Comparing product category rules from different programs: learned outcomes towards global alignment

  • Vairavan SubramanianEmail author
  • Wesley Ingwersen
  • Connie Hensler
  • Heather Collie



Product category rules (PCRs) provide category-specific guidance for estimating and reporting product life cycle environmental impacts, typically in the form of environmental product declarations and product carbon footprints. Lack of global harmonization between PCRs or sector guidance documents has led to the development of duplicate PCRs for the same products. Differences in the general requirements (e.g., product category definition, reporting format) and LCA methodology (e.g., system boundaries, inventory analysis, allocation rules, etc.) diminish the comparability of product claims.


A comparison template was developed to compare PCRs from different global program operators. The goal was to identify the differences between duplicate PCRs from a broad selection of product categories and propose a path toward alignment. We looked at five different product categories: milk/dairy (two PCRs), horticultural products (three PCRs), wood–particleboard (two PCRs), and laundry detergents (four PCRs).

Results and discussion

Disparity between PCRs ranged from broad differences in scope, system boundaries, and impacts addressed (e.g., multi-impact vs. carbon footprint only) to specific differences of technical elements. The differences primarily reflected the different purposes of the PCR (e.g., label/report), the different standards they were based on (e.g., ISO 14025/PAS 2050), the use of different product categorization systems, or simply the result of being developed independently. Differing degrees of specificity and terminology between PCRs allowed for varied interpretation—at times making direct comparison difficult. For many of the differences between PCRs, however, there was no clear rationale why they could not be consistent in the future.


These results were used to outline a general guidance document for global alignment of PCRs which recommends (1) alignment of PCRs for different purposes, (2) provision of guidance for the adoption of aspects of other PCRs, and (3) provision of greater specificity on content. The overall recommendations also suggest collaboration among program operators to facilitate alignment on issues that evolve from independent development.


Comparison template EPD ISO 14025 Product carbon footprint Product category rules Sector guidance 



Support for this project was provided by the following organizations: The Sustainability Consortium, U.S. EPA, Interface Inc., and Defra (UK). We would like to thank Rita Schenck from the American Center for Life Cycle Assessment for facilitating the opportunity to work on this project. We would also like to thank Dr. Amit Kapur of Siemens Corporate Research, Mirella Di Stefano of Granorolo S.p.A, Masayuki Kanzaki of JEMAI, Joakim Thornéus of The International EPD System, and Tommie Ponsioen for review of our PCR comparisons.


This research does not necessarily reflect the views of The Sustainability Consortium, U.S. EPA, Interface Inc., or Defra (UK), and no official endorsement should be inferred. Mention of trade names does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.

Supplementary material

11367_2012_419_MOESM1_ESM.docx (42 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 41 kb)


