1. Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) method
Michele Galatola Product Team Leader
DG Environment – Sustainable Production and Consumption Unit

2. What is an Environmental Footprint (EF)?
“…a multi-criteria measure of the environmental performance of a product or organisation …”
“…based on a life cycle approach…”

3. Life Cycle Concept Manufacturing& Processing Retail & Use
Goods and Services
Resource Extraction, Farming, Processing
We often consider the full life cycle of goods and services in our assessments. This is Life Cycle Thinking.
We not only account for the use, but also the resources extracted, the emissions during manufacture, as well as the benefits and trade-offs of different waste management options.
In many implementing measures and assessments, we sum all of these up for a given product, or product option, to estimate its overall environmental performance.
Considering the full life cycle allows use to take into account all emissions and resources consumed, irrespective of when or where they occur, that are linked to a specific product option.
But, we must consider the impacts along the entire life cycle in one framework to avoid shifting of burdens.
Life Cycle Thinking (LCT) is implemented quantitatively through Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
Re-use, Recycling, Energy Recovery, Disposal

4. Energy Climate Change Material Scarcity Eutrophication
Resources, Health, & Environment
Pressures & Threats
Energy
Climate Change
Material Scarcity
Eutrophication
The emissions and resources consumed that are attributed to a specific product, such as a construction material, mode-of-transport, or biofuel alternative, are then assessed in terms of contributions to climate change, cancer effects, impacts on ecosystems or biodiveristy, consumption of scarce materials.
Indicators are calculated in a life cycle assessment for a given product of its environmental performance.
A carbon footprint is one example for climate change.
But, we must consider all impacts in one framework to avoid shifting of burdens.
This information can then be used to identify what is most important in the life cycle, to compare options in an impact assessment, or to provide criteria for different policy implementing measures.
Land & Water Use
Toxic Pressures

5. Product Standards, Greenhouse Gas Protocol (WRI/ WBCSD)
How was the PEF Guide Developed?
Environmental assessment documents analysed:
ISO 14044
ISO 14067
BP X
PAS 2050
Ecological footprint
ILCD
Product Standards, Greenhouse Gas Protocol (WRI/ WBCSD)

6. Analysis of methods 2. Majority are under ISO framework
Key findings – Common approaches
2. Majority are under ISO framework
3. Often focused on 1 environmental issue (water, carbon, …)
4. Most leave much room for subjective choices
5. Cannot generally be used for direct comparison
6. Product categories/ sectorial guides are seen as crucial
1. Developed via multi-stakeholder process
Analysis of methods

7. Environmental footprint
Where does the EF fit?
Environmental footprint
ISO14044
……..
Carbon footprint
Water footprint
ISO14001,
EMAS
Chemical footprint
ISO14025

8. Objectives
Provide comprehensive evaluation along the entire life cycle (upstream and downstream)
Provide comprehensive coverage of potential environmental impacts (no ‘single issue’ method)
Ensure comparability
Quality (coherence and quality assurance)
Build on existing methods
Be applicable without having to consult a series of other documents

9. Example: importance of multi-criteria

10. Example: importance of multi-criteria
Dwelling is being refurbished to improve insulation level
Existing
Improved
Floor on grade
6 cm PUR
12 cm PUR
Outer wall
10 cm RW
20 cm RW
Flat roof
10 cm resol
20 cm resol
Windows: glazing
double
triple
Net energy demand heating
70 kWh/m2
44 kWh/m2
E-value
E61
E54
K-value
K35
K21

