Gaps and lack of harmonization in LCA of the electromobility sector: where do we stand and where could we go?

Purpose: LCA is increasingly applied to the electromobility sector, in academic and industrial literature, and in policies. While there is awareness on the existence of specific gaps and lack of harmonization in LCA of electromobility, there is however still no common understanding on these and on their relevance. This study intends to develop this common understanding and to further explore potential ways forward. Methods: The analysis of gaps and lack of harmonization starts from, and expands the analysis of, the extensive review of state-of-the-art academic and industrial literature, and of existing guidelines and standards, performed by Eltohamy et al. (2024). It further builds on four additional actions: (i) review of position papers; (ii) workshops, gathering LCA experts from industry and research; (iii) in-depth survey on the LCA practice of selected industrials; and (iv) iterative, document-based, approach towards common identification and analysis of gaps. This study accordingly compiles and analyzes the gaps and lack of harmonization in LCA of the electromobility sector per LCA phase. It discusses how these limits alter LCA accuracy, comparability and comprehensiveness and their associated relevance as function of the study context. Results and discussion: The identified gaps and lack of harmonization relate to (i) the LCA general method, and more specific rules regarding functional unit, approach to address multi-functionality, system boundaries, electricity modelling, normalization and weighting, sensitivity and uncertainty analysis, etc.; (ii) models used to support LCA, sometimes not accurately representing the real world (e.g. models for data gap filling, prospective EoL modelling, impact characterization); (iii) data, both in terms of (incomplete and imprecise) secondary datasets and of lack of primary data; and (iv) difficulties in implementation. The path forward to overcome these limitations is expected to rely firstly on research and development, particularly crucial to address actual gaps in models and data, and secondly on guidelines setting and consensus building, both key regarding harmonization of method-related issues. Conclusions: This study highlights, classifies and analyzes the existing gaps and lack of harmonization in LCA of the electromobility sector. It flags the key challenges and opportunities to be overcome in the path forward, e.g. regarding trade-offs in accuracy, comprehensiveness and simplicity, or alignment with comparable harmonization initiatives in sectors other than the electromobility one. We now encourage the LCA community to use this study as a blueprint towards improved practices, whether harmonization is key, such as for comparative LCAs of vehicles or parts, or of lower importance, such as in some research contexts.