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

PurposeProduct 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.MethodsA 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 discussionDisparity 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.ConclusionsThese 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.

[1]  Lindita Bushi,et al.  Product category rules alignment workshop, October 4, 2011 in Chicago, IL, USA , 2011, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[2]  Réjean Samson,et al.  Energy decision making in a pulp and paper mill: selection of LCA system boundary , 2010 .

[3]  Wesley W. Ingwersen,et al.  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 , 2012 .

[4]  Christoph J. Meinrenken,et al.  Moving Forward on Product Carbon Footprint Standards , 2011 .

[5]  Jeroen B. Guinée,et al.  Uncertainties in a carbon footprint model for detergents; quantifying the confidence in a comparative result , 2009 .

[6]  Michael Hugos,et al.  Essentials of Supply Chain Management , 2002 .

[7]  Joyce Smith Cooper,et al.  Green(er) Product Standard Trends in North America , 2011 .

[8]  Reinout Heijungs,et al.  Calculating the influence of alternative allocation scenarios in fossil fuel chains , 2007 .

[9]  Francesco Cherubini,et al.  Energy- and greenhouse gas-based LCA of biofuel and bioenergy systems: Key issues, ranges and recommendations , 2009 .

[10]  Hans-Jürgen Dr. Klüppel,et al.  The Revision of ISO Standards 14040-3 - ISO 14040: Environmental management – Life cycle assessment – Principles and framework - ISO 14044: Environmental management – Life cycle assessment – Requirements and guidelines , 2005 .

[11]  Gjalt Huppes,et al.  Allocation issues in LCA methodology: a case study of corn stover-based fuel ethanol , 2009 .

[12]  Julie B. Zimmerman,et al.  Sustainability and Commerce Trends , 2011 .