Germany Product Carbon Footprinting 2009

8/2/2019 Germany Product Carbon Footprinting 2009

1/35

Project Results Report

Product Carbon Footprinting The Right Way to Promote Low CarbonProducts and Consumption Habits?

Experiences, fndings and recommendations rom the

Product Carbon Footprint Pilot Project Germany


2/35

www.pcf-project.de

PublisherPCF Pilot Project Germany

c/o THEMA1 GmbH

Torstrae 154

10115 Berlin

Contact partner

Rasmus Prie

[email protected]

+ 49 30 779 0 779 15

The contact persons for all Project Partners can be found

in the Appendix.

Editing: Dipl.-Ing. Christa Friedl

Photography: Daniel Pasche

Graphic design: Sabine Knopp, Steffen Schler

Printed on recycling paper made of 100% recovered paper.

2009, THEMA1 GmbH


3/35

Abstract 2

1. Introduction 3

2. The starting point 42.1 Climate change as one o the main challenges we ace 4

2.2 Private consumption has a signicant infuence on our climate 4

2.3 Companies and consumers united to promote low carbon consumption 42.4 The consumer must be inormed - but how should this be done? 5

2.5 Product Carbon Footprinting: an extremely dynamic area o interest 5

3. Product Carbon Footprint Pilot Project Germany 63.1 Objectives 6

3.2 Project Initiators 6

3.3 Corporate Partners and case studies 7

3.4 Stakeholder dialogue 7

4. Basic methodological principles for Product Carbon Footprinting 84.1 Dening the Product Carbon Footprint (PCF) 8

4.2 Aims and uses o Product Carbon Footprinting 8

4.3 Methodological approaches or calculating the PCF 9

4.4 Approach in the PCF Pilot Project 10

4.5 Recommendations on developing a methodology 12

4.6 The limitations o PCF 18

4.7 Recommendations or standardising the PCF methodology 19

4.8 Interim conclusions 20

5. Product Carbon Footprinting as the basis for providing credible information 205.1 Carbon labelling a controversial debate 20

5.2 Requirements or climate-related product labelling 21

5.3 Recommendations or communicating climate-related product inormation 23

6. Conclusion 25

7. What next? 26

8. Appendix 278.1 Project Initiators and contact persons 27

8.2 Corporate Partners and contact persons 28

Table of contents


4/35

2

PCF Pilot Project Germany

1 CO2

ootprint is used as the simplifed orm o CO2e

ootprint.

AbstractIntroductionIn Germany, private consumption is responsible or approx.

40 percent o the annual per capita emissions o greenhouse gases

(source: Die CO2

Bilanz des Brgers, Federal Environment

Agency, 2007). So, what impact do the products and services

we use every day have on the climate? In an attempt to fnd an

answer to this question, researchers and companies have been

talking about so-called Product Carbon Footprinting (PCF) or

some years now. The Product Carbon Footprint, or CO2

oot-

print1

, is a unit o measurement or calculating all greenhousegas emissions which accumulate during the lie cycle o a certain

product. As such, the PCF is an appropriate instrument or deter-

mining, evaluating and communicating the eect that goods and

services have on our climate.

Despite years o experience in the area o lie cycle assessment,

the discussion on PCF has given rise to new questions. That is

why ongoing developments are a dynamic process and many

questions have not yet been resolved conclusively. For example,

we still do not have a scientifcally substantiated, consistent and

internationally harmonised convention or defning how a CO2

ootprint is to be measured.

The issuesThis report brings together the principle fndings o the German

PCF Pilot Project, which was initiated by research institutes and

environmental bodies and carried out in cooperation with ten

large companies. The project ocused on the practical experi-

ence which has been gained in measuring the CO2

ootprints o

actual products consumed and used in our day-to-day lives. It

was not the main aim o the project to develop an own method

or calculating PCF. The CO2 ootprint was measured in six stepsbased largely on the method used or lie cycle assessments.

Those involved in the Pilot Project concerned themselves mainly

with three questions:

How practicable are the methods which have been used to

calculate a CO2

ootprint up to now?

What fndings support the development o a consistent,

internationally accepted methodology?

How can the results o the PCF calculations be presented

to consumers in a way that is simple, credible and relevant

to promoting climate conscious consumption habits?

ResultsThose involved in the Pilot Project have come up with impor-

tant fndings rom the case studies; or example, that the ISO

14040/44 standard has proved to be a suitable methodological

ramework or calculating PCFs. From an international point

o view, they nevertheless see the development o a uniorm

convention to be important in the coming years, so that ProductCarbon Footprinting can be frmly established in global climate

discussions.

What is more, the work carried out in the Pilot Project has also

shown that Product Carbon Footprinting can make an impact in

many ways. For example, it increases the awareness among

company managers, employees and suppliers about what im-

pact their own products and services have on the climate. PCF

is also a key actor in recognising and developing the potential

or reductions all along the value chains. The transparent docu-

mentation o CO2

ootprints can also orm the basis or clearly

communicating the climate impact o a product.

However, above all, a communicated CO2

ootprint can raise

awareness among private consumers about low carbon

consumption - however, this will only be true, i actors such

as practical relevance to consumer decision making, credi-

bility, comprehensibility, comparability and transparency in the

communication can be guaranteed. The Pilot Project has drawn

up a series o recommendations to deal with this.

For example, inormation about the CO2

ootprint is not only

to be gathered or the entire lie cycle, but will also be brokendown into individual phases such as production, use and dis-

posal. An aggregated overall fgure in the orm o a static carbon

label is something which those involved in the Pilot Project do

not consider to be conducive to achieving aims. A fgure o

this kind suggests a precision to the consumer which cannot

realistically be achieved at the present time using the variety o

dierent methods and interpretations currently available. Com-

municating Product Carbon Footprints should also be placed

within a context which provides the consumers with a clear

idea about the climate impact o their actions.


5/35


3

Stakeholder dialogueThe results presented in this report cannot be seen as a nal

debate on the calculation and communication o Product Car-

bon Footprints. The Corporate Partners are thereore looking

orward to intensive eedback rom interested stakeholders.

A newsletter with up-to-date inormation on the PCF Project

and on the admission o new partners is available through

registration at www.pcf-project.de. Until a uniorm convention

or calculating PCF has been established, interested compa-

nies should gather their own experiences with Product Carbon

Footprints in overarching initiatives such as the PCF Project to

ensure consistency and credibility.

Last but not least, the Project Initiators want to actively promote

international debate on the harmonisation o Product Carbon

Footprinting. PCFs can only be measured, evaluated and reliably

communicated in a consistent and comparative manner i an

internationally accepted standard is in place.

1. Introduction

The goods that we consume every day have an impact on the

climate. This is true or the bicycle in your garage, French ries in

your ridge reezer, your new pair o jeans or a modern fat screen

monitor, and even or more service-based products, such as your

holiday or a book you have ordered on the internet; in act, every

product that we use in our daily lives generates greenhouse

gases during production, transport, storage, use and when dis-

posed o. Scientists and companies have been looking or years

at the question o how to calculate and evaluate the impact that

products have on our climate. One way that has seen intensive

discussion is the calculation o a CO2

ootprint, so-called Pro-

duct Carbon Footprinting.

The Product Carbon Footprint (PCF) helps us measure all o the

greenhouse gas emissions which accumulate during the lie cycle

o a certain product. However, calculating a PCF is not simple.

Most products have covered a long and complicated way beore

they reach the end consumer. Many o them are made up o a

whole range o dierent raw materials. There are products where

the greenhouses gases are mainly caused during the production

process and, with others, such as packaging which only has

a short useul lie, the disposal or recycling o these packages

plays a signicant role or the GHG balance. Appliances that run

on electricity, like ridges, produce the highest emissions while

switched on, but less when being produced or disposed o. Thatis why a clear denition o how and how long the consumer uses

a product needs to be ound beore the PCF can be calculated.

This paper brings together the principle ndings o the German

PCF Pilot Project, which was initiated by research institutes

and environmental bodies and carried out in cooperation with

ten large companies. The project has ocused mainly on gaining

practical experience in calculating PCF by looking at consumer

goods that are used on a daily basis. In the process, it was ex-

amined how this can be done correctly and in a way that makes

sense. What is more, the project participants look at the central

question about how to present the results o such calculations

to consumers in a orm that is easy to understand so that, as a

consequence, they will be prompted to act in a way that impacts

less on the climate.

