Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

The product environmental footprint communication at the crossroad: integration into or co-existence with the European Ecolabel?

  • LCA COMMUNICATION AND LCA FOR ISO LABELS
  • Published:
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • A.I.S.E (2019) Product environmental footprint category rules (PEFCR): household heavy duty liquid laundry detergents (HDLLD) for machine wash, Brussels, Belgium

  • Bach V, Lehmann A, Görmer M, Finkbeiner M (2018) Product environmental footprint (PEF) pilot phase—comparability over flexibility? Sustainability 10(8):2898. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10082898

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baldo GL, Rollino S, Stimmeder G, Fieschi M (2002) The use of LCA to develop eco-label criteria for hard floor coverings on behalf of the European flower. Int J Life Cycle Assess 7(5):269–275

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • BEUC (2014) Keep the EU Flower a label of environmental excellence. Consumer organisations and environmental NGOs response to the European Commission’s consultation to support the evaluation of the Implementation of the EU Ecolabel Regulation (EC) 66/2010

  • CEPE (2018) Product environmental footprint category rules - decorative paints, Brussels, Belgium

  • Del Borghi A, Moreschi L, Gallo M (2019) Communication through ecolabels: how discrepancies between the EU PEF and EPD schemes could affect outcome consistency. Int J Life Cycle Assess:1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-019-01609-7

  • EC (2004a) Directive 2004/42/CE of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on the limitation of emissions of volatile organic compounds due to the use of organic solvents in certain paints and varnishes and vehicle refinishing products and amending Directive 1999/13/EC. OJ L 143:87–96

  • EC (2004b) Regulation (EC) No 648/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on detergents. Detergent regulation OJ L 104

  • EC (2008a) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the Sustainable Consumption and Production and Sustainable Industrial Policy Action Plan, Brussels, Belgium

  • EC (2008b) Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures, amending and repealing Directives 67/548/EEC and 1999/45/EC, and amending Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006. CLP Regulation OJ L 353/1

  • EC (2010) Regulation (EC) No 66/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the EU Ecolabel. OJ L 27/1

  • EC (2013a) ANNEX II. Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) Guide to Commission Recommendation on the use of common methods to measure and communicate the life cycle environmental performance of products and organisations. OJ

  • EC (2013b) Background document for the testing of communication vehicles in the environmental footprint pilot phase 2013–2016

  • EC (2013c) Commission Recommendation of 9 April 2013 on the use of common methods to measure and communicate the life cycle environmental performance of products and organisation. OJ L 124:1–210

  • EC (2014a) Commission Decision of 28 May 2014 establishing the ecological criteria for the award of the EU Ecolabel for indoor and outdoor paints and varnishes. OJ L 164:45–73

  • EC (2014b) Commission Decision of 5 June 2014 establishing the ecological criteria for the award of the EU Ecolabel for textile products. OJ L 174:45–83

  • EC (2017) Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1218 of 23 June 2017 establishing the EU Ecolabel criteria for laundry detergents. OJ L 180

  • EC (2018a) Consultation on the potential policy options to implement the environmental footprint methods. Background document

  • EC (2018b) Product environmental footprint category rules guidance v6.3

  • EC (2019) Facts and figures regarding the European Ecolabel. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ecolabel/facts-and-figures.html. Accessed February 2019

  • EEB (2018) The EU Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) Methodology. What can it deliver and what not? An NGO viewpoint, Brussels, Belgium

  • Finkbeiner M (2014) Product environmental footprint—breakthrough or breakdown for policy implementation of life cycle assessment? Int J Life Cycle Assess 19(2):266–271

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Finkbeiner M, Ackermann R, Bach V, Berger M, Brankatschk G, Chang Y-J, Grinberg M, Lehmann A, Martínez-Blanco J, Minkov N, Neugebauer S, Scheumann R, Schneider L, Wolf K (2014) Challenges in life cycle assessment. An overview of current gaps and research needs. In: Klöpffer W (ed) Background and future prospects in life cycle assessment. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp 207–258

