Environmental Product Declaration: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Start a new section in the document "Product Category Rules."
Added Limitations and Challenges section with citations.
Line 64: Line 64:
As previously mentioned; EPDs follow the LCA methodology; however, LCA studies can vary in terms of assumptions and information included, and therefore in some cases, the results of products that fulfill the same function are not consistent with one another <ref>{{Cite journal|last=Teehan|first=Paul|last2=Kandlikar|first2=Milind|date=2012-03-20|title=Sources of Variation in Life Cycle Assessments of Desktop Computers|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2011.00431.x|journal=Journal of Industrial Ecology|volume=16|pages=S182–S194|doi=10.1111/j.1530-9290.2011.00431.x|issn=1088-1980}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Säynäjoki|first=Antti|last2=Heinonen|first2=Jukka|last3=Junnila|first3=Seppo|last4=Horvath|first4=Arpad|date=2017-01-05|title=Can life-cycle assessment produce reliable policy guidelines in the building sector?|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa54ee|journal=Environmental Research Letters|volume=12|issue=1|pages=013001|doi=10.1088/1748-9326/aa54ee|issn=1748-9326}}</ref>. Product Category Rules (PCRs) provide the alignments and requirements to develop LCA project reports and the guidance for producing and publishing EPD <ref>{{Citation|last=Bovea|first=M.D.|title=Environmental product declaration (EPD) labelling of construction and building materials|date=2014|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1533/9780857097729.1.125|work=Eco-efficient Construction and Building Materials|pages=125–150|publisher=Elsevier|isbn=9780857097675|access-date=2019-04-26|last2=Ibáñez-Forés|first2=V.|last3=Agustí-Juan|first3=I.}}</ref> enabling fair comparison among products of the same category.
As previously mentioned; EPDs follow the LCA methodology; however, LCA studies can vary in terms of assumptions and information included, and therefore in some cases, the results of products that fulfill the same function are not consistent with one another <ref>{{Cite journal|last=Teehan|first=Paul|last2=Kandlikar|first2=Milind|date=2012-03-20|title=Sources of Variation in Life Cycle Assessments of Desktop Computers|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2011.00431.x|journal=Journal of Industrial Ecology|volume=16|pages=S182–S194|doi=10.1111/j.1530-9290.2011.00431.x|issn=1088-1980}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Säynäjoki|first=Antti|last2=Heinonen|first2=Jukka|last3=Junnila|first3=Seppo|last4=Horvath|first4=Arpad|date=2017-01-05|title=Can life-cycle assessment produce reliable policy guidelines in the building sector?|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa54ee|journal=Environmental Research Letters|volume=12|issue=1|pages=013001|doi=10.1088/1748-9326/aa54ee|issn=1748-9326}}</ref>. Product Category Rules (PCRs) provide the alignments and requirements to develop LCA project reports and the guidance for producing and publishing EPD <ref>{{Citation|last=Bovea|first=M.D.|title=Environmental product declaration (EPD) labelling of construction and building materials|date=2014|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1533/9780857097729.1.125|work=Eco-efficient Construction and Building Materials|pages=125–150|publisher=Elsevier|isbn=9780857097675|access-date=2019-04-26|last2=Ibáñez-Forés|first2=V.|last3=Agustí-Juan|first3=I.}}</ref> enabling fair comparison among products of the same category.