The CO2

ootprint as a way to measure the eect that goods and

services have on the climate is still a relatively new idea. That is

why we do not yet have broadly accepted standards or methods

about how a PCF can be calculated and evaluated. The ndings

that have emerged rom the Pilot Project are the result o inten-

sive research into the process o Product Carbon Footprinting

using 15 individual products rom various branches: bed linen,

insulating material, toilet paper, wine stabiliser, a rozen meal,

A Low carbon society requires maximum energy eciency or both the network

and products.

Claudia Schwab, Vice President Environmental Protection & Sustainable Development Corporate Responsibility,

Deutsche Telekom AG / T-Home


6/35

4


eggs, strawberries, coee, shampoo, washing detergent, seal-

ant, packaging adhesive, a sports bag, a telephone and internet

connection and a beverage carton. Last but not least, PCF is a

subject which is moving all the time. For this reason, the project

also involved in-depth dialogue with international organisations

and interested stakeholders.

2. The starting point

2.1 Climate change as one o the main challenges we ace

Global climate change is reality and is one o the main challenges

acing society, politicians, industry and the economy. The mean

worldwide increase in temperature must be kept to a maximum

o two degrees Celsius above its pre-industrial level i we want to

contain the eects that global warming has on human beings and

our planet. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change (IPCC), this means that, by 2050, we have to reduce the

worldwide emissions o greenhouse gases by more than hal

compared to what they were in the year 1990. Industrial coun-

tries in particular are called upon to act here with a recommen-

ded reduction in annual greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent

and more compared to 1990.

2.2 Private consumption hasa signicant infuence onour climate

Private consumption is one o the main actors when it comes to

protecting the climate: it is responsible or more than 40 percent

o per capita emissions o greenhouse gases (source: CO2-

Bilanz des Brgers, Federal Environment Agency, 2007). Every

citizen in Germany emitted an average o around 11 tons o CO2

equivalents in 2007 (one equivalent is equal to the total o all six

greenhouse gases included in the Kyoto Protocol converted into

the impact CO2

has on the climate). These 11 tons per year mean

about 30 kilogrammes per day. This amount includes the emissi-

ons rom areas in our lives like residential, mobility, nutrition and

the emissions rom the production and consumption o goods

and services o all kinds.

Eleven tons per year is clearly ar too high. A simple calculationshows that reducing the worldwide greenhouse gases rom 1990

by hal would require a per capita global average o a mere two

tons per year or 5.5 kilogrammes per day. The ollowing compari-

son makes it even more clear: i we want to achieve our climate

goals, it is the industrial nations, Germany among them, that

need to reduce their greenhouse gases considerably in all areas

o lie. While, in the past, debates on emission ocused mainly

on energy supply and industry as a whole, an increasing number

o players and groups in society have now come to realise the

signicance o private consumption and the role that consumers

play in protecting the climate.

2.3 Companies and consumersunited to promote low carbonconsumption

One thing is clear: companies and their suppliers carry respon-

sibility or the value chain and or how products are designed.

What is also clear, however, is that consumers buying patterns

and consumption behaviour aect what products are in demand

and thereore what is produced. Consumers also determine how

The methods or calculating PCF are partly inadequate at the present time. There is no

CO2

credit or green power, or example. In Germany, both our administration and

production acilities are supplied with 100% green power and this should be refected

in the GHG balance o our products.

Dr. Heike Schifer, Director Communication and Environment, Tetra Pak GmbH & Co. KG


7/35


5

and or how long goods and services are used. Manuacturers

and consumers bear shared responsibility or ensuring that

products cause ewer emissions and that consumption behavi-

our changes to have less impact on our climate. Manuacturers

and suppliers can reduce the emissions during the lie cycle o

goods and services in lots o ways. Some examples are impro-

ving the resource and energy efciency o production processes,

buying materials with lower embodied emissions and reducing

materials consumption or optimising the material selection

process in the product design phase. Consumers can contribute

towards a reduction in emissions by deliberately buying long lie

goods, by asking or environmentally-riendly and low carbonproducts, and by reconsidering their everyday buying patterns

or consumption behaviour and changing these accordingly.

2.4 The consumer must beinformed - but how should thisbe done?

Consuming in a way that has little impact on the climate is only

possible i consumers are able to assess how much o an impact

the products they buy and use have on the climate. In the past

years, several very good instruments have been created or pro-

viding consumers with this kind o inormation. Some examples

are the EU Energy Label or large household appliances, energy

certifcation or buildings or the act that commercial vehicles are

required to indicate their emissions. A standardised methodology

has been developed in each case to acilitate a comparison o the

options. I consumers and companies gain a better understanding

o the eect that everyday goods and services have on the clim-

ate and adjust their consumption habits accordingly, then they

will pave the way or a systematic reduction in emissions.

In the ood and consumer goods sectors, however, there have not

had any tested and widely accepted instruments or inorming

people directly about the climate impact o such products. As a

consequence, inormation is lacking about the signifcance o pri-

vate consumption or climate change, about low-impact products

or about how to use these products correctly. This means

that companies are not yet in a position to inorm customers

about the climate impact o their products and the corresponding

value chains. Also, customers and consumers are not yet able

to identiy or compare low carbon goods and services. For this

reason, measuring the CO2

ootprint o specifc products was not

the only reason why the process o Product Carbon Footprinting

was tested and discussed as part o the PCF Pilot Project. At the

same time, the question o how results could be communicatedto end consumers and industrial customers in a way that is both

transparent and relevant to their respective decision making was

discussed.

2.5 Product Carbon Footprinting:an extremely dynamic area ofinterest

How can greenhouse gas emissions o consumer goods and

services be assessed and evaluated? In the past two years, an

increasing number o international initiatives have been set up to

deal specifcally with this subject and these have been building

upon the already existing methodological ramework provided by

the ISO standards on lie cycle assessments. Since 2007, British

organisations have been working on the PAS (publicly available

specifcation) 2050, the frst specifcation or calculating the

carbon ootprint o goods and services. We also now have the

frst instruments aiming to provide companies and consumers

with inormation. For example, Great Britain tested a carbon

label on individual products or the frst time in 2007. Ater that,

other countries ollowed suit and have been developing similarapproaches or evaluating and labelling products. However, we

still do not have any consolidated test results in most cases.

Product Carbon Footprint is an integral part o Tengelmanns climate initiative which

coordinates the numerous climate protection measures o our company.

Sieglinde Schuchardt, Head o Public Relations, The Tengelmann Group


8/35

6


3. Product Carbon FootprintPilot Project Germany

The PCF debate is in ull swing. The PCF Pilot Project tookadvantage o this momentum and the plurality o ideas in itswork and discussions. The objective was to urthermore use theexperience gained by companies in dierent industries in orderto develop recommendations or a uniorm convention or Pro-duct Carbon Footprinting. The project partners were not tryingto come up with a new methodology or PCF.

In addition to examining the CO2 ootprint, other environmentalcriteria were taken into account to varying degrees. This makesit possible to estimate the relevance o greenhouse gasemissions as an individual actor compared to other types oenvironmental impact. Such a comparison also shows whetherreducing the greenhouse gas emissions o a product mightnegatively aect other environmental categories. The recom-mendations developed in the project were derived rom actualcase studies and have been tested or practicality. The meaningand the eect that these recommendations have on the resulto the PCF have been checked and documented on the internet:

www.pcf-project.de

3.1 Objectives

The parties involved in the project set the ollowing objectives:

1. Gain experience: Project Initiators and Partners use con-crete case studies to gain experience in the application oexisting methods or determining the CO2 ootprint o productsand check them or easibility (ISO standards or lie cycleassessment, PAS 2050).

2. Draft recommendations: The fndings rom the case studiesare used to compile recommendations or developing andharmonising a transparent and scientifcally sound methodo-logy. The Pilot Project explicitly rerains rom developing itsown methodology.

3. Communicate results: Consumers must be inormed in aneasily comprehensible and appropriate manner. Thoseinvolved in the Pilot Project thereore resolve to discusscredible communication at the industry, company and productlevels or the promotion o low impact purchase decisions and

use patterns. These deliberations ocus on the practicalrelevance o measures or consumers to promote low carbonconsumption. The Pilot Project explicitly avoids developingits own carbon label because the methodologicalconventions currently in place are not sufciently robust andhave limited relevance or consumer decision making.

