Life Cycle Impact Assessment: The Most Widely Used LCIA Methods

Which LCIA method should you use for your Life Cycle Assessment? There's no single right answer—but a global survey of 147 LCA practitioners reveals clear patterns. This article breaks down the most widely used methods and what drives their popularity.

Which LCIA Methods Are the Most Popular?

Whenever someone starts their first LCA study, one of the questions to answer is which of the available LCIA methods to use. There is no distinct answer, but according to a survey conducted in July 2018, some methods are more popular than others. The survey focused on two main issues: which impact assessment methods and which interpretation methods practitioners use most frequently.

The survey link was shared on LinkedIn within English-language topic groups on Life Cycle Assessment and sustainability reporting. Invitations were also sent via the LCA discussion mailing list, offered as a free service by PRé Consultants. As the application of Life Cycle Assessment has seen considerable evolution over the past decades, a current picture of practice was of particular interest.

In a nutshell: throughout various branches, LCA experts mainly used ReCiPe 2016, IPCC 2013 (now succeeded by IPCC 2021), ILCD 2011 (now largely superseded by EF v3.1), and CML 2012. For the interpretation step, sensitivity and scenario analysis came out on top.

Survey Conducted with LCA Practitioners Worldwide

The collection period was open for 20 days, resulting in a total of 147 responding participants. The survey achieved an average completion rate of 100 percent. Two responses could not be evaluated because the reply details were not clear.

From Europe, 98 persons participated (most of them from Germany, Italy, and Great Britain). 18 responses came from North America, 10 from South America, 12 from Asia, 1 from Africa (Ghana), and 5 from Oceania (Australia, New Zealand). The share is visualized in the first figure.

Life Cycle Assessment Used across Various Industry Sectors

The majority (65.3%) of participants work once a week or more frequently with Life Cycle Assessments or prepare them. More than 18% are involved in LCA studies on a monthly basis. About 10% work with LCA every second or third month, and only 10 people (approx. 7%) prepare Life Cycle Assessments once a year or less frequently. This is shown in the chart below.

Another introductory question showed which sectors or objects of investigation feature most frequently in LCA studies: industrial mass products and industrial processes ranked first with a total of 37%, followed by general processes, consumer goods (B2C), and individual consumer goods (B2C). Various other sectors follow; organizations, waste management, and agricultural systems also appear regularly, as visualized below.

The Most Used LCIA Method: ReCiPe 2016

In the central question "Which methodology do you use during Life Cycle Impact Assessment most of the time?", the majority of 145 participants reported using mainly the methods ReCiPe 2016, IPCC 2013, ILCD 2011, CML 2012, and Cumulative Energy Demand. Impact 2002+, USEtox, Ecological Footprint, IPCC 2007, and CML 2001 were used by approximately 4–8% of participants as supplementary tools (in descending order). Additional LCIA sets were also mentioned, as shown in the figure below.

A note on method versions: Since this survey was conducted in July 2018, the LCIA landscape has evolved. The ReCiPe 2016 version (which replaced ReCiPe 2008) remains the current standard for comprehensive multi-indicator assessments.

IPCC 2021 (based on the Sixth Assessment Report, AR6) has since succeeded IPCC 2013 and is now the recommended choice for climate change characterization in most LCA tools including ecoinvent. ILCD 2011 has been largely replaced by the EU Environmental Footprint method EF v3.1, which is mandatory for Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) studies and EPDs under EN 15804+A2.

How LCIA Results Are Interpreted

The question on interpretation methods showed that sensitivity and scenario analysis are far ahead of uncertainty calculations and parameter variations, which are also used frequently. The least used are completeness and consistency analysis. Hotspot analysis, contribution analysis, global sensitivity analysis, the pedigree matrix, and common sense were each mentioned once in the optional answer field.

The results of this fifth and final question are depicted below. For a deeper look at how LCA results can be used—and misused—in practice, see our article on whether LCAs can reveal green lies.

What Makes an Impact Assessment Method Popular?

Popular impact assessment methods tend to be those with which:

• climate change indicators can be calculated (ReCiPe 2016, IPCC 2021, ILCD/EF v3.1, Impact 2002+, CML 2012, etc.),
• the carbon footprint can easily be derived (ReCiPe 2016, IPCC 2021, etc.),
• qualitative results can be expressed in "points" (ReCiPe 2016, Impact 2002+, etc.),
• a comprehensive database (consisting of datasets from various international sources) is provided (ILCD 2011/EF v3.1)—suggesting that professionals need a wider choice of datasets,
• energy-related indicators are calculated (Cumulative Energy Demand).

These characteristics explain why multi-impact methods like ReCiPe 2016 dominate: they offer both breadth across environmental issues and flexibility in how results are presented to different audiences. The choice of LCA database—such as ecoinvent—also influences which LCIA methods are practically available in LCA software.

Midpoint vs. Endpoint Indicators

A key distinction between LCIA methods is whether they operate at the midpoint or endpoint level—or both. Understanding this helps practitioners choose a method that matches their study's communication goals.

Midpoint indicators measure environmental impact at an intermediate point in the cause-effect chain. Global warming potential (GWP), acidification potential, and eutrophication potential are typical examples. These indicators are scientifically precise and carry lower uncertainty, making them well-suited for technical reports and scientific publications. Methods like CML focus exclusively on midpoints.

Endpoint indicators translate midpoint results into damage to three areas of protection: human health, ecosystem quality, and resource availability. They are more intuitive to communicate to non-expert audiences—but this interpretability comes at the cost of higher modeling uncertainty. ReCiPe 2016 covers both levels, letting practitioners choose the right granularity for their audience. Impact 2002+ also integrates both approaches within a single framework.

How to Choose the Right LCIA Method

There is no universally correct LCIA method—the right choice depends on the study's purpose, geographic context, and applicable standards. The following criteria help narrow it down:

• Region: TRACI (developed by the US EPA) is designed for North American environmental conditions. ReCiPe 2016 and EF v3.1 are widely used and accepted in Europe.
• Regulatory requirements: For EU PEF/OEF studies and Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs) under EN 15804+A2, EF v3.1 is mandatory. IPCC 2021 is the current standard for climate-focused analyses and carbon footprinting.
• Scope of assessment: For comprehensive multi-issue analyses, ReCiPe 2016 or ILCD/EF v3.1 are appropriate. For toxicity-focused studies, USEtox provides specialized characterization factors. For a focused climate change assessment, IPCC 2021 (GWP100) is the standard choice.
• Communication audience: If results need to be communicated to a non-technical audience, endpoint indicators (e.g., via ReCiPe 2016) are easier to interpret. For scientific publications, midpoint-focused methods such as CML or EF v3.1 are preferred.

IPOINT's LCA software Umberto supports multiple LCIA methods, allowing practitioners to apply and compare different approaches within the same study. For guidance on the broader LCA framework, see our resources on Life Cycle Assessment.

A Big Thanks to the LCA Community

The geographical distribution indicates a European perspective dominating the survey results. It would be valuable to capture habits from outside Europe in greater depth. We welcome any comment from experts around the globe on whether these results match their experience.

This study was established by Anne Wahl during the analyses for her Master of Science degree in Environmental Management. The findings have been considered for the ongoing developments of IPOINT's LCA software and solutions for Life Cycle Assessment.

We are very grateful for the participation of the life cycle community who made it a successful survey. Thank you!