== Limitations and Challenges ==
Without standardized scopes, methods, and reporting, EPD’s cannot be compared between products<ref name=":2">{{Cite journal|last=Minkov|first=N|last2=Schneider|first2=L|date=2015|title=Type III Environmental Declaration Programmes and harmonization of product category rules: status quo and practical challenges.|url=https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.02.012|journal=Journal of Cleaner Production|volume=|pages=|via=}}</ref><ref name=":3">{{Cite journal|last=Subramanian|first=V|last2=Ingwersen|first2=W|date=2012|title=Comparing product category rules from different programs: learned outcomes towards global alignment.|url=https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0419-6|journal=The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment|volume=|pages=|via=}}</ref><ref name=":9">{{Cite journal|last=Ingwersen|first=W|last2=Subramanian|first2=V|date=2014|title=Guidance for product category rule development: process, outcome, and next steps|url=https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-013-0659-0|journal=The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment|volume=|pages=|via=}}</ref>. Each of these factors and how they should be reported are defined in the applicable product category rules (PCR)<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://industries.ul.com/environment/transparency/product-category-rules-pcrs|title=Product Category Rules (PCRs)|last=|first=|date=|website=UL|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref>. Studies reported that different interpretations of PCR’s can cause variances in data reporting within a product category<ref name=":2" /><ref name=":9" /><ref name=":10">{{Cite journal|last=Gelowitz|first=M|last2=McArthur|first2=J|date=|title=Comparison of type III environmental product declarations for construction products: Material sourcing and harmonization evaluation|url=https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.04.133|journal=Journal of Cleaner Production|volume=|pages=|via=}}</ref>. For example, if a PCR asks for the amount of carbon emitted from the production of a product, one EPD could report a total carbon footprint while another EPD reports only onsite carbon dioxide emissions <ref name=":3" />. Another study found that about 75% of the EPD’s and PCR’s they reviewed met ISO 14025 standards while the remainder either didn’t meet the standards (didn’t fit the scope, functional unit, etc) or lacked the required transparency to investigate <ref name=":9" />. Transparency is needed to ensure comparable product EPD’s are reporting and using the same methods and scope <ref name=":11">{{Cite journal|last=Ingwersen|first=W|date=2012|title=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|url=https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.10.040|journal=Journal of Cleaner Production|volume=|pages=|via=}}</ref>. Many reports emphasize the need for EPD’s and PCR’s to be “harmonized”, potentially globally, to avoid these major differences <ref name=":2" /><ref name=":3" /><ref name=":9" /><ref name=":10" /><ref name=":11" />.


==See also==
==See also==

Revision as of 16:03, 26 April 2019

The Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) is an environmental certification classified as Type III that quantifies and verifies the life cycle of products and goods as cited in the International Standards Organization (ISO) 14025[1]. The EPD methodology is based on the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)[2] tool which follows the ISO series 14040.[3][4][5] EPDs help customers that are environmentally driven for the performance of a product to make the best decisions when choosing goods or services among different providers.[3][4][5][6] For instance, companies such as ABB have implemented EPDs to all of their main products in an attempt to improve their sustainability goals, furthermore, to demonstrate their commitment to the environment to the customers that have shown concerns for the environmental faith of their products.[6]

Framework for Creating an EPD

Figure 1. Framework for creating an EPD

Figure 1. presents the steps or framework for creating an EPD, one of the first steps is that the product is defined and that it must follow the Product Category Rules (PCR) which are specific rules and requirements verified by a PCR review third-party panel (independent party). The collection of the Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) for the LCA study must be verified and from reliable sources (e.g., from manufacturing facility). The Life Cycle Environmental Impact Analysis (LCIA) results are performed by an LCA expert using software and different assessment tools.[7] The EPD can be delivered as a document or report that follows a series of verification until it is ready for registration and to make it public.[8][3][4][5][6]

EPD to Advance the LCA

EPD now is a standardized tool to declare the credible data and information of the environmental impacts of a product based on LCA studies.[9] Introducing EPD to the LCA field can enrich the data sources with higher quality level data.[10] Using the data from EPD can be a reasonable option for the life cycle inventory analysis even though collecting EPD data is a secondary data collection method. If more and more stakeholders can publish the EPD reports, the LCA studies have the potential to be more accurate and to have a higher resolution.[11] In other words, encouraging EPD equals to enlarging the quantity and diversity of the database for LCA studies. The problem emerges from the emergence of EPD is the harmonization issue or say the issue related to the universality, which has been common for some LCA databases.[12] The harmonization refers to the process of transforming the results into a common scheme of representation before releasing so that the results can be easily compared and verified in the future.[13] The issue may be solved by defining minimum requirements for the current EPD schemes, like making widely accepted standards.[11][14] For example, Manzini et al.[15] explored some practical requirements for developing EPD reports and the parameters affecting the attractiveness, potential costs, and benefits of EPA reports and proposed a framework for the EPD developers. Then this issue was solved by this framework? Without this discussion, this example is useless in demonstrating your previous statement.