4. Standardise internationally: By applying the knowledgeand recommendations developed in the project, the partiesresolve to make an active contribution to the internationaldebate on the assessment and communication o PCF.

3.2 Project Initiators

The Project Initiators are the WWF, the Institute or AppliedEcology (ko-Institut), the Potsdam Institute or Climate ImpactResearch (PIK) and THEMA1. They are responsible or projectmanagement as well as operational oversight o the work. Theappendix provides additional inormation about the individualProject Initiators.

By assessing the CO2

ootprint, we have gained extensive knowledge which isa good basis to urther optimise processes. In this way, we are moving towards ourgoal o manuacturing our products in a climate-compatible manner.

Stean Dierks, Senior Manager Environment, Corporate Citizenship & Corporate Governance, Tchibo GmbH


9/35

7

3.3 Corporate Partners andcase studies

Under the direction o the Project Initiators, ten large, multinational

companies determined the Product Carbon Footprints or indi-

vidual products in their portolio. For additional inormation about

the individual Corporate Partners, reer to the appendix or

www.pcf-project.de.

Corporate Partner Case Studies2

BASF BASF insulation material Neopor

Textile fnishing BASF Fixapret AP

dm-drogerie markt Own quality brand sant + sicher

toilet paper

DSM Wine stabiliser ClaristarTM

FRoSTA FRoSTA Tagliatelle Wildlachs (wild salmon)

Henkel Schwarzkop & Henkel shampoo

(Schauma 7 Kruter)

Henkel washing detergent(Persil Megaperls)

Sealant

(products o the Sista and Ceresit brands)

Industrial packaging adhesives (Liool)

REWE Group Best Alliance strawberries (REWE contract

arming o sustainably grown early season

strawberries in the south o Spain)

Tchibo Privat Kaee Rarity Machare

Sports bag rom an Asian supplier

The Tengelmann Group Private label certifed organic eggs

Naturkind

Tetra Pak Tetra Pak beverage carton

Tetra Brik Aseptic Slim

Deutsche Telekom/ Call & Sur Comort

T-Home (router hardware + network solution)

3.4 Stakeholder dialogueThe PCF Pilot Project sees itsel as an open platorm and is in

direct dialogue with national and international actors and stake-

holders in science, politics, business and society in the felds o

PCF and CO2

product labelling. Direct eedback rom stakeholders

and interested parties regarding the presented results and recom-

mendations is thereore expressly appreciated.

In 2008, the World Resources Institute (WRI) and the World

Business Council or Sustainable Development (WBCSD) started

a comprehensive stakeholder process or developing standards

and principles or calculating Product Carbon Footprints.

Participants in the PCF Pilot Project are represented in the

steering committee and in the technical working groups. The

aim is to develop a standard by the end o 2010. The already

successully introduced Greenhouse Gas Protocol or

corporate GHG emissions serves as the basis or establishing

standards or product-specifc greenhouse gas emissions.

The International Organization or Standardization (ISO) has also

started a process or developing an international standard or

Carbon Footprints o Products. The Pilot Project is in close

contact with the involved national and international parties toensure that crucial methodological requirements are taken into

account and to ensure close coordination with other important

standardisation projects.


2 Detailed documentation o the case studies is available online at www.pcf-project.de


10/35

8


4. Basic methodological

principles or ProductCarbon Footprinting

Three basic questions stood at the outset o the work on calcu-

lating a Product Carbon Footprint.

What does the term Product Carbon Footprint mean?

Why is it measured?

How can a clear basic method or calculating the PCF be

developed?

4.1 Defning the Product CarbonFootprint (PCF)

The defnitions and uses o the term Product Carbon Footprint

dier internationally. Within the scope o the PCF Pilot Project

Germany, the project stakeholders agreed on the ollowing

defnition:

Product Carbon Footprint describes the sum o greenhouse

gas emissions accumulated during the ull lie cycle o a

product (good or service) in a specifed application.

In this context, greenhouse gas emissions are understood asall gaseous substances or which a Global Warming Potential

coefcient has been defned by the Intergovernmental Panel on

Climate Change (IPCC). The lie cycle o a product encompasses

the entire value chain: rom the acquisition and transport o raw

materials and primary products, to production and distribution,

as well as use, recycling and disposal. The term product is

used as a generic term to describe goods and services.

The term Product Carbon Footprinting includes the calculation

and evaluation o a PCF. In Germany, the Product Carbon Foot-

print is mostly reerred to as the CO2

ootprint.

4.2 Aims and uses o ProductCarbon Footprinting

Various goals o the PCF and ideas about how it could be used

in numerous applications are discussed in the international

debate. These uses each entail specifc requirements or the

calculation method. One o the aims o the project was thereore

to examine whether the currently available set o methods is al-

ready well-developed enough to ulfl all o the goals or whether

the methodological requirements need to be adapted more to

suit the dierent uses.

Calculating Product Carbon Footprints can help a company:

to create transparency in the value chain with respect to up-

stream and downstream processes and the players involved,

to increase awareness o the greenhouse gas emissions

along the value chain and identiy emissions-intensive

phases in particular,

to identiy areas where there is potential or reducing emissi-

ons (or example, by optimising the process chains),

to come up with ideas or the (urther) development o their

own climate strategy,

to analyse and evaluate how relevant greenhouse gas emis-

sions are in comparison to other impacts that a product has

on the environment.

We will actively pursue climate protection as part o our Groupwide sustainability

strategy in the systematic selection o our production locations and methods.

Dr. Ludger Breloh, Head o Strategic Purchasing, REWE-Group


11/35


9

Assuming that international standards are established, a PCF

can be used in the communication process between suppliers,

industrial customers and consumers:

to make clear what eect everyday goods and services have

on the climate and to emphasise the shared responsibility o

all those involved in protecting the climate,

to work together with suppliers and industrial customers to

decrease emissions in the value chain,

to inorm customers and consumers o alternatives whenthey buy and use products and, by doing so, improve their

overall competitiveness,

to provide inormation about PCF-related osetting activities,

or example, through CDM-projects,

to demonstrate the companys sense o social responsibility

with regard to climate protection using a specifc product

as an example.

The PCF can become one o the building blocks in climate-related

product communication and an important instrument in encoura-

ging low-carbon consumption, once an internationally accepted,

consistent standard is in place. Product Carbon Footprinting can

highlight potential or emission reductions throughout the entire

product lie cycle and can make consumers more aware o how

to consume in a way that impacts less on the climate.

Whether the various aorementioned goals can be achieved

in the short term with the current state o knowledge and

whether the uses named are acceptable is something that the

participants in the PCF Pilot Project discussed at great length.

They came to the conclusion that more international eorts areneeded to create a consistent methodological basis or many o

these uses. What is more, the requirements are not always the

same: communication with the end consumer, or example, has

dierent requirements or level o detail and quality o data than

would be the case with only company-internal uses.

4.3 Methodological approachesfor calculating the PCF

At the beginning o the Pilot Project, there still did not exist any

consistent and internationally coordinated method or calcula-

ting the Product Carbon Footprint. Nevertheless, the internati-

onal lie cycle assessment standard (ISO 14040/44) provides a

solid oundation or the upcoming international coordination and

standardisation process and many o the partners involved in

this process have already gained a great deal o useul experi-

ence over many years with the standard.

In 2007, a frst initiative or developing a PCF calculation method

evolved in Great Britain. British organisations drew up the

Publicly Available Specifcation 2050, the Specifcation or the

assessment o the lie cycle greenhouse gas emissions o goods

and services (PAS 2050), which goes back to an initiative set

up by the Carbon Trust and the British Department or Environ-

ment, Food and Rural Aairs and which was coordinated by the

British Standards Institution (BSI).3 The PAS 2050 is a frst step

in creating consistent basic principles or calculating the PCF.

