Sustainability and sustainable development pose challenges in their implementation in various sectors, including the automotive industry. As one of the main emitters of greenhouse gases, the automotive industry plays a central role in combating climate change. 

The study aims to investigate the end-of-life (EoL) management of three selected vehicle components: pillar trims, carpeted side panels and carpets, in an upcoming electric vehicle (EV) set to launch in 2025. Focusing on Sweden, the main objective is to conduct an environmental life cycle assessment (E-LCA) to compare three independent scenarios: incineration and landfill (Business as usual/scenario 1), mechanical recycling (scenario 2) and chemical recycling (scenario 3). The objectives include scenario analysis of the EoL methods, variation analysis between recycling approaches and sensitivity analysis to identify life cycle hotspots. The findings contribute to understanding sustainable EoL management strategies for the targeted EV components, aiding decision-making in the automotive industry. 

The LCA followed ISO 14040 guidelines, encompassing target and scope setting, inventory analysis, impact assessment, and interpretation. The functional unit was 1 kg of mixed plastics. The inventory analysis utilized published literature, stakeholder interviews, a site visit and availing of the LCA software Simapro 9. Impact assessment employed CML-baseline 4.7 and the Ecoinvent 3 database. The study examines the ratio between incineration and landfill, with estimated ranges of 97-99% for incineration and 1-3% for landfill. Scenarios 2 and 3 are determined by varying ratios within them, wherein mechanical recycling decreases in scenario 2 while chemical recycling increases in scenario 3. These relational dynamics form the core of the variation analysis conducted in this study. 

The analysis of the scenarios considered showed that the combined impacts of combustion and landfilling in scenario 1 made the highest contribution to global warming potential (GWP). This result is due to the carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions generated by the combustion of vehicle interiors. Conversely, Scenario 3 contributed primarily to acidification potential (AP) and energy demand potential (EDP). This is due to the inclusion of chemicals in the chemical recycling process, which played an important role in promoting acidification and increasing energy demand. The second and third recycling scenarios showed a greater ability to reduce GWP and AP compared to the first scenario. This result was attributed to the avoided impacts associated with the production of virgin plastics, which are bypassed by recycling. However, it should be noted that the reduction of EDP was relatively lower in both recycling scenarios compared to the first scenario. This observation results from the energy-intensive nature of the recycling processes. 

A further sensitivity study analysis showed that replacing oil with plastic waste in the incinerator could lead to a 3.5-fold increase in net avoided GWP compared to natural gas. In addition, the net avoided values AP and EDP were estimated to be 12 and 17 times respectively. In this analysis, the energy recovery achieved by incinerating plastics was compared with possible worst-case scenarios involving energy production from natural gas and oil. 

This study concludes that mechanical recycling in scenario 2 is the better alternative to use from environmental perspective. The study emphasizes the significance of exploring reuse, repurposing, and remanufacturing as strategies to foster circular economies. It also highlights the need to promote dematerialization and systems thinking in order to adopt sustainable plastic alternatives. By implementing these recommendations, the automotive sector can enhance its EoL management practices and contribute to a more sustainable future.