  1. ACLCA (2011) Product Category Rule Committee Info. Accessed 8 June 2011
  2. AFNOR and ADEME (2009) General principles for an environmental communication on mass market products: principes généraux pour l’affichage environnemental des produits de grande consommation. Botique AfnorGoogle Scholar
  3. BSI (2008) PAS 2050: 2008 Specification for the assessment of the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of goods and services. British Standards InstituteGoogle Scholar
  4. Cherubini F, Birda N, Cowieb A, Jungmeier G, Schlamadinger B, Woess-Gallasch S (2009) Energy- and greenhouse gas-based LCA of biofuel and bioenergy systems: key issues, ranges and recommendations. Resour Conserv Recycl 53:434–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Costello A, Schenk R (2009) Environmental product declarations and product category rules. Environmental Protection Agency.$FILE/LCA%20EPD%20Webinar%203.pdf. Accessed 27 June 2011
  6. DairyCo (2011) Guidelines for the carbon footprinting of dairy products in the UK. Accessed 05 April 2011
  7. De Koning A, Schowanek D, Dewaele J, Weisbrod A, Guinee J (2010) Uncertainties in a carbon footprint model for detergents: quantifying the confidence in a comparative result. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:79–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Draucker L, Kaufman S, Kuile R, Meinrenken C (2011) Moving forward on product carbon footprint standards. J Ind Ecol 15(2):169–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. EDF (2011) Environment and Development Foundation. Accessed 26 June 2011
  10. Fava J, Baer S, Cooper J (2011) Green(er) product standard trends in North America. J Ind Ecol 15(1):9–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gaudreault C, Samson R, Stuart P (2010) Energy decision making in a pulp and paper mill: selection of LCA system boundary. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:198–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Global Environmental Declarations Network (GEDnet) (2011a) PCR library and archive. Accessed 01 June 2011
  13. Global Environmental Declarations Network (GEDnet) (2011b) PCR library. Accessed 01 June 2011
  14. Goedkoop M, Draucker L, Inaba A, Sinden G, Finkbeiner M (2010) Consensus & issues in carbon standards. UnpublishedGoogle Scholar
  15. Golden JS, Subramanian V, Zimmerman JB (2011) Sustainability and commerce trends. Industry consortia as the drivers for growth. J Ind Ecol 15(6):821–824CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. GS1 (2011) GPC-UNSPSC Mapping tool. Accessed 28 June 2011
  17. Guinée J, Heijungs R (2007) Calculating the influence of alternative allocation scenarios in fossil fuel chains. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12:173–180Google Scholar
  18. Hugos W (2006) The essentials of supply chain management, 2nd edn. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  19. IES (The International EPD System) (2011) EPD: the green yardstick. Retrieved 15 June 2011
  20. Ingwersen WW, Stevenson M (2012) Can we compare the environmental performance of this product to that one? An update on the development of product category rules and future challenges toward alignment. J Clean Prod 24:102–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ingwersen W, Subramanian V, Schenck R, Bushi L, Costello A, Draucker L, East C, Hensler C, Lahd H, Ryding S (2012) Product Category Rules Alignment Workshop, October 4, 2011 in Chicago, IL, USA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17:258–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. FP Innovations (2011) Public information: EPD program. Accessed 27 June 2011
  23. Institut Bauen und Umwelt e. V. (IBU)—Institute Construction and Environment e.V. (2011) Welcome on the homepage of the Institute Construction and Environment (IBU) e.V. Accessed 20 June 2011
  24. Institute for Environmental Research & Education (IERE) (2011) Earthsure. Accessed 17 June 2011
  25. ISO (2006a) 14040: Environmental management—life cycle assessment—principles and framework. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  26. ISO (2006b) 14025: Environmental labels and declarations—type III environmental declarations—principles and procedures. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  27. ISO TC207/SC7 14067: Carbon footprint of products. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  28. JEMAI (Japan Environmental Management Association for Industry) (2011a) General principles for the assessment and labeling of carbon footprint of products (TS Q 0010) <Provisional Translation>. Accessed 25 June 2011
  29. JEMAI (Japan Environmental Management Association for Industry) (2011b) Ecoleaf. Accessed 25 June 2011
  30. JEMAI (Japan Environmental Management Association for Industry) (2011c) Carbon footprint of products. Accessed 25 June 2011
  31. Luo L, van der Voet E, Huppes G, Udo de Haes H (2009) Allocation issues in LCA methodology: a case study of corn stover-based fuel ethanol. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14:529–539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) (2011) Carbon footprint of products. Accessed 10 June 2011
  33. PCF-WF (2011) 2nd Round Table—product category rules. Accessed 10 June 2011
  34. KEITI (Korea Environmental Industry & Technology Institute) (2011a) Carbon footprint label. Accessed 25 June 2011
  35. KEITI (Korea Environmental Industry & Technology Institute) (2011b) Environmental declaration of products. Accessed 25 June 2011
  36. The Norwegian EPD Foundation (2011) PCR-registry. Retrieved 01 June 2011
  37. TSC (The Sustainability Consortium) (2011) Sustainability Consortium Workspace. Accessed 15 June 2011
  38. UNSD (United Nations Statistics Division) (2006) Classifications Newsletter: number 17. Accessed 28 June 2011
  39. UNSD (United Nations Statistics Division) (2011) Detailed structure and explanatory notes: central product classification ver.1.1. Accessed 28 June 2011
  40. UNSPSC (United Nations Standard Products and Services Code) (2011) Welcome. Accessed 28 June 2011
  41. WRI and WBCSD (2010) Product accounting and reporting standard. World Resources Institute, World Business Council for Sustainable Development, Washington, DC. Accessed 30 June 2011

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vairavan Subramanian
    • 1
    Email author
  • Wesley Ingwersen
    • 2
  • Connie Hensler
    • 3
  • Heather Collie
    • 4
  1. 1.School of SustainabilityArizona State UniversityTempeUSA
  2. 2.Sustainable Technology Division, National Risk Management Research LaboratoryU.S. EPA Office of Research and DevelopmentCincinnatiUSA
  3. 3.Corporate LCA ProgramsInterface Inc.AtlantaUSA
  4. 4.Sustainable Products and Consumers, Department for EnvironmentFood and Rural Affairs (Defra)LondonUK

Personalised recommendations