The fnal version o the guideline was published at the end o

October 2008. Since then, other countries such as France,

Japan and Korea have been working on developing their own

methods. In the opinion o the PCF Pilot Project, the diversity

o approaches hinders their applicability and, i anything, they

are counterproductive. The project participants are thereore

pushing or the development o an internationally coordinated

and broadly accepted standard as soon as possible. Only a con-

sistent, cross-industry standard which applies to a wide range

o products can adequately serve the complex nature o value

chains and narrow down the scope or interpreting how a PCF

is to be calculated, and minimise the prolieration o dierent

inconsistent methods.

In the middle o 2008, two parallel initiatives were launched,

both with the aim o creating a scientifcally substantiated and

internationally coordinated standard or calculating the Product

Carbon Footprint.

1. The International Organization or Standardization (ISO) has

initiated a process to draw up the international standard Carbon

Footprints o Products. This standard is to be published in the

spring o 2011.

3 The PAS ranks below a national standard. In Great Britain, it is seen as the frst step

towards national and international standardisation.


12/35

10


2. As part o their Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Protocol initiative,

the World Business Council or Sustainable Development

(WBCSD) and the World Resources Institute (WRI) have

entered into a dialogue with international scientifc experts,

business experts and environmental institutions. A Product

and Supply Chain Accounting and Reporting Standard is to

be developed by the end o 2010.

Both o these processes make sense and are valuable initiatives

on the way to developing a consistent methodology and are

supported by those involved in the PCF Pilot Project, provided

that close coordination among the two processes is ensured.However, as an international standard will not be available

until two or three years rom now, the Partners in the PCF Pilot

Project have been looking at the practical easibility o existing

methods or calculating PCF based on the extensive experience

gained in lie cycle assessment. The issue o easibility is o

great importance. In the coming years, numerous companies

will decide what their position is with regard to the uses and ad-

vantages o elaborating CO2 ootprints. The project participantshave thereore exchanged ideas with manuacturers, scientifc

partners and stakeholders to discuss and come up with answers

to the practical questions concerning the urther development

and application o PCF methods as a product-specifc interpreta-

tion o the LCA standard.

4.4 Approach in the PCF PilotProjectThe Project Initiators and Corporate Partners took the internatio-

nal LCA standard (ISO 14040 and 14044) as the methodological

ramework or calculating a Product Carbon Footprint. This stan-

dard has also been the basis or the British PAS 2050 as well

as or the aorementioned dialogue processes initiated by ISO

and to a certain extent the WBCSD/WRI. Within the PCF Pilot

Project, the ISO 14040/44 was thereore an essential source o

input or the work carried out on methodology and thereby also

or the case studies.

Many o the basic methodological conditions o ISO 14040/44 can

be applied in the case o the PCF methodology, but several have

to be adapted. Some terms o reerence o the ISO 14040/44 are

loosely ormulated, making it necessary to examine whether it

is possible to develop less ambiguous terms o reerence which

have a comprehensive or product group-specifc oundation.

This would simpliy the comparability o dierent PCF studies.

This constitutes one o the greatest methodological challenges

acing international coordination, especially or all uses or

which the PCF is publicly communicated.

Every partner company in the project selected at least one pro-

duct rom its own portolio or which a PCF was then determined.

In this way, methodological rameworks or rules o interpretation

regarding ISO 14040/44 could be practically tested on specifc

case studies. In turn, the case studies also gave rise to specifc

methodological questions.

ISO 14040/44

Developing international standards

Expected in 2011

ISO TC 207"Carbon Footprint of

Products

Expected in 2010

WRI/WBCSDGHG Protocol

product accountingand reporting

standard

published29.10.2008

PAS 2050Specification for theassesment of the life

cycle GHG emissions of

goods and services

Joint methodological recommendations

Workflows using the task force methodology

Institute forApplied Ecology

Observation ofinternational and

national PCFdevelopments

CorporatePartner

Case studiesEvaluating

conclusiveness,reliability androbustness for

management andcommunication

processes

TF methodology

Agreement onuse and

adaptation of themethodology forcalculating the

PCF


13/35


11

The broad spectrum o selected products entailed comprehen-

sive discussions. The participation o companies rom very

dierent sectors was challenging, ruitul and an essential pre-

requisite or developing and optimising a methodology with the

broadest possible range o applications. In addition, involving

well-known experts rom the area o lie cycle assessment in the

case studies proved to be an absolute bonus or the project.4

Dierent criteria were taken into consideration when choosing

the products:

transparency in the supply chain

stability o the supply chain

willingness o suppliers to cooperate

availability o primary and secondary data

possible methodological learnings

ecological signifcance o the product

potential or reducing emissions

importance o the product or the company

market relevance o a Product Carbon Footprint

The PCF was measured in the ollowing six steps basically ol-

lowing the international standard on LCA: setting up the process

networks, defning the system boundaries, collecting primary

and secondary data, setting allocation rules, calculating the

PCF, carrying out sensitivity analyses. The Institute or Applied

Ecology coordinated with the case managers ater the second

and ourth step or each case study.

Finally, the results were validated and it was examined whether

the predefned methodological conventions could be adequately

put into practice when calculating the PCF.

In order to support the current discussion on Product Carbon

Footprinting, both at national and international level, those who

worked on the Pilot Project drew up various recommendations:

1. Methodological recommendations: The Project Initiators

and Corporate Partners came up with a series o concrete

recommendations or developing a method which should be

taken into account when developing an international stan-dard (but also or the interim calculation o PCF).

2. Limitations of Product Carbon Footprinting: Experiences

gained in the (urther) development o a methodology and

during the case studies identifed areas where the PCF

comes up against limitations.

3. Recommendations on the focuses of international

standardisation: There are some issues and areas where,

because o the sheer complexity o these, the Project Part-

ners rerained rom giving comprehensive recommendations.

These are better dealt with in the international standard-

isation processes.

4 The ollowing LCA experts worked on the project: Ecoys (or the Tengelmann Group);

Institute or Energy and the Environment (IFEU, or Tetra Pak); the Institute or AppliedEcology (or Tchibo); PE International (or dm-drogerie markt); PR Consultants (or DSM);University o Bonn (or the REWE Group); University o Bremen (or FRoSTA).

Flow chart of case study coordination

Corporate Partners / service providers

Mapping ofprocess networks

Collection of primaryand

secondary data

Calculating the PCF

ProcessconsultationCoordination

Coordination

Coordination

Defining thesystem boundaries

Allocation

proposal

Validationof results


14/35

12


4.5 Recommendations ondeveloping a methodology

The concrete recommendations or developing a PCF metho-

dology are based on the contents o the LCA standard and are

briey introduced in the ollowing.

PrinciplesLie cycle assessments and measurements o greenhouse gas

emissions at company or product level generally ollow certain

principles. Criteria such as completeness, consistency, precision

and transparency should all apply in equal measure when cal-culating a CO

2ootprint. In addition, it makes sense to establish

conservativeness as a principle. This principle entails that a PCF

must be calculated in such a way that the importance o certain

steps, or example, the selection o data, especially secondary

data, is not underestimated.

SIGNIFICANCE FOR THE CASE STUDIES: It was agreed that a

conservative approach was to be ollowed in the case studies.

GoalsThe goals that are pursued when calculating a PCF are extre-

mely important with respect to their implications or methodo-

logical requirements. For this reason, the goals must be named

explicitly in each case, documented transparently and the

consequences that these have or the applied method (scope

defnition) must be discussed.

SIGNIFICANCE FOR THE CASE STUDIES: The specifc goals o

each company are named in the case study documentation.

EmissionsEmission actors or consumed electricity

The methods currently being used to assess PCF cannot be used

to map the individual supply relationships or electricity. As the

way in which electricity is generated plays an enormous role in

climate protection, specifc supply relationships must be taken into

consideration in any uture methodology. This is particularly true or

the inclusion o electricity rom renewable sources.

SIGNIFICANCE FOR THE CASE STUDIES: The respective natio-

nal electricity mix was taken as a basis in the case studies. Supply

relationships which provided precise proo or origin were included

in a sensitivity analysis.

Certifed green power rom renewable energy sources

There still is not a good, broadly accepted method or including

green power in the calculation o a PCF. This not only applies to

the PCF, but also or company-related GHG inventories. The emis-

sion actor or green power is oten assumed to be zero, which

generally does not constitute a correct evaluation. The Institute

or Applied Ecology is currently working together with other re-

search bodies in Germany to come up with recommendations as

to how certifed green power should be evaluated with respect to

its additional benefts or the environment. In the PAS 2050, green

power is included in the national electricity mix in order to avoid it

being accounted or twice unless it can be proven otherwise.