11. Example: importance of multi-criteria

12. Example: importance of multi-criteria

13. Framework

14. Environmental Footprint Impact Category Impact Assessment Model
EF impact categories
Environmental Footprint Impact Category
Impact Assessment Model
Climate Change
Bern model - Global Warming Potentials (GWP) over a 100 year time horizon.
Ozone Depletion
EDIP model
Ecotoxicity, – aquatic, freshwater
USEtox model
Human Toxicity -  cancer effects
Human Toxicity – non-cancer effects
Particulate Matter/Respiratory Inorganics
RiskPoll model
Ionising Radiation – human health effects
Human Health effect model
Photochemical Ozone Formation
LOTOS-EUROS model
Acidification
Accumulated Exceedance model
Eutrophication – terrestrial
Eutrophication – aquatic
EUTREND model
Resource Depletion – water
Swiss Ecoscarcity model
Resource Depletion – mineral, fossil and renewable
CML  2002
Land Use
Soil Organic Matter (SOM) model
Shall be calculated using the specified impact assessment models and characterisation factors.

15. Impact Assessment: “additional environmental information”
If the default set does not cover the potential environmental impact of the product, all relevant environmental aspects shall be additionally included under “additional environmental information”.
These shall not substitute the mandatory assessment models of the default EF impact categories.
Shall be clearly referenced and documented
Examples:
Emissions made directly into marine water
Site level biodiversity impacts
Offsets (e.g. Clean Development Mechanism – CDM)
Delayed emissions (e.g. temporary carbon storage)

16. Overview of the EF methodology

17. Requirements depending on intended application
Intended applications
Goal & Scope def.
Screening step
Meet DQRs
Multifunctionality hierarchy
Choice of EIA categories
Classification & Characterisation
Normalisation & Weighting
Interpretation of EF results
Reporting requirements
Critical review (1 person)
Critical review panel (3 persons)
Requires PEFCR
(claimin g to be in line with the PEF Guide)
In- house M R O
External
B2B / B2C without comparisons / comparative assertions
B2B / B2C with comparisons / comparative assertions /
“M” = mandatory; “R” = recommended (not mandatory); “O” = optional (not mandatory); “/” = not applicable

18. Examples of “clear” requirements
Offsets
Impact categories and impact assessment methods
Electricity use
Biogenic carbon emissions and removals
Direct and indirect land use change
Renewable energy generation
Temporary storage and delayed emissions
Nomenclature
Data quality requirements
Allocation rules
Reporting
Reviews and reviewers’ qualifications

19. What are the differences between PEF and traditional LCA?
Not that many!!
PEF is a way of doing an LCA which enables to deliver more consistent, reliable and reproducible results. Moreover, compared to a traditional ISO compliant LCA, PEF includes features that make easier the communication of its results both in B2B and B2C.
These new characteristics of PEF are possible due to:
a limitation of methodological flexibility,
more stringent requirements related to data quality, and
the introduction of normalization and weighting

20. Examples of possible uses of the PEF method
(This is a non exhaustive list)
optimisation of processes along the life cycle of a product;
support product design minimising environmental impacts along the life cycle;
communication of life cycle environmental performance information on products (e.g. through labelling, documentation accompanying the product, websites and apps) but without comparisons or comparative assertions;
schemes related to environmental claims, in particular ensuring sufficient robustness and completeness of claims;
reputational schemes giving visibility to products that calculate their life cycle environmental performance;
voluntary schemes involving the measurement and communication of life cycle environmental performance information to consumers;
identification of significant environmental impacts in view of setting criteria for ecolabels.

21. PEF and the EU Ecolabel: A theoretical case on dishwashing detergents

22. System boundaries 1. Raw and packaging materials 2. Production
3. Distribution
4. Shopping tour
5. Use
6. End of life / Disposal

23. Current EU Ecolabel criteria for automatic dishwashing detergents
Criterion 1: Total chemicals
Criterion 2a: Excluded chemicals (phosphates, DTPA, perborates, reactive chlorine, compounds, EDTA, Nitromusks and polycyclic musks
Criterion 2b: Limited chemicals (H/R phrases) + derogations
Criterion 2d: Fragrances
Criterion 2e: Biocides
Criterion 3: Toxicity to aquatic organisms: Critical Dilution Volume (CDV)
Criterion 4: Biodegradability of organics
Criterion 5: Washing performance (fitness for use)
Criterion 6: Packaging requirements (Primary packaging per functional unit, cardboard packaging, Labelling of plastic packaging, Plastic packaging)
Criterion 7: Consumer information

