Abstract
Industrial designers increasingly valorise pre-consumer waste through upcycling; yet face methodological ambiguities when applying Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) for design decision-making. This paper critically examines barriers in using LCA to evaluate circular design strategies for industrial waste metals, plastics, and wood. Through focused literature review of LCA studies and guidelines, this research identifies key methodological tensions: allocation approaches produce contradictory conclusions about upcycling benefits; system boundary definitions inconsistently classify upcycling activities; functional unit choices fundamentally alter comparative results; guideline selection (ISO, GHG Protocol, PEF) creates large variation in results; performance metrics remain application-dependent rather than operational. Findings reveal when LCA provides reliable design guidance versus when methodological inconsistency undermines decision-making. Results demonstrate how perceived organisational risk from methodological uncertainty inhibits upcycling adoption. This analysis equips designers with critical understanding of LCA's applicability boundaries for evidence-based circular design in industrial contexts.
Keywords
Circular design; LCA; upcycling; methodological barriers
DOI
https://doi.org/10.21606/drs.2026.2092
Citation
Ghafoori, S., Laursen, L.N., and Tollestrup, C. (2026) Navigating LCA in Circular Design: Methodological Barriers When Applying Life Cycle Assessment to Industrial Waste Upcycling Design Decisions, in Simeone, L., Gray, C. M., Verhoeven, A., de Götzen, A., Bakırlıoğlu, Y., Zohar, H., Stead, M., and Buwert, P. (eds.), DRS2026: Edinburgh, 8–12 June, Edinburgh, United Kingdom. https://doi.org/10.21606/drs.2026.2092
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License
Included in
Navigating LCA in Circular Design: Methodological Barriers When Applying Life Cycle Assessment to Industrial Waste Upcycling Design Decisions
Industrial designers increasingly valorise pre-consumer waste through upcycling; yet face methodological ambiguities when applying Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) for design decision-making. This paper critically examines barriers in using LCA to evaluate circular design strategies for industrial waste metals, plastics, and wood. Through focused literature review of LCA studies and guidelines, this research identifies key methodological tensions: allocation approaches produce contradictory conclusions about upcycling benefits; system boundary definitions inconsistently classify upcycling activities; functional unit choices fundamentally alter comparative results; guideline selection (ISO, GHG Protocol, PEF) creates large variation in results; performance metrics remain application-dependent rather than operational. Findings reveal when LCA provides reliable design guidance versus when methodological inconsistency undermines decision-making. Results demonstrate how perceived organisational risk from methodological uncertainty inhibits upcycling adoption. This analysis equips designers with critical understanding of LCA's applicability boundaries for evidence-based circular design in industrial contexts.