SIGNIFICANCE FOR THE CASE STUDIES: In the case studies,

green power was calculated in the best case estimates accord-

ing to the national electricity mix. Following a suggestion made

by the Institute or Applied Ecology and IFEU, in the sensitivity

analyses, only those shares o renewable electricity supplied by

plants that were less than six years old were awarded the direct

emission actor o zero. The emissions rom upstream (indirect)

processes were, o course, additionally taken into account.

A products PCF makes the subject o climate protection tangible. It oers both the

company and consumers the opportunity to identiy ways in which they can make their

own personal contribution.

Uwe Bergmann, Head o CSR / Sustainability Steering, Henkel AG & Co. KGaA


15/35


13

EXAMPLE

Tetra Pak uses certifed green power in all o its German pro-

duction and administration sites (NaturEnergie). I we were to

allocate this electricity an emissions actor o zero or the direct

emissions rom new plants supplying renewable energy (in this

case 33%), then the PCF would all rom 82g to 81.3g per pack-

age examined (Tetra Brik Aseptic Slim), that is, a reduction

o slightly less than 1%. Assuming that the total supply o green

power was calculated at zero emissions, the PCF would all by

3.7% altogether to 79g per packaging unit. This makes clear

that Product Carbon Footprinting should in the uture be refned

to display the real additional beneft or the environment rom

certifed green power where possible. As a consequence this

could also provide urther incentives or companies and people

to change their behaviour and use certifed green power.

CompensationCompensating or greenhouse gas emissions (so-called oset-

ting) must be displayed separately, as including osetting

directly in the calculation would give a alse impression o the

actual impact that a product has on the climate.

SIGNIFICANCE FOR THE CASE STUDIES: Osetting was notlooked into in any o the case studies.

Emissions from aviation

Not only CO2, but also other substances such as water vapour

and nitrogen oxides contribute to the global warming eect o

air trafc. The eect is described using the so-called Radiative

Forcing Index (RFI). That is why the use o the more extensive

RFI instead o CO2e

emissions is so important in the case o air

trafc.

SIGNIFICANCE FOR THE CASE STUDIES: Air trafc did not

play a role in any o the case studies looked at, because all o

the raw materials and preliminary products used were transpor-

ted and distributed via roadway, railway and waterway.

System boundariesIncluding all phases in the product life cycle

To calculate the PCF correctly, the entire lie cycle o a product

must be taken into consideration. Assessing only individual

phases can lead to alse recommendations or appropriate

action. Under certain circumstances, however, it may make

sense to display inormation about individual phases separately.When communicating with industrial customers, or example,

it may be sufcient to assess the lie cycle only as ar as the

customers actory gate (cradle to gate). However, this means

that in this case the PCF is only o limited use or corporate

communication and communication towards the end customer.

SIGNIFICANCE FOR THE CASE STUDIES: A partial PCF is

irrelevant. All o the case studies assessed all lie cycle phases

o the respective products.

EXAMPLE

The PCF Pilot Project case studies demonstrate the importance

o looking at all lie cycle phases. The Tchibo Privat Kaffee

Rarity Machare case study, or example, clearly shows that the

PCFs lie cycle approach can open up completely new perspec-

tives. In the last years, Tchibo has been making considerable

eorts to reduce the GHG emissions o the companys logistics.

One could have assumed that carriage by sea plays a very signi-

fcant role or this coee, which comes rom Tanzania. However,

Tetra Brik Aseptic Slim

Tchibo Privat Kaffee Rarity Machare


16/35

14


the results o the case study show that, with approximately 59g

o CO2

equivalents per cup o coee (taken rom the best case

estimate), the cultivation o the coee on arm accounts or the

quantitatively largest share at about 56%: here, the input o

agrochemicals (ertilisers and pesticides) are particularly relevant.

Surprisingly, this was then ollowed by preparation o the coee

by the consumer with a share o about 30%. All transports ad-

ded up along the value chain and put together with the roasting

and packaging o the coee only accounted or about 12%, a

rather low percentage. These results make clear how important

it is to keep an eye on the total PCF when deciding on priority

emission reduction potentials.

EXAMPLE

Similar ndings came rom the case study carried out by the

Tengelmann Group on their Naturkindorganic ree range

eggs (pack o 6). A more precise analysis o the PCF o a

little more than 1.1kg per pack shows that the majority o the

greenhouse gas emissions, at about 62%, are caused by the

pullet rearing and egg laying arms. The most important actor

here is the chicken eed, which had the biggest infuence. Thenext biggest driver is the use phase, accounting or approx. 21%

o emissions. Another 10% o emissions were generated in the

shops. Transportation between the individual process modules

was responsible or only 1.5%. Sensitivity analyses have shown

how important it is to create a good and transparent set o basic

data, especially or the areas that play a decisive role or the PCF.

Signifcance o the use phase

Products are used in dierent ways and or dierent lengths

o time. That is why it makes sense to assume dierent use

patterns so that we can adequately map the infuence and the

time span o this important phase, especially i the PCF is to be

communicated to the end consumer.

SIGNIFICANCE FOR THE CASE STUDIES: In cases where the

use phase had a signicant infuence on the PCF, dierent pat-

terns o use were assumed. This made it possible to emphasise

the importance o this phase in external communication.

EXAMPLE

The case study on Persil Megaperls rom Henkel highlights the

most decisive infuences in the use phase, in particular through

the selected wash temperature. On the basis o current surveys,

the gure o 46C was chosen as the average wash temperature

in Germany. This entailed a PCF per wash cycle over all lie cyc-

le phases o around 700g CO2

equivalents.5 As such, more than

70%, or approx. 510g o CO2

equivalents accumulated during the

use phase. At a wash temperature o 30C, the energy con-

sumption is reduced in the use phase by around 50%, entailinga reduction in greenhouse gas emissions down to 240g. At a

wash temperature o 60C, emissions in the use phase increase

to almost 750g. This shows what infuence the wash tempera-

ture and the dierent patterns o behaviour can have on the PCF

while maintaining a comparable wash perormance.

5

Assuming the standard conditions o A.I.S.E.

Naturkindorganic ree range eggs

Persil Megaperls


17/35


15

EXAMPLE

In the FRoSTA Tagliatelle Wildlachs case study, the shopping

trip, the length o time the product is stored at home beore

eating and how the meal is prepared (incl. lighting) and washing

the dishes aterwards all aect emissions during the use phase.

Best case estimates put these at approx. 430g. This is a 29%

share o the PCF over all o the products lie cycle phases. Less

avourable assumptions or the use phase were also discussed

in sensitivity analyses. Assuming these less avourable con-

ditions, emissions o up to 2,700g may be caused in the use

phase alone. This is seven times the best case estimate and

highlights how important the use phase is. In the case analysed

by FRoSTA, dierences in shopping tour assumptions had the

biggest inuence on the overall PCF.

EXAMPLE

In the T-Home case study, the PCF o a combined telephone

and internet connection (Call & Sur Comort) was assessed.

Dierent patterns o use and the inuence these had on the PCF

were analysed. With 41.4kg CO2e

emissions per year, using the

Call & Sur Comort package made up or about 46% o the PCF

o 89.6kg CO2

equivalents over all lie cycle phases. Dierent

use scenarios (low use, average use and requent callers/sur-

ers) were looked at.

Signifcance o the shopping tour

There is no systematic reason to leave the shopping tour

involved in buying a product out o the assessment, something

which was proposed in the PAS 2050. When communicating

inormation to the consumer, the signifcance o the shopping

tour and the eect this has on a products CO2

ootprint is by all

means an important aspect.

SIGNIFICANCE FOR THE CASE STUDIES: In all o the case

studies where the shopping tour was relevant, it was included

in the calculation and assessed separately. Where concrete in-

ormation was lacking, generic assumptions were made in orderto assess the relevance o the shopping tour or the overall PCF.

As inormation on shopping tour behaviour was not accessible

in any o the case studies, a basic distance o 5km in an aver-

age passenger car was assumed. In addition to this, a shopping

volume o 20kg was taken as the basis. The greenhouse gas

emissions or the individual product were allocated according

to the mass o the respective products. The relevance o the

shopping tour or the PCF o the products that were examined

may vary signifcantly among the dierent products.

