Comparing the European Commission product environmental footprint method with other environmental accounting methods

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.

Precision of a Streamlined Life Cycle Assessment Approach Used in Eco-Rating of Mobile Phones

“…The next step is the comparison of OLCA with other LCA methodologies for smartphones, such as PEF [48] and Product Attribute to Impact Algorithm (PAIA) [49], analyzing the differences compared with the individual FLCAs [13][14][15] based on ETSI or ISO LCA standards. In the coming years, it is expected that PEF will become the dominant approach for FLCA.…”

The ‘carbon footprint’ of sewer pipes: risks of inconsistency

“…While most methods and databases, such as ICE, EN15804 and PAS 2050, allow for cradle-to-gate CF, the default requirement for PEFs is cradle to grave (Manfredi et al, 2012). Older studies based on the first version of PAS 2050 (BSI, 2008) used to offer cradle-to-site CFs as a minimum.…”

“…BRE's (2008) method has 2% of mass cut-off. The PEF (Manfredi et al, 2012) and WBCSD GHG protocol methodologies do not specify cut-off, but the protocol proposes an insignificance estimate based on mass, impact or spend, but with no single cut-off limit reported (World Resources Institute, 2011). The ICE method is entirely different as it is based on secondary data from already existing studies.…”

“…PAS 2050 and PEF currently have very detailed rules with regard to boundary conditions. The new PAS 2050 (BSI, 2011), PEF (Manfredi et al, 2012) and EN 15804 (CEN, 2012) have requirements for some delayed carbon dioxide emissions and removals designed to eliminate some temporary effects (specifically targeting concrete and timber-based products).…”

Developing a systematic framework for consistent allocation in LCA

“…This paper reviews allocation procedures for recycling situations, with the purpose to identify a systematic and consistent approach to apply allocation to all multifunctionality problems, considering different LCA goals. Although consistent guidance is sometimes interpreted as 'strict guidance allowing for limited flexibility' (Manfredi et al 2015), we use the term consistency as being coherent, following logical reasoning. We address the recent understanding of the difference between attributional and consequential approaches by applying a strict separation between the two modelling methods, based on our interpretation on what these approaches imply and which is in line with Tillman (2000), Weidema (2001), the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative (2011), De Camillis et al (2013) andThe International EPD® System (2013).…”