Examples of Developing EPD and Using EPD for Decision-making

Back to 2001,  Allander[16] published an article of EPD for an ABB Group product. The article stated the reasons for generating the EPD report and the key focusing aspects in the process of developing the EPD report. The processes steps and product requirements were described in the article related to the production. If compared to this LCA study by Allander, the EPD report emphasized more about the life cycle impact assessment phase in the author’s report. One interesting point related to this report was that the author clearly stated that “customers are increasingly asking for information concerning the environmental performance of products”.[16] In 2007, Del Borghi et al.[17] conducted four case studies of waste disposal in a sanitary landfill to declare the potential environmental impacts. The four case studies compared different technologies for waste treatment and leachate or biogas management in the EPD framework adopted by the authors. The results of analyzing four case studies showed that using the EPD tool enabled the comparisons among different declarations only with some modifications to the existing method, PSR 2003:3, which was a method of preparing EPD reports and published by the Swedish Environmental Management Council.[18] More EPD reports are available from the online databases (e.g. The International EPD System[19]).

EPD in Europe

In Europe, the European Committee for Standardization has published EN 15804, a common Product Category Rules (PCR) for EPD development in the construction sector. Other complementary standards, for example for environmental building assessment (EN 15978) were also published by this Technical Committee.

In order to enhance harmonization, the main Programme Operators for EPD verification in the construction sector has created the Association ECO Platform, with members from different European countries.

The Programme Operators approved to issue EPD with the ECO Platform verified logo[20] are:

  • 2014:
    • Asociación Española de Normalización y Certificación (AENOR) - GlobalEPD Program (Spain)
    • Bau EPD GmbH (Austria)
    • EPD International AB - International EPD System (Sweden)
    • Institut Bauen und Umwelt e.V. (IBU) (Germany)
  • 2015:
    • Building Research Establishment Limited (BRE) (United Kingdom)
    • EPD Danmark (Danmark)
    • Instytut Techniki Budowlanej (Poland)
  • 2016:
    • Association HQE tio - FDES INIES (France)
    • ICMQ S.p.a. - EPDItaly (Italy)
    • DAPHabitat - DAPHabitat System (Portugal)

ECO Platform also include Associations, for example:

  • Construction Products Europe
  • Ceramie Unie ASBL
  • Eurima AiSBL

Some of these Programme Operators are under bilateral mutual recognition agreements[21] like IBU (Germany), EPD International (Sweden) and AENOR GlobalEPD (Spain).

EPD in North America and Asia

Even the European-based EPD programs constitute a large portion of EPD programs all over the world, the followed North America and Asia EPD schemes are also non-negligible.[5] Some main programme operators in North America and Asia are also summarized below [3][22]:

  • North America
    • FP Innovations - EPD Program on Wood Products (Canada)[23]
    • NSF International (U.S.) [24]
    • The Institute for Environmental Research & Education - Earthsure EPD (U.S.) [25]
    • The Sustainability Consortium (U.S.) [26]
    • UL Environment (U.S.) [27]
    • ASTM International (U.S.) [28]
    • Carbon Leadership Forum (U.S.) [29]
    • ICC Evaluation Services (U.S.) [30]
    • National Ready Mixed Concrete Association (U.S.) [31]
    • SGS Global Services (U.S.) [32]
  • Asia
    • Japan Environmental Management Association for Industry (Japan) [33]
    • Korean Environmental Industry & Technology Institute (Korea) [34]
    • Environment and Development Foundation (Taiwan) [35]

Product Category Rules

As previously mentioned; EPDs follow the LCA methodology; however, LCA studies can vary in terms of assumptions and information included, and therefore in some cases, the results of products that fulfill the same function are not consistent with one another [36][37]. Product Category Rules (PCRs) provide the alignments and requirements to develop LCA project reports and the guidance for producing and publishing EPD [38] enabling fair comparison among products of the same category.