FRoSTA Tagliatelle Wildlachs (wild salmon) T-Home Call & Sur Comort

Router

+

Netzinrastruktur


18/35

16


EXAMPLE

In the Best Alliancestrawberries case study o the REWE

Group, the relevance o the shopping tour or a 500g carton o

strawberries (as part o a 20kg shopping volume) was analysed

in this way. It became clear that the shopping tour, which ac-

counted or a 15% share o the overall PCF o around 442g CO2e

is very relevant and should not be excluded. This act speaks

against systematically ignoring this phase in the lie cycle when

calculating the PCF.

EXAMPLE

In the case study on sant + sicher toilet paper rom dm-

drogerie markt, under the same assumptions, the shopping

tour accounted or a 4% share o the total PCF o about 2.5kg

CO2e

or a packet containing 10 toilet rolls (3-layered). Here,

it would also be misleading to ignore this share. In this case

study, it was also assessed how this share changes when the

basic travel distance doubles rom 5km to 10km. This increases

the share taken up by the shopping tour rom 4% to 12%. I it is

assumed that the shopping tour is made only to buy the toilet

paper, this percentage changes drastically, meaning that the total

PCF could then increase by about 50%. In this case, the shopping

tour would become an essential inuencing actor on the PCF.

Signifcance o capital goods

In general, capital goods are seen to be o little signifcance or

the PCF and are thereore oten neglected when undertaking lie

cycle assessments. Capital goods may very well be relevant

or the result o PCF calculations or certain products, product

groups or services. I this is the case, they should be included

in respective product-specifc guidelines (potentially in ProductCategory Rules, PCR).

SIGNIFICANCE FOR THE CASE STUDIES: The relevance o

capital goods was assessed in some o the case studies with the

help o sensitivity analyses, only to fnd out that capital goods

were not relevant to the results in any o these.

Best Alliance strawberries sant + sicher toilet paper


19/35


17

AllocationsAllocation in cases of co-production

Emissions should be allocated to their actual source in accord-

ance with the specications o the ISO 14040 standard and

then substantiated in product-specic rules. The reasons or

choosing a particular allocation method must be outlined. What

is more, it makes sense to use at least one other method and

then present and analyse the dierences in the results.

SIGNIFICANCE FOR THE CASE STUDIES: In cases where it

seemed necessary and expedient, dierent allocation methods

were tested to nd out how relevant they were or the results.

EXAMPLE

In the DSM case study or ClaristarTM, a wine stabiliser,

dierent allocation procedures were examined in a sensitivity

analysis to see how they infuenced the result. The allocation is

relevant in the extraction o molasses as a residue in the prod-

uction o sugar. Molasses is the main raw material rom which

ClaristarTM is extracted. Allocation to the sugar and to the mo-

lasses can be done in two ways: economic allocation or mass

allocation. Both methods were examined and the dierence wassignicant. Mass allocation results in a PCF o 66g CO

2e/ hl

wine or the molasses and, using economic allocation, this

resulted in a mere 25g CO2e

/ hl wine. That is a dierence o

40g CO2e

/ hl wine or a PCF o altogether about 295g CO2e

/ hl

wine. Even though mass allocation in this case shows the results

o the conservative approach, using this would turn the real prod-

uction situation on its head. For this reason, economic allocation

or sugar and molasses was chosen. This example clearly shows

how much allocation infuences the results and demonstrates

that it is important or the comparability o a PCF to take a closer

look at the consistent denition, at least at the level o dened

product categories.

EXAMPLE

In the Fixapret case study o bed linen rom BASF, the

infuence o allocation procedures was also examined in the

co-production o cotton and recyclable organic waste products.

This examination showed that the economic allocation chosen

by BASF or the best case estimate resulted in considerably

higher PCF values than was the case with mass allocation.

The economic allocation represents the conservative approach

which is why BASF preers it, as the cotton is the end product

or which production takes place. In the best case estimate, bed

linen with Fixapret have a PCF o about 231.5kg CO2e

over

the entire lie cycle o the product using economic allocation.

I mass allocation is applied to the cotton production process,

this would result in a PCF o about 174.3kg CO2e

under the

same general conditions. BASF sees the economic allocation

as the better approach here, because it better refects the real

production situation. This example once again shows, particu-larly when compared to the example above, that generally valid

allocation procedures or all products are hard to imagine and

it also shows that a product (category) specic denition can

make sense. When aiming to make product comparisons, a con-

sistent denition or the allocation procedure is essential at the

product level (Product Category Rules). However, it is dicult

to imagine that agreements on such product category rules can

be reached soon which would acilitate the calculation o easily

reproducible single values.

wine stabiliser Claristar TM

bed linen with BASF Fixapret AP


20/35

18


Allocation in open loop recycling

When using materials and products or new production proces-

ses and their transormation into other, new products (open loop

recycling), a 50:50 allocation should be applied, unless dierent

assumptions have been taken based on product-specifc aspects.

SIGNIFICANCE FOR THE CASE STUDIES:These rules were ol-

lowed in all o the case studies and documented where required.

The documentation processThe documentation must be transparent and understandable

i credible communication o the results o a Product Carbon

Footprinting eort is to be achieved.SIGNIFICANCE FOR THE CASE STUDIES: All o the case stu-

dies are presented in a coordinated, consistent documentation

ormat which is as transparent and comprehensible as possible.

The documentation is publicly available in the internet under

www.pcf-project.de. The Corporate Partners have agreed that,

when communicating inormation on the results o the individual

case studies, they will reer to the central documentation in the

internet and, as an option, use the uniorm visual reerence (see

Section 6.3) which has been jointly agreed on.

4.6 The limitations of PCFThe main aim o Product Carbon Footprinting is to calculate and

assess the impact products have on the climate. Other eects

on the environment or social aspects are oten not taken into

account here. This may aect how conclusive the recommenda-

tions are and how they stand up to scrutiny, and may limit their

use in decision making.

In the Fixapret case study o bed linen rom BASF, an

examination o dierent environmental categories showed that

not greenhouse gas emissions, but acidifcation potential is the

dominant environmental category or this product. This meansthat, in this case, looking at the greenhouse gas emissions alone

can lead to a alse interpretation o the environmental impact or

could lead to recommending the wrong alternatives or action

when aiming to optimise the overall environmental impact.

When comparing the impact that products have on the climate

and in public communication o PCF, the question arises, or

example, as to whether this diverts attention away rom other

environmental criteria. That is why, where possible, other

environmental impacts should also be taken into consideration,

among these, eutrophication, land use, energy and raw mater-

ials consumption and the toxicity or acidifcation o soil and

water. I other ecological criteria are examined to ascertain their

relevance, this can corroborate the reliability o PCF-related

statements and prevent incorrect decisions being taken. The

case studies in the PCF Pilot Project looked into other environ-

mental criteria at dierent levels o detail.

A comprehensive sustainability assessment o products cannot

be carried out on the basis o the PCF alone. Other useul

evaluation tools in this respect are lie cycle assessments,

eco-efciency analyses and sustainability analyses. Neverthe-

less, the PCF is a undamental indicator or some products orproduct groups. In the uture, it would be interesting to link up

It was a positive surprise or us to discover that, when compared to other similar

products and home-made meals with regard to CO2, our products stood up well to such

a comparison.

Dr. Andreas Bosselmann, Head o Research and Development, FRoSTA AG


21/35


19

product-related assessment methods in a more modular way

and make them more compatible with one another. Companies

could build upon the conclusions on the PCF and use these or

a comprehensive environmental and sustainability assessment

at a later date. Conversely, it is also interesting to generate the

PCF as a specifc valuation module rom lie cycle or sustainabi-

lity assessments.

The PCF is subject to variances in the precision and reprodu-

cibility o calculations. This comes rom the dierent quality or

source o data used or the defnition o certain assumptions in

the individual phases o the products lie cycle. Whether all othe uncertainties and room or assumptions that arise can be re-

medied by an internationally standardised methodology remains

uncertain, i anything. This is something that is o particular

importance when communicating the PCF.

