Abstract
Purpose
This paper presents a structured comparison of the European Commission (EC) Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) method with a number of existing European environmental accounting methods and standards that were taken into account during its development. In addition to the ISO 14040 and 14044 which represent the main reference, also the ISO/TS 14067, ILCD Handbook, PAS 2050, Greenhouse Gas Protocol, Ecological Footprint and BPX 30-323-0 were considered. This comparison aims at evaluating the extent to which the EC PEF method contributes to filling the identified methodological gaps and, ultimately, the extent to which it meets a number of key principles for PEF studies: relevance, completeness, consistency, accuracy and transparency. The EC PEF method has been developed by the Directorate General Joint Research Centre (JRC) of the European Commission (EC) in close cooperation with the Directorate General for Environment (DG ENV). It aims at providing a European, common methodology for evaluating the environmental performance of products. Its use for undertaking product environmental footprint studies is supported by the 2013 Recommendation to the EC Communication “Building the single market for green products – Facilitating better information on the environmental performance of products and organisations.”
Methods
In this paper, the selected environmental accounting methods are compared against a set of nine identified core criteria for EF studies. These criteria include, e.g. applicability of results, boundary of the evaluation, requirements on data type and quality, requirements on uncertainty evaluation, requirements on reporting and review. Results from this comparison have been used to evaluate the extent to which the methods considered meet a number of key identified principles for EF studies: relevance, completeness, consistency, accuracy and transparency.
Results and discussion
Overall, results of the analysis demonstrate that the EC PEF method resolves most shortcomings identified in the other methods with respect to the core comparison criteria. This, in turn, allows the EC PEF method to largely satisfy all of the key identified principles for PEF studies, and in particular the consistency principle, which is often not fulfilled by the other environmental accounting methods.
Conclusions
The EC PEF method provides for a greater degree of methodological consistency and establishes unambiguous requirements, hence facilitating increased consistency, comparability and reproducibility of results. It fills most of the shortcomings of the other methods, meeting virtually all of the key principles for PEF studies.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Direct substitution may be modelled as a form of “allocation based on an underlying physical relationship” when a direct, empirically demonstrable substitution effect can be identified. For example, when manure nitrogen is applied to agricultural land, directly substituting an equivalent amount of the specific fertiliser nitrogen that the farmer would otherwise have applied, the animal husbandry system from which the manure is derived is credited for the displaced fertiliser production.
Indirect substitution may be modelled as a form of “allocation based on some other relationship” when a co-product is assumed to displace a marginal or average market-equivalent product via market-mediated processes. For example, when animal manure is packaged and sold for use in home gardening, the animal husbandry system from which the manure is derived is credited for the market-average home gardening fertiliser that is assumed to have been displaced.
References
ADEME (2011) General principles for an environmental communication on mass market products BPX 30-323-0. Available online at http://www2.ademe.fr/servlet/getDoc?id=38480&m=3&cid=96
Allacker K, Mathieux F, Manfredi S, Pellettier N, de Camillis C, Ardente F, Pant R (2014) Allocation solutions for secondary material production and end of life recovery: proposals for policy initiatives. Resour Conserv Recycl 88:1–12
European Commission (2003) COM(2003)302—integrated product policy building on environmental life-cycle thinking. Available online at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52003DC0302:EN:NOT
European Commission - Joint Research Centre - Institute for Environment and Sustainability (2010) International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook: “General guide for life cycle assessment—detailed guidance”, “General guide for life cycle assessment—provisions and action steps”, “Specific guide for life cycle inventory data sets”, “Recommendations for life cycle impact assessment in the European context”, “Framework and requirements for Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) models and indicatora”, “Review Schemes for Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)”, “Reviewer qualification for Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) data sets”, “Analysis of existing environmental impact assessment methodologies for use in life cycle assessment”, “Nomenclature and other conventions”. Publications Office of the European Union. Available online at http://lct.jrc.ec.europa.eu/assessment/publications
European Commission (2011a) COM(2011)571—roadmap to a resource efficient Europe. Available online at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:DKEY=615217:EN:NOT
European Commission - Joint Research Centre - Institute for Environment and Sustainability (2011b) Analysis of existing environmental footprint methodologies for products and organisations: recommendations, rationale, and alignment. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/pdf/Deliverable.pdf
European Commission (2013a) RECOMMENDATION (2013/179/EU) on the use of common methods to measure and communicate the life cycle environmental performance of products and organisations, Annex II (Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) Guide)
European Commission (2013b) RECOMMENDATION (2013/179/EU) on the use of common methods to measure and communicate the life cycle environmental performance of products and organisations, Annex III (Organisational Environmental Footprint (OEF) Guide)
European Commission (2013c) Administrative Arrangement between Directorate General Environment (DG ENV) and the Joint Research Centre (JRC) entitled “Environmental footprint and material efficiency support for product policy”, n. 070307/2012/ENV.C.1/635340
Finkbeiner M (2009) Carbon footprinting—opportunities and threats. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14(2):91–94
Gadema Z, Oglethorpe D (2011) The use and usefulness of carbon labelling food: a policy perspective from a survey of UK supermarket shoppers. Food Policy 36(6):815–822
Global Footprint Network (2009) Ecological footprint standards 2009. Available online at http://www.footprintnetwork.org/images/uploads/Ecological_Footprint_Standards_2009.pdf
ISO 14040:2006 (2006a) International standard–Environmental management–Life cycle assessment–Principles and framework. International Organization for Standardization. Geneva, Switzerland
ISO 14025:2006 (2006b) International standard—environmental labels and declarations. Type III environmental declarations—principles and procedures. International Organization for Standardization. Geneva, Switzerland
ISO 14044:2006 (2006c) International standard–Environmental management–Life cycle assessment–Requirements and guidelines. International Organization for Standardization. Geneva, Switzerland
ISO/TS 14067 (2013) Greenhouse gases-carbon footprint of products-requirements and guidelines for quantification and communication. International Organization for Standardization. Geneva, Switzerland
Laurent A, Olsen SI, Hauschild MZ (2012) Limitations of carbon footprint as indicator of environmental sustainability. Environ Sci Technol 46(7):4100–4108
PAS 2050 (2011) Specifications for the assessment of the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of goods and services. Available online at http://www.bsigroup.com/en/Standards-and-Publications/How-we-can-help-you/Professional-Standards-Service/PAS-2050/
Wiedmann T, Barrett J (2010) A review of the ecological footprint indicator—perceptions and methods. Sustainability 2(6):1645–1693
World Resources Institute (WRI), World Business Council for Sustainable Development (2011) Product life cycle accounting and reporting standard. Greenhouse Gas Protocol. WRI, US, 144 pp
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the Directorate General for Environment (DG ENV) of the European Commission for providing part of the funding in support to the Environmental Footprint project via the Administrative Arrangement entitled “Environmental Footprint and Material Efficiency Support for Product Policy.” In particular, many thanks to Michele Galatola and Imola Bedo for their continuous support throughout the development of the EC Environmental Footprint method. Also, the authors wish to thank all the people who indirectly contributed to this paper by helping to develop the EC PEF and EC OEF method, including S. Sala, M. Brandao, L. Mancini, D.M. de Souza, F. Ardente, F. Mathieux and M.A. Wolf.
Conflict of Interest
None
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Responsible editor: Adriana Del Borghi
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Manfredi, S., Allacker, K., Pelletier, N. et al. Comparing the European Commission product environmental footprint method with other environmental accounting methods. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20, 389–404 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-014-0839-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-014-0839-6