24. Raw and packaging materials
Life Cycle stages
Raw and packaging materials
Criteria 1, 2, 6
Production
Distribution
Shopping tour
Use
Criteria 5, 7
End of life / Disposal
Criteria 2, 3, 4

25. Cradle-to-grave analysis for consumer products
Methodology Scope
Cradle-to-grave analysis for consumer products
All relevant activities shall be considered:
Indirectly attributable upstream activities
Directly attributable activities
Indirectly attributable downstream activities
Transportation & distribution of products
Use
End of life of the products/services
Third‐party waste treatment facilities.
Any other relevant processes
Extraction of raw materials
Agricultural activities
Land use and land use change
Manufacturing, production, and processing
Electricity for upstream activities
Disposal/treatment of upstream waste
Transportation between suppliers
Any other relevant upstream processes
Site‐level activities
Capital equipment
Business travel
Client and visitor transportation
Employee commuting
Transportation from suppliers
Waste streams (composition, volume)
Other environmentally relevant activities

26. Product manufacturing
Pressing
tab
core
Filling
flow
packs
Product
Box
Palletizing
Electricity
(mix)
Manufacturing
Somat 10
palletized
Ingredients
Natural
gas
Tap
water
Corrugated
board
Polypropylene
Polyethylene
Pallet
Packaging
materials
Final product

27. Environmental Footprint Impact Category Impact Assessment Model
EF impact categories
Environmental Footprint Impact Category
Impact Assessment Model
Climate Change
Bern model - Global Warming Potentials (GWP) over a 100 year time horizon.
Ozone Depletion
EDIP model
Ecotoxicity, – aquatic, freshwater
USEtox model
Human Toxicity -  cancer effects
Human Toxicity – non-cancer effects
Particulate Matter/Respiratory Inorganics
RiskPoll model
Ionising Radiation – human health effects
Human Health effect model
Photochemical Ozone Formation
LOTOS-EUROS model
Acidification
Accumulated Exceedance model
Eutrophication – terrestrial
Eutrophication – aquatic
EUTREND model
Resource Depletion – water
Swiss Ecoscarcity model
Resource Depletion – mineral, fossil and renewable
CML  2002
Land Use
Soil Organic Matter (SOM) model

28. Hot spot analysis results0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Ionizing radiation
Fossil resource depletion
GWP
Renewable resource depletion
Ecotoxicity
Cancer effects
Photoch. Oxidants
Eutrophication
Particulate matter
Mineral resource depletion
Acidification
Non-cancer effects
Land use
ODP
Raw materials
Packaging materials
Production
Distribution
Shopping tour
Use
Disposal

29. Normalized results (hypotetical case)

30. Contribution analysis
Simpler but stronger criteria:
Focus on what really matters
More reliable background information
More room for eco-innovation
Possibility to introduce life-cycle performance indicators in the EU Ecolabel

31. Next steps

32. Challenges Life Cycle data, data quality & availability
Need to develop consistent Product and Sector Category Rules
Involvement of stakeholders (particularly SMEs)
The verification system
Convergence of methodologies at EU level and internationally

33. The role of PEFCRs
Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules (PEFCRs) provide specific guidance for calculating and reporting product/sector life cycle environmental impacts.
The life cycle-based standards themselves do not provide sufficient specificity to ensure that consistent assumptions and measurements are made to support comparable environmental claims across all products.
Rules analogous to PEFCRs exist in standards for other types of life cycle-based product claims, such as ISO (type III environmental declarations), product carbon footprints (PCFs) or other forms of quantitative product environmental footprints.
PEFCRs play an important role in increasing the reproducibility, consistency (and therefore comparability between PEF calculations within the same product category level). The existence of a PEFCR helps direct the focus to the most important parameters of the PEF study, thus also reducing time, efforts and costs.

