Product environmental footprint in policy and market decisions: Applicability and impact assessment

In April 2013, the European Commission published the Product and Organisation Environmental Footprint (PEF/OEF) methodology--a life cycle-based multicriteria measure of the environmental performance of products, services, and organizations. With its approach of "comparability over flexibility," the PEF/OEF methodology aims at harmonizing existing methods, while decreasing the flexibility provided by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standards regarding methodological choices. Currently, a 3-y pilot phase is running, aiming at testing the methodology and developing product category and organization sector rules (PEFCR/OEFSR). Although a harmonized method is in theory a good idea, the PEF/OEF methodology presents challenges, including a risk of confusion and limitations in applicability to practice. The paper discusses the main differences between the PEF and ISO methodologies and highlights challenges regarding PEF applicability, with a focus on impact assessment. Some methodological aspects of the PEF and PEFCR Guides are found to contradict the ISO 14044 (2006) and ISO 14025 (2006). Others, such as prohibition of inventory cutoffs, are impractical. The evaluation of the impact assessment methods proposed in the PEF/OEF Guide showed that the predefined methods for water consumption, land use, and abiotic resources are not adequate because of modeling artefacts, missing inventory data, or incomplete characterization factors. However, the methods for global warming and ozone depletion perform very well. The results of this study are relevant for the PEF (and OEF) pilot phase, which aims at testing the PEF (OEF) methodology (and potentially adapting it) as well as addressing challenges and coping with them.

[1]  Rolf Frischknecht,et al.  Human health damages due to ionising radiation in life cycle impact assessment , 2000 .

[2]  Markus Berger,et al.  Water accounting and vulnerability evaluation (WAVE): considering atmospheric evaporation recycling and the risk of freshwater depletion in water footprinting. , 2014, Environmental science & technology.

[3]  Jens Warsen,et al.  Water footprint of European cars: potential impacts of water consumption along automobile life cycles. , 2012, Environmental science & technology.

[4]  Reinout Heijungs,et al.  Bias in normalization: Causes, consequences, detection and remedies , 2007 .

[5]  R. Clift,et al.  Soil Organic Carbon Changes in the Cultivation of Energy Crops: Implications for GHG Balances and Soil Quality for Use in LCA , 2011 .

[6]  M. Hauschild,et al.  USEtox human exposure and toxicity factors for comparative assessment of toxic emissions in life cycle analysis: sensitivity to key chemical properties , 2011 .

[7]  Joan Rieradevall,et al.  Application challenges for the social Life Cycle Assessment of fertilizers within life cycle sustainability assessment , 2014 .

[8]  Speechwriting.  Flash Eurobarometer 367 (Attitudes of Europeans towards building the single market for green products) , 2013 .

[9]  Eric Johnson.  Handbook on Life Cycle Assessment Operational Guide to the ISO Standards , 2003 .

[10]  Mark A. J. Huijbregts,et al.  USEtox—the UNEP-SETAC toxicity model: recommended characterisation factors for human toxicity and freshwater ecotoxicity in life cycle impact assessment , 2008 .

[11]  Laura Schneider,et al.  Challenges in Life Cycle Assessment: An Overview of Current Gaps and Research Needs , 2014 .

[12]  C. Bauer,et al.  Key Elements in a Framework for Land Use Impact Assessment Within LCA (11 pp) , 2007 .

[13]  Schau Erwin,et al.  Normalisation method and data for Environmental Footprints , 2014 .

[14]  C. Timmermans,et al.  Natural radioactivity in phosphate fertilizers , 2004, Fertilizer research.

[15]  S. Mandai,et al.  Cellulose Acetate Polymer Thrombosis for the Emergency Treatment of Aneurysms , 1994 .

[16]  Jean-Paul Hettelingh,et al.  Country-dependent Characterisation Factors for Acidification and Terrestrial Eutrophication Based on Accumulated Exceedance as an Impact Category Indicator (14 pp) , 2006 .

[17]  Reimann Kathy,et al.  Evaluation of Environmental Life Cycle Approaches for Policy and Decision Making Support in Micro and Macro Level Applications , 2010 .

[18]  D. Clark,et al.  Forest products annual market review 2010-2011. , 2011 .

[19]  O. Jolliet,et al.  The role of atmospheric dispersion models and ecosystem sensitivity in the determination of characterisation factors for acidifying and eutrophying emissions in LCIA , 2008 .

[20]  S. Pfister,et al.  Assessing the environmental impacts of freshwater consumption in LCA. , 2009, Environmental science & technology.

[21]  Rana Pant,et al.  Reply to the editorial “Product environmental footprint—breakthrough or breakdown for policy implementation of life cycle assessment?” written by Prof. Finkbeiner (Int J Life Cycle Assess 19(2):266–271) , 2014, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[22]  Andreas Ciroth,et al.  A comparison of cut roses from Ecuador and the Netherlands , 2011 .

[23]  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.