Purpose Since 2013, the European Commission (EC) is developing and testing the Product Environmental Footprint (PEF)—a product evaluation method, based on life cycle assessment (LCA). How and if PEF would be applied in communication and ecolabelling is still unclear; likewise, the scientific work on this matter is incomplete. This study aims to investigate the interface between PEF and the European Flower (EUF)—the European type I ecolabel—and to particularly examine scenarios for their co-existence and mutual supplement. Methods The aim of this work is achieved by conducting an analysis of three case studies on three different product groups for which both Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules (PEFCR) and European Ecolabel awarding criteria exist, namely, detergents, paints, and T-shirts. This includes a topic-based assessment and comparison of which life cycle stages, processes, and environmental aspects they cover. Based on this inquiry, a reciprocal analysis of synergies, gaps, and potential conflicts of the PEFCR and the ecolabel is performed. Finally, concepts for achieving mutual benefits for both approaches are provided and proposals for a consistent integration of PEF results in business-to-business (B2B) and business-to-consumer (B2C) communication are developed. Results and discussion The results of the three case studies point out similarities and gaps between PEF and EUF, as well as methodological shortcomings of both approaches. Based on this, three perspectives (namely, PEF, EUF, and Joint perspectives) are explored. They represent possible combinations and co-existence between PEF and EUF and serve different communication needs (B2B, B2C, or both). Whereas the first two perspectives examine scenarios for integration of one approach into the other and their parallel co-existence, the Joint perspective proposes a hybrid approach (called ecolabel type IV). It is a combination of elements of type I and type III environmental labels that allows for two different, but simultaneous product certifications depending on the end-user focus. Conclusions In order to improve the current approaches for ecolabelling, the use of criteria that cover the complete life cycle is imperative. Still, tools that go beyond the calculation of an LCA profile and cover product-specific aspects are needed. The proposed hybrid ecolabel covers both aspects by combining PEF and EUF. It is believed to be a solution for the EC to operationalize PEF in communication and in parallel, to avoid further proliferation of ecolabels.

中文翻译：

---

处于十字路口的产品环境足迹沟通：融入欧洲生态标签还是与欧洲生态标签共存？

目的 自 2013 年以来，欧盟委员会 (EC) 正在开发和测试产品环境足迹 (PEF)，这是一种基于生命周期评估 (LCA) 的产品评估方法。PEF 将如何以及是否应用于交流和生态标签尚不清楚；同样，这方面的科学工作是不完整的。本研究旨在调查 PEF 与欧洲花卉 (EUF)（欧洲 I 型生态标签）之间的界面，并特别检查它们共存和相互补充的情景。方法 这项工作的目的是通过对三个不同产品组的三个案例研究进行分析来实现的，这些产品组同时存在产品环境足迹类别规则 (PEFCR) 和欧洲生态标签授予标准，即洗涤剂、油漆和 T 恤。这包括基于主题的评估和比较它们涵盖的生命周期阶段、过程和环境方面。在此调查的基础上，对 PEFCR 和生态标签的协同作用、差距和潜在冲突进行了相互分析。最后，提供了实现两种方法互惠互利的概念，并提出了在企业对企业 (B2B) 和企业对消费者 (B2C) 通信中一致集成 PEF 结果的建议。结果与讨论 三个案例研究的结果指出了 PEF 和 EUF 之间的相似之处和差距，以及这两种方法的方法论缺陷。在此基础上，探索了三个视角（即PEF、EUF和联合视角）。它们代表 PEF 和 EUF 之间可能的组合和共存，并满足不同的通信需求（B2B、B2C 或两者）。前两个视角考察了将一种方法整合到另一种方法中以及它们并行共存的情景，而联合视角则提出了一种混合方法（称为 IV 型生态标签）。它是 I 类和 III 类环境标签元素的组合，允许根据最终用户的关注点进行两种不同但同时进行的产品认证。结论 为了改进目前的生态标签方法，必须使用涵盖整个生命周期的标准。尽管如此，还需要超越 LCA 配置文件计算并涵盖产品特定方面的工具。拟议的混合生态标签通过结合 PEF 和 EUF 涵盖了这两个方面。