Communication through ecolabels: how discrepancies between the EU PEF and EPD schemes could affect outcome consistency

Borghi, Adriana Del; Moreschi, Luca; Gallo, Michela

doi:10.1007/s11367-019-01609-7

Cited by 39 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In EPDs, according to EN 15804, the system boundary expansion is not applied. This would conflict with the rationale of attributional LCA used in EPDs (Del Borghi et al, 2019). For the EOL allocation, the PEF Guide proposes a specific recycling allocation equation to calculate the Resource Use and Emissions Profile (RUaEP) based on the benefits accounting of using recycled materials and recycling at the end-of-life phase of a product.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment and communication of the environmental performance of construction products in Europe: Comparison between PEF and EN 15804 compliant EPD schemes

Durão

Silvestre

Mateus

et al. 2020

Resources, Conservation and Recycling

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment and communication of the environmental performance of construction products in Europe: Comparison between PEF and EN 15804 compliant EPD schemes

Durão

Silvestre

Mateus

et al. 2020

Resources, Conservation and Recycling

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…This latter aspect is in line with the conclusions reached by Del Borghi and al. [18], which, referring to an earlier mapping [62], have also recently highlighted how the numerous existing PCRs and EPDs determine significant differences both as regards programmes and sectors, and PCR development. Product category rules are preconditions that ensure neutrality and the credibility of quantitative environmental information presented by EPDs.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…The Environmental Product Declaration (EPD), also called type III environmental declaration in ISO 14020:2000 [16], standardised by ISO 14025:2006 [17], is LCA-based information that provides reliable and verifiable information on a specific product [18]. The EN 15804:2012+A2:2019 [19] standard proposed a procedure for calculating the environmental impact of construction products and defined five different types of EPD depending on the LCA system boundaries ( Figure 1): (1) cradle to gate (A1-A3); (2) cradle to gate with mandatory C1-C4 and D; (3) cradle to gate with options (C1-C4 and D); (4) cradle to gate with options (A4 and A5); and (5) cradle to grave with mandatory D.…”

Section: The Problem Of Consistency In Lca Data Sourcesmentioning

confidence: 99%

How to Obtain Accurate Environmental Impacts at Early Design Stages in BIM When Using Environmental Product Declaration. A Method to Support Decision-Making

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The construction sector plays an important role in moving towards a low-carbon economy. Life cycle assessment (LCA) is considered one of the most effective methods of analytically evaluating environmental profiles and an efficient tool for calculating the environmental impacts in building design-oriented methodologies, such as building information modelling (BIM). At early design stages, generic LCA databases are used to conduct the life cycle inventory (LCI), while detailed stages require more detailed data, such as environmental product declarations (EPDs), namely documents that provide accurate results and precise analyses based on LCA. Limitations are recognized when using EPDs in BIM elements at different levels of development (LOD) in the design stages, especially related to the data consistency and system boundaries of the LCA. This paper presents a method of achieving accurate LCA results, that helps with decision-making and provides support in the selection of building products and materials. The method is validated by its application in the structural concrete of an office building located in Germany. The method defines a safety factor adopted for embodied impacts (“cradle-to-gate”), based on EPD results to predict the environmental impact of BIM elements at different LODs. The results obtained show that by integrating the method to conduct the LCA, the range of errors and possible inconsistencies in the LCA results can be reduced.

show abstract

“…The PEF method and CEN standards have similarities but also important differences. A limited number of studies have offered clarification about the theoretical differences of these methods (Finkbeiner 2014;Galatola and Pant 2014;Passer et al 2015;Del Borghi et al 2019;Durão et al 2020).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, no study has focused on the comparison of the implications of these variations in practice. They have theoretically assessed the discrepancies and possible convergence procedure between PEF and the CEN methods and concluded that their distinct requirements concede low comparability of their results and EPDs (Finkbeiner 2014;Passer et al 2015;Bach et al 2018;Del Borghi et al 2019;Durão et al 2020). The main findings of the respective papers of interest are summarized in Section 2.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

End-of-life modelling of buildings to support more informed decisions towards achieving circular economy targets

Mirzaie

Thuring

Allacker

2020

Int J Life Cycle Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Life cycle assessment (LCA) is an internationally accepted method to assess the environmental impacts of buildings. A major methodological challenge remains the modelling of the end-of-life stage of buildings and allocation of benefits and burdens between systems. Various approaches are hence applied in practice to date. This paper compares the two methods widely renowned in Europe—the EC product environmental footprint (PEF) method and the CEN standards: EN 15804+A1 and EN15978—and offers insights about their fitness for achieving circularity goals. Methods The EC PEF method and the CEN EN 15804/EN 15978 standards were methodologically analysed with a focus on the end-of-life modelling and allocation approach and were applied to a building case study. The EN 15804+A1 standard explains the guidelines but does not offer a modelling formula. Accordingly, this paper proposes a formula for the CEN standards using identical parameters as in the end-of-life circular footprint formula (CFF) of the EC PEF Guidance v6.3 to increase consistency among LCA studies. The calculation formulas were then applied to a newly constructed office building. A comparative analysis of both the implementation and results are described, and recommendations are formulated. Results In the absence of databases compatible with the two LCA methods and comprising all building products, the Ecoinvent datasets had to be remodelled to enable a comparative modular assessment. This proved to be a laborious process. The EC PEF method and CEN standards showed similar impacts and hotspots for the case study building. The module D in the CEN standards includes a significant share of positive impacts, but due to collective accounting, it does not clearly communicate these benefits. The summation of burdens and benefits in the EC PEF method reduces its transparency, while the allocation and quality factors enable this method to better capture the market realities and drive circular economy goals. Conclusions The construction sector and the LCI database developers are encouraged to create the missing LCA databases compatible with the modular and end-of-life allocation modelling requirements of both methods. More prescriptive and meticulous guidelines, with further harmonization between the EC PEF method and the CEN standards and their end-of-life allocation formula, would largely increase comparability and reliability of LCA studies and communications. To improve transparency, it is recommended to report the module D impacts per life cycle stage as per the CEN standards and the burdens and benefits separately for each life cycle stage as per the EC PEF method.

show abstract

Communication through ecolabels: how discrepancies between the EU PEF and EPD schemes could affect outcome consistency

Cited by 39 publications

References 24 publications

Assessment and communication of the environmental performance of construction products in Europe: Comparison between PEF and EN 15804 compliant EPD schemes

Assessment and communication of the environmental performance of construction products in Europe: Comparison between PEF and EN 15804 compliant EPD schemes

How to Obtain Accurate Environmental Impacts at Early Design Stages in BIM When Using Environmental Product Declaration. A Method to Support Decision-Making

End-of-life modelling of buildings to support more informed decisions towards achieving circular economy targets

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About