Limitations and Challenges

Without standardized scopes, methods, and reporting, EPD’s cannot be compared between products[39][40][41]. Each of these factors and how they should be reported are defined in the applicable product category rules (PCR)[42]. Studies reported that different interpretations of PCR’s can cause variances in data reporting within a product category[39][41][43]. For example, if a PCR asks for the amount of carbon emitted from the production of a product, one EPD could report a total carbon footprint while another EPD reports only onsite carbon dioxide emissions [40]. Another study found that about 75% of the EPD’s and PCR’s they reviewed met ISO 14025 standards while the remainder either didn’t meet the standards (didn’t fit the scope, functional unit, etc) or lacked the required transparency to investigate [41]. Transparency is needed to ensure comparable product EPD’s are reporting and using the same methods and scope [44]. Many reports emphasize the need for EPD’s and PCR’s to be “harmonized”, potentially globally, to avoid these major differences [39][40][41][43][44].

See also

References

  1. ^ "Environmental labels and declarations - Type III environmental declarations - Principles and procedures". Retrieved 15 April 2019. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  2. ^ Matthews, H. Scott; Hendrickson, Chris T.; Deanna H., Matthews (2015). "4". Life Cycle Assessment: quantitative approaches for Decisions that Matter. Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike. pp. 88–95.
  3. ^ a b c d Del Borghi, Adriana (10 October 2012). "LCA and communication: Environmental Product Declaration". The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. 18 (2): 293–295. doi:10.1007/s11367-012-0513-9. ISSN 0948-3349.
  4. ^ a b c Manzini, Raffaella; Noci, Giuliano; Ostinelli, Massimiliano; Pizzurno, Emanuele (2006). "Assessing environmental product declaration opportunities: a reference framework". Business Strategy and the Environment. 15 (2): 118–134. doi:10.1002/bse.453. ISSN 0964-4733.
  5. ^ a b c d Minkov, Nikolay; Schneider, Laura; Lehmann, Annekatrin; Finkbeiner, Matthias (May 2015). "Type III Environmental Declaration Programmes and harmonization of product category rules: status quo and practical challenges". Journal of Cleaner Production. 94: 235–246. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.02.012. ISSN 0959-6526. {{cite journal}}: no-break space character in |title= at position 67 (help)
  6. ^ a b c Allander, A (July 2001). "Successful Certification of an Environmental Product Declaration for an ABB Product". Corporate Environmental Strategy. 8 (2): 133–141. doi:10.1016/s1066-7938(01)00094-x. ISSN 1066-7938.
  7. ^ WBSCD (29 September 2014). "Life Cycle Metrics for Chemical Products". Retrieved 14 April 2019. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  8. ^ Stahel, Walter R. (24 March 2016). "Circular Economy". Nature. 531 (2016): 435. Retrieved 26 February 2019.
  9. ^ Nieminen-Kalliala, E (2003). "Environmental indicators of textile products for ISO (Type III) environmental product declaration". AUTEX Research Journal. 3: 206–218.
  10. ^ Strazza, C; Del Borghi, A; Magrassi, F; Gallo, M (2016). "Using environmental product declaration as source of data for life cycle assessment: a case study". Journal of cleaner production. 112: 333–342.
  11. ^ a b Del Borghi, A (2013). "LCA and communication: environmental product declaration". International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. 18: 293–295.
  12. ^ 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". Journal of Cleaner Production. 94: 235–246.
  13. ^ Agarwal, P., Shroff, G., & Malhotra, P. (2013, June). Approximate incremental big-data harmonization. In 2013 IEEE International Congress on Big Data (pp. 118-125). IEEE.
  14. ^ Fantin, V; Buttol, P; Pergreffi, R; Masoni, P (2011). "Life cycle assessment of Italian high quality milk production. A comparison with an EPD study". Journal of cleaner production. 28: 150–159.
