GLAM – The Global Impact Assessment Method – BETA

GLAM is the Global Impact Assessment Method developed via a science-based consensus process within the Life Cycle Initiative hosted by the United Nations Environmental Programme-UNEP. It is a comprehensive, consistent and global Environmental Life Cycle Impact Assessment Method, covering classification, midpoint and damage characterisation, normalisation and weighting, in order to assess the life cycle impacts of products and services on human health, ecosystem quality and socio-economic assets.

This version is a beta version and is not intended to be cited.

08/11/2025: First beta-release of midpoint characterization factors and of updated damage characterization factors

24/06/2026: Second beta-release of midpoint characterization factors and of updated damage characterization factors.

Description of the files

• "GLAM_researcher_AoP_Impact_Category":
• The "rough" CFs as given by the developers, but in the GLAM format.
• One tab for Endpoint CFs, one tab for Midpoint CFs, [optional] one tab for "alternative damage" with the CFs in a relevant and currently-used indicator in the LCA community (e.g., in kg PM2.5/kg substance for Particulate Matter).
• Will not be publicly available, but access given on demand.
• "GLAM_AoP_Impact_Category":
• A matching is done to fit with the EF3.1 list of substances and compartments (leading, e.g., to duplicate rows), using conversion factors if necessary (e.g., from Nitrogen to amonia...).
• If Marginal and Average CFs were given, filter to keep only Average.
• If several scenarios were given, filter to keep only one.
• Only GLAM locations are kept.
• Etc. The point is to offer a unique CF per flow {substance; compartment; location}.
• One tab for Endpoint CFs,  one tab for Midpoint CFs.
• Will be publicly available on the official zenodo.

Notes

EQ FW Ecotoxicity

The freshwater toxicity CFs of products are currently under correction.

EQ and HH Climate Change

Two different implementations regarding how to account for biogenic carbon are provided:

• One with a carbon neutrality approach: biogenic carbon dioxide is set at 0, and biogenic methane is lower than fossil methane,
• One including CO2 uptake (-1/+1 approach): biogenic carbon dioxide is set at the same CFs as fossil carbon, but the uptake has a negative sign, and biogenic methane is set at the same CF as fossil methane.

The two approaches have been applied for all relevant impact categories. However, as of today, the MA and TR endpoint sets of CFs did not differentiate fossil and biogenic methane, providing only a weighted average for both. Pending a more detailed model of methane, this unique CF has been set for fossil and biogenic methane, for both of the approaches detailed.