34. Scenarios that might and might not necessitate the use of PEFCRs
Application
Use of a PEFCR
Optional
“May”
Recommended
“Should”
Mandatory
“Shall”
In-house: product improvement 
B2B or B2C green claim without comparisons or comparative assertions
B2B or B2C green claim with comparisons or comparative assertions
Any PEF study declared to be in compliance with the PEF Guide
Procurement decisions
Declaration of conformance to a voluntary label requirement (e.g. EU Ecolabel)

35. Testing
Objectives
Test the process for the development of PEFCRs and OEFSRs
Test different approaches for verification systems (embedded impacts, traceability)
Test different ways of communicating the information for B2B and B2C

36. Testing
The Commission will "lead" a limited number of pilots but there will also be a "call for volunteers" addressed to Member States or industries who might like to lead the development of more PEFCRs and/or OEFSRs.
The pilot can be on an intermediate or a final product.
There is no obligation to run both a PEF and OEF pilot
Certain Product Groups / Sectors will most probably not be looked at during the Pilot phase (e.g. ICT-related products)
Food, feed and drinks products will be part of the 2nd wave of pilots that will start in These pilots should be carried out in close collaboration with the Food Round Table (FRT) initiative.

37. Testing WHO can propose a pilot: Single companies Cluster of companies
National, European or non-European industry associations
NGOs
Member States or non EU governments
Any mix of the organisations mentioned above
European Commission support expected:
Technical helpdesk
Testing of verification

38. Governance Steering Committee Technical Advisory Board
EF Technical Helpdesk
Pilot 1 TS
Pilot 2 TS
Pilot 3 TS
Pilot n TS
Stakeholder 2
Stakeholder y
Stakeholder 1

39. Representativeness of a PEFCR
A PEFCR is considered to be representative of a specific product group when all the following conditions are met:
The Technical Secretariat in charge of a specific product group has invited to participate to the PEFCR development process all the major competitors, or their representatives (i.e. via industry associations) covering for at least XX% of the EU market (in terms of yearly turnover).
The industry stakeholders (either as single companies and/or as business associations) participating to the whole process cover at least XX% of the EU market (in terms of yearly turnover).
The Technical secretariat has invited and involved in the PEFCR development process a sufficiently wide range of non-industry stakeholders, with particular reference to consumers’ and environmental associations.

40. Development of a PEFCR Definition of product EF category
Definition of the product “model” based on representative product

41. Representative model
The “representative product” may or may not be a real product that one can buy on the market.
Especially when the market is made up of different technologies, the “representative product” will be a virtual (non-existing) product with the average sales-weighted characteristics of all technologies around.
On the other hand, e.g. if the market and technical information is incomplete, the Technical Secretariat may decide to choose a real product that would represent ‘the representative’.
The “representative "product will be the reference for the calculation of the benchmark. In particular the environmental performance calculated for the “representative” model will become the “average” environmental performance for that product group

42. Development of a PEFCR Definition of product EF category
Definition of the product “model” based on representative product
The screening step identifies the following information:
Most relevant life cycle stages
Most relevant processes
Most relevant impact categories
Screening

43. Normalization and weighting
In the framework of the EU PEF Pilot the use of normalization and weighting factors will be tested.
The normalization factors will be provided by the Commission.
Until there is an agreed set of European weighting factors, all impact categories should receive the same weight (weighting factor = 1).
Alternative weighting approaches should also be tested as “additional” compared to the equal weighting one (baseline approach).
In case alternative weighting systems are also tested, a sensitivity analysis should be carried out and the results documented and discussed during the consultation stages

44. Development of a PEFCR Definition of product EF category
Definition of the product “model” based on representative product
The screening step identifies the following information:
Most relevant life cycle stages
Most relevant processes
Most relevant impact categories
Screening
PEF supporting study
At this stage class of performances could be identified, if appropriate
Definition of benchmarks