We would like to contribute to the discussion on the environmental footprint (EF) of products started by Professor Finkbeiner with his editorial published in this journal in February 2014 (Finkbeiner 2014). We thank Professor Finkbeiner for sharing his concerns and suggestions, as he puts forward some relevant points and opens a discussion that can help the Commission to improve the EF methods. It also allows us to clarify our communication activities and avoid possible misunderstandings related to the work carried out by the European Commission on EF. First of all, it might be useful to recall that the development of European methods for the calculation of the EF of products and organisations was mandated to the Commission by the EU Member States (through the Council of the European Union). This request stemmed from a growing concern among Member States and industries related to the rapid growth in the number of “similar-but-different” methods and approaches related to the calculation of various footprints. The request was not to harmonise the existing standards but to develop an approach that could be used in existing or new EU policies. The proliferation of methods for, and approaches to, measuring environmental performance makes it unnecessarily complicated and expensive to make environmental claims regarding the environmental performance of products or organisations across borders in the EU Single Market. The EF methods were called for by the Council of the EU in order to provide a common basis for measuring and communicating environmental performance, which would be recognised by market actors across Europe. Consumers and other stakeholders require environmental performance information and show an interest in choosing environmentally friendly (green) products. However, they are confused by the proliferation of information available which is based on different measures, and the majority do not trust the “green” claims. Accordingly, the EF methods were required to help define what can be considered a green product or organisation, which implies evaluating performance with respect to that of an average product or organisation (benchmarking). Moreover, the EF methods request the development of productand sector-specific rules, which would set unique, consistent requirements leading to comparable results. The need for reliability requires that strict attention be paid to data quality and to review. Several factors must be considered in informing consumers and helping them to identify green products. These include their desire for indicators regarding the most important environmental impacts of a product, as well as a single indicator regarding the product’s overall environmental performance— this latter indicator, where appropriate and relevant, could be based on a weighting system. An analysis of existing LCA standards revealed that none fully matched these policy needs. The flexibility inherent to
[1]
Steffen Foss Hansen,et al.
Late lessons from early warnings for nanotechnology.
,
2008,
Nature nanotechnology.
[2]
S. Pfister,et al.
Assessing the environmental impacts of freshwater consumption in LCA.
,
2009,
Environmental science & technology.
[3]
Tom C. J. Feijtel,et al.
Comparison between three different LCIA methods for aquatic ecotoxicity and a product environmental risk assessment
,
2004
.
[4]
S. Pfister,et al.
A revised approach to water footprinting to make transparent the impacts of consumption and production on global freshwater scarcity
,
2010
.
[5]
Margni Manuele,et al.
Recommendations for Life Cycle Impact Assessment in the European context - based on existing environmental impact assessment models and factors (International Reference Life Cycle Data System - ILCD handbook)
,
2011
.
[6]
A. Chapagain,et al.
Assessing freshwater use impacts in LCA: Part I—inventory modelling and characterisation factors for the main impact pathways
,
2009
.
[7]
Reinout Heijungs,et al.
Identifying best existing practice for characterization modeling in life cycle impact assessment
,
2012,
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.
[8]
J. Farman,et al.
Late lessons from early warnings: the precautionary principle 1896-2000
,
2002
.
[9]
Rolf Frischknecht,et al.
Swiss Ecological Scarcity Method: The New Version 2006
,
2006
.
[10]
Matthias Finkbeiner,et al.
Product environmental footprint—breakthrough or breakdown for policy implementation of life cycle assessment?
,
2014,
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.