99
comparative assertions must meet a higher standard of care in reporting the findings.
Flanagan and Ingwersen provide an ideal Report Table of Contents:
Executive Summary
1. Introduction
1.1. Study background and context
1.2. Introduction to LCA
2. Goal and Scope
2.1. Goal
2.2. Function, functional unit, and reference flow
2.3. System boundaries
2.3.1. General system description
2.3.2. Description of unit processes (qualitative)
2.3.3. System boundaries
2.4. Cut-off criteria
3. Methodology
3.1. Assumptions
3.2. Limitations
3.2.1. Limitations of LCA methodology
3.2.2. Limitations of the study
3.3. Life Cycle Inventory
3.3.1. Data collection procedures
3.3.2. Description of unit processes (quantitative)
3.3.3. Data sources
3.3.4. Data quality requirements
3.3.5. Treatment of missing data
3.3.6. Calculation procedures
3.3.7. Allocation
3.3.8. Geographic and temporal relevance
3.4. Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA)
3.4.1. Life Cycle Impact Assessment methods
3.4.2. Impact categories and category indicators
3.4.3. Normalization (if used)
3.4.4. Grouping (if used)
3.4.5. Weighting (if used)
3.5. Calculation Tool
3.6. Critical Review (if performed)
4. Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) results
5. Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) results
5.1. Comparative analysis per functional unit
5.2. Contribution analysis
6. Interpretation
6.1.Key findings
6.2.Evaluation
6.2.1. Completeness Check
6.2.2. Consistency Check
6.2.3. Data Quality Analysis
6.2.4. Sensitivity Analysis
6.2.5. Uncertainty Analysis
7. Conclusions and recommendations
8. References
Appendices
LCI data tables
LCIA characterization tables
5.3 Goal and Scope Definition