The European Commission has asked for feedback on elements that could be potentially considered for the revision of the Commission Recommendation (EU) 2021/2279 of 15 December 2021 on the use of the Environmental Footprint methods to measure and communicate the life cycle environmental performance of products and organisations.
In addition to the replies to the survey circulated, we have prepared this document with specific proposals to the PEF method as described in Annex 1 of the Commission Recommendation (EU) 2021/2279 of 15 December 2021 (hereafter called the “2021 PEF method”).
Our proposals have three objectives:
1) To make it possible to follow the method description without unnecessary effort, while maintaining or enhancing the quality and practical applicability of the resulting PEF studies.
2) To clarify the text in places where the current text is ambiguous or can lead to mis-information relative to the decision that a PEF study intends to support.
3) To harmonise requirements, so that the same requirements apply across all products and across all elementary flows.
The aim of the bonsai_ipcc Python package is to enable users to calculate national greenhouse gas (GHG) inventories based on the guidelines provided by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2023). In implementing the equations and parameter data from these guidelines, the package adheres to the organizational structure outlined in the guidelines’ PDF documents, which include volumes and chapters. The package allows users to add their own data. In addition to computing default GHG inventories, the software includes tools for error propagation calculation, such as analytical error propagation and Monte Carlo simulation, both of which are endorsed by the IPCC reports.
A baseline climate footprint of the Danmarks Idrætsforbund (DIF) for the year 2019 was calculated through an Organisational Life Cycle Assessment performed by LCA 2.-0 consultants using foreground data from 2019 delivered by DIF in 2022. That part of the project was completed in October 2022. The updated climate footprint for the year 2022 was calculated using foreground data from 2022 delivered by DIF in 2023.
The results of the projects can be used to identify climate impact hotspots and the most relevant options for reducing this impact.
In this project we analysed the EU product environmental footprint (PEF) methodology, the state of databases on climate footprints, the current knowledge on effective label design, and relevant EU regulation. The basis for our analysis was that an effective climate labelling scheme will require a methodology, a database, and a label format that allows consistent comparison both within and across product categories. On this basis we identified the necessary preconditions and suggested a way forward in a study report. The Options Brief (short document for policy makers) can be accessed as an annex from the study at the project website of the European Parliament.
An effective climate labelling scheme requires a methodology, a database, and a label format that allows consistent comparison both within and across product categories. To this end, we analyse the EU product environmental footprint (PEF) methodology, the state of databases on climate footprints, the current knowledge on effective label design, and relevant EU regulation. Based on this analysis, we conclude that further preparation is required before a voluntary, horizontal climate labelling scheme can be established under Union law, across all product categories. Specific improvements are proposed to harmonise and simplify the PEF methodology. We also propose that a globally complete, consistent, and open background database is established and maintained, with an acceptable level of product detail. A label design is proposed that allows seamless cross-category comparison and consideration of the 'monetary rebound' effect, as well as easy communication of uncertainty. The development of a roadmap is also proposed. This should consider the broader context of environmental and sustainability labelling and the need to improve international product life cycle assessment standards and harmonise conflicting EU calculation rules.
Input–output analyses are increasingly used to estimate consumption-based environmental footprints. The potential of estimates of social, economic, and ecosystem consequences of lifestyle interventions can be improved by detailing the complex way that final demand arises from patterns of household activities, i.e. from how households choose to use their time. We perform a systematic literature review by searching three scientific databases and using backward citation snowballing to clarify how input–output models have been used to analyse household activity patterns. We discuss the prospects of the used methods for estimating environmental footprints associated with households' time uses in activities. We identified 48 relevant studies, each contributing with motivations and methods that are important for household activity-level environmental footprint accounting. When linked with the market economy and environmentally extended, input–output tables detailing the use of time and money across household types provide a clear picture of the connections between the economy, the social sphere, and the environment. Realistic expenditure and time-use data structures quantify the production and consumption activities that occur in households and the associated household inequalities in time use and expenditure patterns. Household activity-level environmental footprints differ notably across household activities. The reviewed studies provide the foundation for detailed and complete environmental footprint data at the household activity level to support policy decisions targeting everyday life. The current research on the topic is patchy with only one study modelling multiple countries and only one country being modelled across years. The research needs to be harmonised and scaled up to allow for comprehensive analyses. Ideally, future modelling should cover more countries with continuous data series and harmonised data collection and analysis methods.
The unique feature of the 2.-0 SDG framework is the use of sustainable wellbeing (utility) as a comprehensive summary indicator for all social, ecosystem and economic impacts. This indicator provides a single, quantitative endpoint for all causal impact pathways that have their starting point in the many different pressure (LCI) indicators, measurable at the level of specific production or consumption activities. Each pressure indicator is linked to the endpoint via the indicators for 169 targets of the 17 UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The endpoint is expressed in units of Quality-Adjusted person-Life-Years.
The comprehensive impact pathway framework can be applied to differentiate major from minor impact pathways, to identify impact pathways that are not explicitly covered by any of the 169 sustainability targets, and to point out trade-offs and synergies between the targets and their indicators. Due to the use of a single endpoint, the framework allows to quantify such trade-offs and synergies, to compare business decisions, performance and improvement options across industry sectors. Thereby, the 2.-0 LCSA framework contrasts with the “cherry-picking” approach to the SDGs in current business applications. Instead, we support a rational choice of business development strategies through matching the sphere of influence of each specific business enterprise with the impact pathway framework.
The project provides estimated uncertainty ranges on each of the causal links of the impact pathways, using numerical data when possible and verbal scales when numerical data are insufficient.
The project builds on and extends the impact assessment method developed by 2.-0 LCA consultants for social footprinting, which has been successfully tested for feasibility in global supply chain contexts, to support different business decisions, from single product purchases to larger policy changes, using a product life-cycle assessment approach to link specific company data to a global multi-regional input-output database with environmental and socio-economic extensions (see e.g. Schenker & Weidema 2017). The method has a low data requirement for screening purposes, and can be based exclusively on open data sources, with options for extending the level of detail when more data are available.
The project provides an actionable and rational method for businesses and governments to integrate the SDGs into decision making and monitoring, and will therefore contribute substantially to streamline and coordinate action and increase efficiency in implementing the 2030 Agenda.
Presentation of the project (9 min video on youtube): https://youtu.be/z8P6O5hP1rA
The project deliverables include:
Project members have early access to project deliverables. See below for deliverables that have already become open access.
The early development work was partly funded by the UNEP Life Cycle Initiative as part of the project “Linking the UN Sustainable Development Goals to life cycle impact pathway frameworks” and the EU Horizon project HyperCOG under grant agreement No.869886.
For subscription (or questions), please contact us. To go to the club click here.
Relative importance of sustainability impact pathways – A first rough assessment
Data collection guideline for pressure indicators for LCSA
Data files for Life Cycle SDG Assessment
This report is prepared for Concito by 2.-0 LCA consultants January 2020 to February 2021. The report is the technical documentation of The Big Climate Database (“Den store klimadatabase”), which is published by Concito and funded by the Salling Foundations. It should be noted that all linked LCA activities and their flows can be accessed on the webpage: http://denstoreklimadatabase.dk/