  15. ^ Manzini, R; Noci, G; Ostinelli, M; Pizzurno, E (2006). "Assessing environmental product declaration opportunities: a reference framework". Business strategy and the environment. 15: 118–134.
  16. ^ a b Allander, A (2001). "Successful certification of an environmental product declaration for an ABB product". Corporate Environmental Strategy. 8: 133–141.
  17. ^ Del Borghi, A; Binaghi, L; Del Borghi, M; Gallo, M (2007). "The application of the environmental product declaration to waste disposal in a sanitary landfill: four case studies". International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. 12: 40–49.
  18. ^ The Swedish Environmental Management Council (2003). PSR 2003:3 Product – Specific Requirements (PSR) for preparing an environmental product declaration (EPD) for Product Group Collecting and disposal service of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) in a sanitary landfill. http://www.environdec.com
  19. ^ "International EPD System". {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  20. ^ "Programme Operators in ECO Platform". ECO Platform.
  21. ^ "Bilateral agreements and international recognitions". AENOR. Archived from the original on 4 March 2016. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  22. ^ Hunsager, Einar Aalen; Bach, Martin; Breuer, Lutz (2014). "An institutional analysis of EPD programs and a globaal PCR registry". The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. 19 (4): 786–795. doi:10.1007/s11367-014-0711-8. ISSN 1614-7502.
  23. ^ "FP Innovations EPD Programs".
  24. ^ "NSF International EPD Programs".
  25. ^ "The Institute for Environmental Research & Education".
  26. ^ "The Sustainability Consortium".
  27. ^ "UL Environment EPD".
  28. ^ "ASTM Internation EPD".
  29. ^ "Carbon Leadership Forum Projects".
  30. ^ "ICC Evaluation Services EPD".
  31. ^ "NRMCA EPD Program".
  32. ^ "SGS Global Services EPD".
  33. ^ "JEMAI CPF Program".
  34. ^ "Korean Environmental Industry & Technology Institute".
  35. ^ "Environment and Development Foundation".
  36. ^ Teehan, Paul; Kandlikar, Milind (20 March 2012). "Sources of Variation in Life Cycle Assessments of Desktop Computers". Journal of Industrial Ecology. 16: S182–S194. doi:10.1111/j.1530-9290.2011.00431.x. ISSN 1088-1980.
  37. ^ Säynäjoki, Antti; Heinonen, Jukka; Junnila, Seppo; Horvath, Arpad (5 January 2017). "Can life-cycle assessment produce reliable policy guidelines in the building sector?". Environmental Research Letters. 12 (1): 013001. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aa54ee. ISSN 1748-9326.
  38. ^ Bovea, M.D.; Ibáñez-Forés, V.; Agustí-Juan, I. (2014), "Environmental product declaration (EPD) labelling of construction and building materials", Eco-efficient Construction and Building Materials, Elsevier, pp. 125–150, ISBN 9780857097675, retrieved 26 April 2019
  39. ^ a b c Minkov, N; Schneider, L (2015). "Type III Environmental Declaration Programmes and harmonization of product category rules: status quo and practical challenges". Journal of Cleaner Production.
  40. ^ a b c Subramanian, V; Ingwersen, W (2012). "Comparing product category rules from different programs: learned outcomes towards global alignment". The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.
  41. ^ a b c d Ingwersen, W; Subramanian, V (2014). "Guidance for product category rule development: process, outcome, and next steps". The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.
  42. ^ "Product Category Rules (PCRs)". UL. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  43. ^ a b Gelowitz, M; McArthur, J. "Comparison of type III environmental product declarations for construction products: Material sourcing and harmonization evaluation". Journal of Cleaner Production.
  44. ^ a b Ingwersen, W (2012). "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". Journal of Cleaner Production.

External links



Stub icon

This environment-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Environmental_Product_Declaration&oldid=894248380"