LCA Tool Reporting Differences

Hi all,
For SE 2050, we’re very conscious of program participants using a wide variety of LCA tools to perform embodied carbon calculations. Aside from the difference in backing methodology across tools, we’ve also tried to consider how each tool reports out results. We want to make sure participants in SE 2050 aren’t asked to perform post-processing of results from LCA tools in order to report out data we are asking for.

Examples of how LCA tools differ in reporting:

  • Biogenic carbon reported as a separate value OR biogenic carbon included in total results without separation
  • Modules A-C reported as total OR Modules A-D reported as total

Perhaps there are other differences in reporting beyond those listed above? Are there any good resources that might summarize differences in reporting across tools?

1 Like

This collection of reports from the Tall Wood Design Institute is the best resource I know that differentiate end-of-life assumptions between Athena and Tally. The CLT WBLCA case study series goes into detail about biogenic carbon and module D assumptions. Those are definitely the big ones, but maybe also construction waste factor? I know that’s included in Athena but not Tally.

Is there any plan to also include material quantity inputs so this can get normalized in some way? Or at least only compare LCAs done in the same software?


Are you familiar with this study?
Life-Cycle Assessment and the Environmental Impact of Buildings: A Review
By Mohamad Monkiz Khasreen and others.

Most of the SE 2050 data fields are not required inputs in most LCA software. We’re just creating our own software in spreadsheet form.

1 Like