Circular use of materials via reuse, recycling, and upcycling between companies can be considered a simple case of industrial symbiosis. A problem is when different companies desire to claim for themselves the benefits of such symbiosis and their decision to share the materials are influenced by this. In LCA context the problem translates into a matter of how the modelling of end of life, multifunctionality, and co-production should be done, notoriously a spinous issue that is often pragmatically solved by adhering to a specific guideline – but many guidelines exist today providing contrasting guidance. This study compares the modelling of upcyling according to the ISO standards (14040-44 series), the Product Environmental Footprint (PEF), and the Greenhouse Gas protocol (scope 3 guideline and product lifecycle guideline). A qualitative assessment of scientific soundness and a quantitative comparative modelling were performed on real-world cases. Results show that radical differences exist between guidelines. ISO is less prescriptive and normative than PEF and GHG protocol, allows for using the substitution method which is arguably a better approach to model real-world causality in LCA. A common challenge is defining whether the material is a recyclable output or a co-product, and the difference between recycling and using a material in another product’s life cycle. Definitions used especially in PEF and GHG protocol are inconsistent with the definitions of waste in the Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC). Overall, result suggest confuting the idea of environmental savings as “dividends” to be shared across entities in a network. Such benefit is only achievable via the simultaneous cooperation of both entities and allocating, dividing, sharing, assigning the whole or part of it to one of them is not a meaningful exercise. Better is to claim the benefit together and compare this to the situation without the network, as this will lead companies towards positive system change.