Calculating Product Carbon Footprints, like undertaking a ull

lie cycle assessment, involves a considerable amount o time,

personnel and fnancial expenses. As such, a PCF is mainly

interesting at the present time or strategic or exemplary

products whose results can be extrapolated to other goods rom

the same product group or even to other product groups. It is

unlikely that a PCF can be calculated or every single product

rom companies with a broad product portolio within an accept-

able time rame.

The Product Carbon Footprint will not be the most expedient

option or calculating the climate impact or all products. In the

area o energy-intensive goods in particular, meaningul and ade-

quate indicators have already been developed (energy efciency

labelling) and these should be extended, but not necessarily

replaced by the PCF. On the other hand, the portolio o those

products or which PCF is a suitable instrument should be more

clearly defned so that the PCF can then be implemented moresensibly and efciently in management and communication

processes.

4.7 Recommendations forstandardising thePCF methodology

The partners o PCF Pilot Project see a number o overriding

questions or international standardisation:

how to deal with other environmental impact categories

within Product Carbon Footprinting

how to handle data quality requirements

harmonising allocation rules

inclusion o green power

treatment o the greenhouse gas emissions rom air travel

dealing with compensation (osetting)

developing product category rules (PCRs)

The fndings o the PCF Pilot Project have shown that certain

provisions or the calculation o Product Carbon Footprints can-

not be equally applied to all products or product groups. What is

more, it makes sense to draw up product category rules which

speciy allocation methods or the uniorm defnition o the pro-

duct use phase, or example. Specifc rules o this kind already

exist today or some product groups or products, although the

defnition o the PCR is seen as being very time-consuming and

not easible in its present orm or Product Carbon Footprinting.

For this reason, the process or defning the PCR should be

simplifed.


22/35

20


4.8 Interim conclusionsEven without an international standard, it is already possible

today to assess the PCF in a way that is both rooted in a scientifc

approach and consistent, frst and oremost to ulfl management-

related goals. However, at the present time, Product Carbon

Footprinting has to be seen as a work in progress. As the

methods or calculating PCF become increasingly standardised

internationally, the PCF itsel will be changed by the urther

development o the methodology and its increasing specifcity.

This is o particular importance or the communication with

customers and consumers and also points out how important it

is that results o a PCF are documented transparently. As such,

the documentation o the case studies presented here provides

the reader with a picture o the situation as it is today and acts

as the basis or continued discussion about what constructive

steps can be taken next. What is more, the debates on the PCF

are already providing us with a whole series o important ideas

about the uses and limitations o the PCF in communicating

corporate and product-related inormation concerning the climate

impact o goods and services.

5. Product Carbon Foot-printing as the basis forproviding credibleinformation

5.1 Carbon labelling a controversial debate

Apart rom inormation on the energy consumption o individual

appliances, it has been difcult up to now or consumers tounderstand the climate impact o goods and services and to take

this inormation into account in their consumption decisions.

How and under what conditions can goods be labelled as low

carbon? This is a question which has prompted extensive

international debate. Organisations in various countries have

developed very dierent approaches towards communicating

climate impact and labelling products, with one example being

the British Carbon Reduction Label.

Coming up with simple and reliable inormation derived rom

Product Carbon Footprinting which will enable consumers to

move towards carbon-conscious consumption is a real challenge.

On the one hand, the inormation must be communicated in a

way that is clear, unambiguous and easy to understand. On theother hand, it also has to make sure that it takes into consider-

ation all o the criteria that aect the greenhouse gas emissi-

ons o a certain product and then packages these acts in an

understandable orm so that consumers can use this inormation

to make clear decisions about what and how they consume.

At the present time, there are no consistent regulations, either

or the communication with consumers or or the labelling o

goods and services. The PCF Pilot Project had detailed discus-

sions about the dierent international approaches. Those who

took part in the Project came to the ollowing conclusion: I

undamental requirements and recommendations are taken into

account in the communication process, Product Carbon Foot-

prints can act as a strong basis or conveying product inorma-

tion which can, in turn, encourage carbon-conscious consump-

tion habits. These requirements are presently not ulflled by a

Carbon Label.

The need to change towards a low-carbon economy will challenge us to create

a low-carbon oering, create transparent and trusted insight in the Product Carbon

Footprint, invite and engage the consumer to change buying-behavior.

Fokko Wientjes, Director Corporate Susta inable Development, Royal DSM N.V.


23/35


21

5.2 Requirements for

climate-relatedproduct labelling

Labelling products to provide inormation about their greenhouse

gas emissions makes sense i and when basic requirements or

communicating this inormation have been met:

I. Relevance to decision makingConsumer-oriented inormation on product-related greenhouse

gas emissions should be displayed in such a way that corres-

ponding consumer behaviour can actually contribute towards

reducing GHG emissions and the overall impact on the envi-

ronment. The ollowing gives some indication o the important

questions that need to be answered:

Is CO2

the most relevant aspect in the lie cycle o the

product? Or are other actors more important (such as water

consumption, or example)?

Can the kind o inormation that is presented help the consu-

mer to consciously make a contribution towards protecting

the climate?

Does the way in which the inormation is presented provide

advice and assistance which help the consumer behave in a

way that is climate compatible?

Is the inormation about the climate impact conveyed in

such a way that it can inuence decisions about buying and

using the product?

Does the inormation provided ensure that displaying the CO2

ootprint does not conceal other important environmental

impacts?

II. Credibility

Communication must be credible to generate trust and winacceptance. The ollowing questions are relevant to credibility:

Is there sufcient transparency with regards to the metho-

dology used, the process or assessing the PCF and the

people involved in this process?

Have all o the relevant greenhouse gas emissions throughout

the entire lie cycle o a product been taken into consideration?

Where was the provision or assessing the climate impact

checked and perhaps inuenced by independent third parties?

Do the guidelines or calculating and communicating the

CO2

ootprint also account or inormation on the overall

environmental impact o a product?

Does the communication o product-related greenhouse gas

emissions go beyond individual ideal cases?

III. ConsistencyThe instruments or communicating with customers, consumers

or business partners will usually be implemented across a rangeo dierent companies. This is why a consistent set o basic

principles is required:

Do the same guidelines or assessing the PCF apply or all

comparable goods and services?

Are the assumptions described and documented in a way

that is transparent, comparable and consistent?

Are any individual changes (or example, changes to units or

system boundaries) presented clearly and coherently?

The fndings rom the PCF Project show the urgent need or all partners throughout the

product lie cycle to enter into multilateral dialogue in order to continue and strengthen

existing approaches in joint activities on the way to a better uture.

Daiga-Patricia Riemer, Responsible o Environment & Resources / Logistics, dm-drogerie markt GmbH & Co. KG


24/35

22


IV. UnderstandabilityAny inormation communicated must be easy to understand or

the person it is aimed at. The instruments used to convey inor-

mation must thereore be adapted to suit both the target group

and the situation in which the inormation is being used and yet

be suciently fexible:

Does the inormation being conveyed meet the inormation

requirements o the target group?

Is the inormation presented in a way that is adequate to

the communication skills (ability to understand abstractideas, language skills, etc.) o the target group?

Is the inormation density and design adequate or the con-

text in which it is provided?

V. ComparabilityInormation about the climate impact o products oten only

makes sense i it is possible to compare the impact with other

consumption alternatives:

Does the inormation provided (or example, values or values

margins) make it possible to compare it to alternative pro-

ducts which have an identical or similar use?

Is it possible to make a comparison across products or a

comparison o dierent types o product use?

Does the inormation provide the consumer with advice

about more climate-compatible consumption options?

I we take a look at these requirements, the CO2

ootprint can

act as an expedient instrument or communicating climate-

related product inormation. Nevertheless, i we want to promote

low-carbon consumption in the long term, consistent and

internationally accepted guidelines or communicating climate-

related product inormation which are based on a standardised

method or calculating PCF will have to be established.

Experience has shown that the mere consideration o the production phase is

incomplete and misleading or many products. Thereore it is essential to assess the

environmental impact o products throughout the entire lie cycle.

