CML vs ReCiPe vs IMPACT World+: which LCIA method when?
Differences between the three leading LCIA methods: midpoint vs endpoint, geographic resolution, EN 15804 and PEFCR alignment, academic use.
By clca Editorial TeamLast updated
The LCIA method choice directly shapes the results of an LCA. The same inventory under different LCIA methods can yield 20-40% different outcomes. The three leading methods — CML, ReCiPe, IMPACT World+ — were designed for different purposes; the right choice depends on the aim of your study.
CML — midpoint-focused, preferred for EPD
CML was developed by Leiden University; v4.8 2016 is widely used in EN 15804+A2 EPDs. The method focuses on midpoint categories — reporting GWP, ODP, AP separately, without going to endpoint interpretation. This is an EPD advantage: the verifier can evaluate each indicator independently, the raw result is shown without weighting. CML's limitation is the lack of geographic resolution — terrestrial acidification in Turkey is computed with the same characterisation factor as Scandinavia.
ReCiPe — midpoint + endpoint, academic gold standard
ReCiPe was developed by RIVM (Netherlands) and Radboud University; the 2016 version is the latest. It offers both midpoint (18 categories) and endpoint (3 areas: human health, ecosystem quality, resource scarcity). Frequently preferred in academic theses because endpoint analysis collapses categories into human-comprehensible aggregates. It provides three cultural perspectives: hierarchist (policy-neutral), individualist (short-term focus), egalitarian (long-term, precautionary). The same data can produce 40% different results depending on the perspective.
IMPACT World+ — geographic resolution
IMPACT World+ is the successor to IMPACT 2002+, developed by CIRAIG (Canada) and EPFL (Switzerland). Its main advantage over the other two is geographic resolution — water deprivation (WDP), for example, has country-specific characterisation factors; terrestrial acidification is regionalised. This matters for multinational supply chains — a product made in Turkey but used in Norway shows its actual regional impact. Semi-aligned with EN 15804+A2 — some indicators map directly, others require harmonisation.
Which method when?
- For EN 15804+A2 EPD → CML v4.8 2016 (default, verifier practice) or EF v3.1 (mandatory under PEFCR)
- Academic comparative thesis → ReCiPe 2016 (both midpoint and endpoint)
- Multi-region product portfolio with regional sensitivity → IMPACT World+
- Corporate sustainability report, simple communication → ReCiPe endpoint (3 main scores)
- Industry-association guide (worldsteel, PlasticsEurope) → category-specific — verify
- PEFCR-bound product → EF v3.1 is mandatory, no alternative
Tags
- CML method
- ReCiPe LCIA
- IMPACT World+
- LCIA method comparison
- midpoint endpoint LCA
Related reading
All articles in Data & Methods- Data & Methods
Midpoint vs endpoint LCIA: which level for which decision?
Midpoint analysis offers 18+ categories; endpoint collapses to 3 main areas. The practical impact of characterisation, normalisation and weighting steps.
9 min read - Data & Methods
EF v3.1 (Environmental Footprint): understanding the PEFCR-mandatory method
The EU Commission's EF method is mandatory under PEFCR. 16 categories, the normalisation and weighting reference set, and overlap with EN 15804.
10 min read - Data & Methods
LCI databases: choosing between ecoinvent, EF and sector datasets
Choosing a background database is not a technical detail but a methodological decision that changes the result. Coverage, system models and why you must not mix.
11 min read - Data & Methods
Primary and secondary data: which to collect for which line
Modelling everything with primary data is neither possible nor necessary. The foreground-background split and allocating a data collection budget well.
10 min read