosmetic products. Ecol. Indicat.
MRD: Resource use, mineral and metals
107, 105498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.105498.
HTOX: Human toxicity
EUt: Eutrophication

11