Carbon Footprint: Concept, Methodology and Calculation
7
the approaches described are all based on the ISO 14040 series, a common problem in
the use of results to compare products is that the framework described in the standard
leaves the individual practitioner with a wide range of choices that may affect the
correctness of the results of the study. As we have seen, one of the solutions adopted
to overcome the problem is the implementation of product category rules, with a more
general approach, in 2010 the European Commission—Joint Research Centre—Institute for Environment and Sustainability published the International Reference Life
Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook (Joint Reasearh Centre, 2010). The Handbook wants to provide technical guidance for detailed Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
studies and for all that methodologies based on the ISO 14040 and 14044 standards
like Ecolabels or Carbon Footprint. It consists in a series of detailed technical documents, providing guidance for good practice in Life Cycle Assessment in business and
government. In particular, the Recommendations for Life Cycle Impact Assessment
in the European context handbook (Joint Reasearh Centre, 2010). reviews existing
environmental impact assessment models and factors to define levels of maturity
and define a set of indicators chosen for their strength and quality. In the guide the
Carbon Footprint is indicated as Climate Change and the model suggested for the
calculation is the Baseline model of 100 years of the IPCC for its wide consensus
for characterization at midpoint level in LCA.
At a European level, the objective is to find a common voluntary methodology
that can be representative for the categories of products, different Carbon Footprint
systems have been tested and the result was that to provide a complete information for
consumers on the environmental performance of some group of products not GHG
emissions but other environmental impacts are the most significant. The consequence
is the need of developing a harmonized environmental footprint methodology that can
be unique, representative and that comprise a set of relevant environmental performance indicators. In the Communication to the European Parliament and the Council,
Building the Single Market for Green Products, facilitating better information on the
environmental performance of products and organizations, the Commission proposed
the Product Environmental Footprint as a common method of measuring environmental performance. PEF requires a full life cycle assessment and define a set of
relevant environmental performance indicators.
In 2010 JRC published the Analysis of Existing Environmental Footprint Methodologies for Products and Organizations: Recommendations, Rationale, and Alignment, a systematic comparison of main Footprint methodologies available; starting
from that report, Manfredi et al. in 2015 made a review with the aim at spotting the
differences between Environmental Footprint methodologies and the PEF, he indicated 10 core criterions: life cycle approach, applicability of results, boundary of
the evaluation, multi-criteria evaluation, input data type and quality, solving multifunctionality problems, reporting elements, evaluation of uncertainty and review of
the study. Results show differences and common points concerning methodological
issues, starting from the more evident like the number of impact categories evaluated,
stressing the importance of having a wide range of indicators to better understand the
environmental burdens of a product and underling the importance of the Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules (PEFCR) to limit the costs and time necessary
7
the approaches described are all based on the ISO 14040 series, a common problem in
the use of results to compare products is that the framework described in the standard
leaves the individual practitioner with a wide range of choices that may affect the
correctness of the results of the study. As we have seen, one of the solutions adopted
to overcome the problem is the implementation of product category rules, with a more
general approach, in 2010 the European Commission—Joint Research Centre—Institute for Environment and Sustainability published the International Reference Life
Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook (Joint Reasearh Centre, 2010). The Handbook wants to provide technical guidance for detailed Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
studies and for all that methodologies based on the ISO 14040 and 14044 standards
like Ecolabels or Carbon Footprint. It consists in a series of detailed technical documents, providing guidance for good practice in Life Cycle Assessment in business and
government. In particular, the Recommendations for Life Cycle Impact Assessment
in the European context handbook (Joint Reasearh Centre, 2010). reviews existing
environmental impact assessment models and factors to define levels of maturity
and define a set of indicators chosen for their strength and quality. In the guide the
Carbon Footprint is indicated as Climate Change and the model suggested for the
calculation is the Baseline model of 100 years of the IPCC for its wide consensus
for characterization at midpoint level in LCA.
At a European level, the objective is to find a common voluntary methodology
that can be representative for the categories of products, different Carbon Footprint
systems have been tested and the result was that to provide a complete information for
consumers on the environmental performance of some group of products not GHG
emissions but other environmental impacts are the most significant. The consequence
is the need of developing a harmonized environmental footprint methodology that can
be unique, representative and that comprise a set of relevant environmental performance indicators. In the Communication to the European Parliament and the Council,
Building the Single Market for Green Products, facilitating better information on the
environmental performance of products and organizations, the Commission proposed
the Product Environmental Footprint as a common method of measuring environmental performance. PEF requires a full life cycle assessment and define a set of
relevant environmental performance indicators.
In 2010 JRC published the Analysis of Existing Environmental Footprint Methodologies for Products and Organizations: Recommendations, Rationale, and Alignment, a systematic comparison of main Footprint methodologies available; starting
from that report, Manfredi et al. in 2015 made a review with the aim at spotting the
differences between Environmental Footprint methodologies and the PEF, he indicated 10 core criterions: life cycle approach, applicability of results, boundary of
the evaluation, multi-criteria evaluation, input data type and quality, solving multifunctionality problems, reporting elements, evaluation of uncertainty and review of
the study. Results show differences and common points concerning methodological
issues, starting from the more evident like the number of impact categories evaluated,
stressing the importance of having a wide range of indicators to better understand the
environmental burdens of a product and underling the importance of the Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules (PEFCR) to limit the costs and time necessary