An institutional analysis of EPD programs and a global PCR registry

PurposeA Product Category Rules (PCR) document specifies the quantification method and communication format of environmental impacts of a product category. To ensure neutrality and credibility of quantitative environmental information, the development of PCR documents is defined in ISO 14025. Hence, the rules are preconditions for comparative considerations and modular application of information entities and Environmental Product Declarations (EPD). However, with the growing number of EPD programs, the producers, purchasers, and consumers feel increasingly alienated in relation to the validity and legitimacy of the environmental information presented by EPDs. This results in a need for enhanced transparency of PCR development and EPD program compatibility. This article offers navigational assistance in this respect.MethodsTo identify harmonization potential, we compare PCR development regarding two aspects: quantitatively by mapping existing PCR and EPD documents, and qualitatively by comparing existing institutional structures with normative guidance. Information was gathered through an internet search and through direct correspondence with program operators.Results and discussionWe identified 27 programs, 556 PCR documents, and 3614 EPD declarations (May 2013). There were significant differences in activity level between programs and sectors. Furthermore, the institutional structures differ widely from each other and from normative guidance on PCR development.ConclusionsThis first global PCR register guides practitioners in the search for PCR documents. The analysis of program institutional structures for PCR development and EPD verification indicates the involvement of different stakeholders on Type III environmental declarations. Regarding PCR compatibility and newly released guidance documents from the European Commission and the PCR Guidance Development Initiative, we recommend that operators (1) settle on a common (sector) categorization system, (2) implement a Stakeholder Identification Worksheet, (3) consider the mandatory involvement of consumer and environmental interests in the PCR review panel, (4) require PCR reviewers to declare potential conflicts of interest, and (5) consider installing mandatory third party verification of declarations for any external use.

[1]  Bo Pedersen Weidema,et al.  Commission Recommendation on the use ofcommon methods to measure and communicate the life cycle environmental performanceof products and organisations , 2013 .

[2]  Charlotte Leire,et al.  Product-related environmental information to guide consumer purchases - a review and analysis of research on perceptions, understanding and use among Nordic consumers , 2005 .

[3]  Annik Magerholm Fet,et al.  LCA studies of food products as background for environmental product declarations , 2008 .

[4]  A. Borghi.  LCA and communication: Environmental Product Declaration , 2013 .

[5]  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 .

[6]  Marina Magerøy,et al.  The communication of environmental impacts through environmental product declarations , 2011 .

[7]  P. Rana,et al.  Guidance for Product Category Rule Development , 2013 .

[8]  G. Ionescu.  Differences Between LCA for Analysis and LCA for Policy: A Case Study on the Consequences of Allocation Choices in Bio-Energy Policies , 2016 .

[9]  Ottar Michelsen,et al.  Product category rules and environmental product declarations as tools to promote sustainable products: experiences from a case study of furniture production , 2009 .

[10]  E. Schmincke,et al.  Umwelteigenschaften von Produkten Die Rolle der Ökobilanz in ISO Typ III Umweltdeklarationen , 2006 .

[11]  A. Del Borghi.  LCA and communication: Environmental Product Declaration , 2013, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[12]  Wesley W. Ingwersen,et al.  Comparing product category rules from different programs: learned outcomes towards global alignment , 2012, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[13]  Hanna Pihkola,et al.  Comparison of different normalised LCIA results and their feasibility in communication , 2013, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[14]  Reinout Heijungs,et al.  Identifying best existing practice for characterization modeling in life cycle impact assessment , 2012, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[15]  Michela Gallo,et al.  Development of PCR for WWTP based on a case study , 2008 .

[16]  Karen Allacker,et al.  Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) Guide , 2012 .

[17]  Ingunn Saur Modahl,et al.  Comparison of two versions of an EPD, using generic and specific data for the foreground system, and some methodological implications , 2012, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[18]  Eva Schmincke,et al.  The European standard FprEN 15804 for EPD in the construction sector and the application of the modularity principle , 2011 .