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Galatola M (2019) Options to integrate the PEF method in the development of EU Ecolabel criteria. European Ecolabel Board Meeting, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • Ganley S (2013) "green" product procurement policy in the European Union. Treatment of Lifecycle Carbon Analysis and Environmental PPM Restrictions, Columbia University Academic Commons

  • Gruère G (2013) A characterisation of environmental labelling and information schemes. OECD Environment Working Papers 62. https://doi.org/10.1787/5k3z11hpdgq2-en

  • ISO (2006a) Environmental management – life cycle assessment – principles and framework (ISO 14040:2006). International Organization for Standardization, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • ISO (2006b) Environmental labels and declarations - type III environmental declarations - principles and procedures (ISO 14025:2006). International Organization for Standardization, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • ISO (2006c) Environmental management – life cycle assessment – requirements and guidelines (ISO 14044:2006). International Organization for Standardization, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • ISO (2016) Environmental labels and declarations - self-declared environmental claims (type II environmental labelling) (ISO 14021:2016). International Organization for Standardization, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • ISO (2018) Environmental labels and declarations - type I environmental labelling - principles and procedures (ISO 14024:2018). International Organization for Standardization, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • Kneppers B, Howard N (2010) Making LCA relevant: eco-labels. Conference proceedings. LCANZ and NZLCM Centre Conference 2010, Thorndon, Wellington, New Zealand

  • Lehmann A, Bach V, Finkbeiner M (2016) EU product environmental footprint—mid-term review of the pilot phase. Sustainability 8(1):92. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8010092

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lupiáñez-Villanueva F, Tornese P, Veltri GA, Gaskell G (2018) Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information. European Commission. Directorate General Environment., Directorate A - Green Economy, Env.A.1 - Eco-Innovation & Circular Economy

  • Manfredi S, Allacker K, Pelletier N, Schau E, Chomkhamsri K, Pant R, Pennington D (2015) Comparing the European Commission product environmental footprint method with other environmental accounting methods. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20(3):389–404

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minkov N, Schneider L, Lehmann A, Finkbeiner M (2015) Type III Environmental Declaration Programmes and harmonization of product category rules: status quo and practical challenges. J Clean Prod 94:235–246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minkov N, Bach V, Finkbeiner M (2018) Characterization of the cradle to cradle certified™ products program in the context of eco-labels and environmental declarations. Sustainability 10(3):738. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10030738

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minkov N, Lehmann A, Winter L, Finkbeiner M (2019) Characterization of environmental labels beyond the criteria of ISO 14020 series. Int J Life Cycle Assess:1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-019-01596-9

  • Münch MM (2012) Life-cycle assessment in eco-labelling: between standardisation and local appropriation. MARBLE 2. https://doi.org/10.26481/marble.2012.v2.127

  • NEF Group (2017) Future environmental footprint communication. Discussion paper

  • Neitzel H (1997) Application of life cycle assessment in environmental labelling. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2(4):241–249. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02978422

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pesnel S, Payet J (2019) Product environmental footprint category rules (PEFCR): T-shirts, Brussels, Belgium

  • Rubik F (2015) Life cycle management: labelling, declarations and certifications at the product level – different approaches. In: Sonnemann G, Margni M (eds) Life cycle management. Springer Open, Dordrecht, pp 65–77

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Saouter E, de Schryver A, Pant R, Sala S (2018) Estimating chemical ecotoxicity in EU ecolabel and in EU product environmental footprint. Environ Int 118:44–47

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Taufique K, Siwar C, Talib B, Sarah F, Chamhuri N (2014) Synthesis of constructs for modeling consumers’ understanding and perception of eco-labels. Sustainability 6(12):2176–2200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vincent-Sweet P, Milà i Canals L, Pernigotti D (2017) Review report of the environmental footprint pilot phase

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nikolay Minkov.

Additional information

Responsible editor: Adriana Del Borghi

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(XLSX 30 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Minkov, N., Lehmann, A. & Finkbeiner, M. The product environmental footprint communication at the crossroad: integration into or co-existence with the European Ecolabel?. Int J Life Cycle Assess 25, 508–522 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-019-01715-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-019-01715-6

Keywords

Navigation