Dr. Peter Saling, Head o Eco-Eciency Analysis, BASF SE


25/35


23

5.3 Recommendations for com-municating climate-relatedproduct information

Based on their own experience gained rom an analysis o the

dierent international communication approaches and ater

in-depth talks with relevant stakeholders, the participants in the

PCF Pilot Project came up with the ollowing recommendations:

Inormation about the CO2

ootprint o a product or a service

should be presented in a dierentiated manner: on the onehand, or the entire lie cycle and, on the other hand, broken

down into individual phases, or example, the production,

use and disposal phases. This will allow conclusions to be

reached, or example, about potential reduction strategies

on the part o the manuacturer or about CO2e

reductions

during the product use phase brought about by changing

consumer behaviour.

Providing a total CO2

ootprint fgure in the orm o a static

carbon label, as is already practiced by some companies,

does not make sense and is not very relevant or consumer

decision making. A fgure o this kind suggests a precision

and conclusiveness which cannot be achieved using the

current state o methodology.

PCF is an instrument which manuacturers can use to inorm

the public about individually achieved or planned reductions in

emissions, but this can only be done i the PCF can be cal-

culated and documented consistently over a certain period

o time. Particularly important in this context is disclosure o

the underlying assumptions.

Based on the current progress in methodological develop-

ment there is still scope or interpretation and margins in the

calculation. That is why the motivation or calculating a PCF

and assumptions and quantifers used in the calculations

need to be transparently documented. Any publication o

the data must be clear, understandable, conclusive and open

to scrutiny. Last but not least, it is important to what extent

PCF calculations are reliable and/or uncertain and whether

other important environmental impacts have been taken into

consideration.

It is important to document communicated results in a trans-parent and accessible manner. The project partners have

agreed that, when communicating inormation on the results

o the case studies, they will reer to the central documenta-

tion in the internet (www.pcf-project.de) and, optionally,

use the uniorm visual reerence which was jointly agreed on:

Checks carried out by independent third parties increase

the credibility o any inormation provided about impacts

that goods and services have on the environment and

climate. Such checks are particularly recommended i

inormation is used in product-related communication and

or the purpose o product comparisons with competitors.

As soon as a generally accepted standard has been

established, checks should be carried out in the orm o

critical reviews.

It is becoming increasingly important to ensure clarity about the sources o emissions

during a products lie cycle. The act that the PCF Project recognised the dynamics o

this despite its very complex nature and that only a holistic approach to efcient and

eective reduction strategies makes sense, is very positive.

Matthias Kopp, Climate Programme, Industry and Finance Sector, WWF Germany


26/35

24


Inthefaceofthedynamicinternationaldevelopmentsthat

aretakingplace,comprehensiveapproacheswhichare

notproductorbranch-specicwillbehelpfulinestablishing

credibility,inavoidingisolatedstatementsandwillstay

abreastofongoingmethodologicaldevelopments.

Withtheserecommendationsinmind,ProductCarbonFoot-

printscanactasasolidbasisonwhichtosetupanexpedient

toolforcommunicatingclimate-relatedinformationaboutpro-

ducts.Ideally,thePCFcanbeusedtoconveyasimplemessage

toconsumerswhichcanpositivelyinuencetheirconsumptionbehaviour.

ThePCFPilotProjecthasbeenahugesteptowardsreachingaconsistentmethodology.

Itisnowimportanttobuildonthisincorporatestrategiesandclimatepolicy.

Dr.FritzReusswig,HeadofLifestyleandConsumptionResearch,PotsdamInstituteforClimateImpactResearch(PIK)


27/35


25

6. Conclusion

The German PCF Pilot Project has learned a great deal rom

the detailed and intensive work carried out in the individual

case studies:

The ISO 14040/44 standard and urther specifcations

provide a solid basis or calculating CO2

ootprints o goods

and services. On this basis and provided that all GHG

emissions over the entire lie cycle have been accounted or,

a comprehensive assessment o the climate-impact ogoods and services is possible. Other environmental aspects

must be taken into consideration i a comprehensive

ecological evaluation o products is undertaken.

To potentially allow or comparisons o individual CO2

ootprints, the Project Partners will continue to resolve open

issues in the relevant international harmonisation processes

(in particular WBCSD/WRI and ISO).

Calculating the CO2

ootprint increases awareness among

the employees, suppliers and management o a company

about what eect their products and/or services have on

the climate.

Calculating the CO2

ootprint helps to identiy emission

reduction opportunities along the value chain and creates

impetus or internal improvements and the refnement o

the corporate climate strategy.

By documenting a products carbon ootprint transparently,

a strong oundation or targeted product-related communi-

cation is established and consequently climate-compatible

consumption behaviour ostered.

The collected fndings rom the German PCF Pilot Project

provide the basis or an intensive debate with a broad circle o

stakeholders. The project participants are looking orward to

receiving direct eedback on the fndings and recommendations

presented in the report.

Ater the very successul pilot phase, the PCF Pilot Project is evolving into a platorm

or the promotion o low carbon consumption. It will enable companies to gain valuable

experience in the area o product-related climate protection.

Rasmus Prie, Project Manager PCF Pilot Project, Thema1


28/35

26


7. What next?

In the PCF Pilot Project, scientists, experts and companies tooka joint look at the question o how to calculate and publiclycommunicate the impact that everyday goods and serviceshave on our climate. Looking at specifc case studies, the pro-ject participants talked about the CO2 ootprint or each one andthen, based on the results o these discussions, came up with aseries o specifcations and recommendations. The work carriedout in the Pilot Project is by no means to be regarded as the lastword on Product Carbon Footprinting. It is rather a starting pointor continued discussion on this issue. The project partners arethereore very much looking orward to comprehensive eedbackrom interested stakeholders.

At the same time, using the knowledge they have gained, theProject Initiators will actively support the international debate onthe harmonisation o a consistent Product Carbon Footprintingmethodology. Only through an internationally accepted stan-dard, will Product Carbon Footprints be calculated, evaluatedand communicated in a consistent, comparative and crediblemanner.

Until a consistent method or PCF is established, any other com-

panies who are interested in this topic shall have the opportu-nity to gain their own experience with Product Carbon Foot-printing. The Project Initiators are currently elaborating variousmodular oers within a broader platorm or climate compatibleconsumption, which will support interested companies in thepractical calculation o PCF, in the implementation o strategiesto reduce the climate impact o products once the PCF has beencalculated and in the communication o climate-related inorma-tion or products with the aim o promoting low carbon consu-mer products and carbon-conscious consumption.

A newsletter with up-to-date inormation on the PCF Project andon the admission o new partners is available through registration

at www.pcf-project.de.

The PCF is a good starting point or companies to optimise the CO2

ootprinto products throughout their lie cycle. The challenge or the uture is to promoteclimate-riendly consumption through innovative approaches beyond a CO

2label!

Christian Hocheld, Deputy Director, ko-Institut Institute or Applied Ecology, Berlin


29/35


27

8. Appendix8.1 Project Initiators and contact

persons

The Project Initiators are the WWF, the ko-Institut - Instituteor Applied Ecology, the Potsdam Institute or Climate ImpactResearch (PIK) and THEMA1. They are responsible or projectmanagement as well as operational oversight o the work.Additional inormation about the project is available online at

www.pcf-project.de

WWFThe WWF is one o the largest independent nature conservationorganisations worldwide. Within the global network, the WWFis involved in over 2000 projects in more than 100 countrieswith 59 partner organisations and partner ofces. The WWFosters long-term partnerships with companies and plays aconstructive role in business-driven initiatives such as the inter-national climate saver programme while maintaining its criticaldistance. For additional inormation see: www.wwf.de

Through its involvement in the project management and steeringcommittee, the WWF has ensured that the activities in the PCFPilot Project are socially and ecologically relevant. The WWFalso heads up the institutional design task orce, which workson proposals or projects ollowing the pilot phase.

CONTACT PERSONMatthias Kopp, Climate Programme, Industry andFinance Sector,[email protected]

ko-Institut - Institute for Applied EcologyThe ko-Institut Institute or Applied Ecology is one oEuropes leading independent research and consulting institu-tions or a sustainable uture. It sees itsel as a scientifc thinktank and strategic consultant or politics, business and society- specifcally or international climate protection and sustainableconsumption. For almost 25 years, the ko-Institut - Instituteor Applied Ecology has helped defne the international methodo-logical development and application o ecological accounting

rameworks or developing more sustainable goods and services.For additional inormation see: www.oeko.de

Germany Product Carbon Footprinting 2009

Documents

Transcript of Germany Product Carbon Footprinting 2009