AnEnvironmental Product Declaration (EPD) is a Type III environmental declaration that quantifies environmental information about the life cycle of a product. This can enable comparisons between products fulfilling the same function.[1] The methodology to produce an EPD is based on product life cycle assessment (LCA),[2] following the ISO 14040 series of standards.[3][4][5]
Companies may produce EPDs in order to understand the environmental impact of their products or services, differentiate their products on the market and demonstrate a commitment to limiting environmental impacts.[6] EPDs are a transparency tool and do not certify whether a product can be considered environmentally friendly or not. They are primarily intended to facilitate business-to-business transactions, although may also benefit environmentally motivated retail consumers when choosing goods or services.[3][4][5][6]
The content of an EPD will vary according to the product category and methodology used. Most EPDs summarize environmental information on the product alongside information about the company and production methods. The text and illustrations are designed to be easily understood and the environmental impact information desired by most EPD users can be found in one or two tables. Some manufacturers choose to include information about innovative production processes, using the EPD as a marketing tool.[original research?] For example, a 38 page EPD for a pasta product contains sections on the brand and product, environmental performance calculations, information on sustainable wheat cultivation, milling, packaging production, pasta production, distribution, cooking, packaging end-of-life, and summary tables for environmental results in different markets.[7]
The input data and LCA calculations are included in a background report, which are not typically published.
EPDs are available directly from manufacturers or hosted on EPD databases, which are typically owned by the programme operators through which EPDs are produced, verified and published. The usefulness of data stored within an EPD is proportional to how easily it can be accessed and analysed, however, database owners have been slow to modernise platforms and most require users to download individual PDFs in order to view and compare the data.[8]
Progress has been made to improve the design of EPDs for machine-readability and indexing[disambiguation needed] purposes through the ILCD+EPD[9] and openEPD[10] formats. openEPD has been designed in a way that EPD data can be accessed via an API, promoting the integration of product-specific data into industrial design and stock inventory software.[11]
The first step in creating an EPD is defining the product, using the appropriate Product Category Rules (PCR). A Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) for the LCA must be verified and from reliable sources (for example, from a manufacturing facility). A Life Cycle Environmental Impact Analysis (LCIA) is performed by an LCA expert using software and a variety of assessment tools.[12] The EPD is delivered as a document or report following a series of verification reviews; it is then ready for registration and publication.[13][3][4][5][6][14]
PCRs are specific rules and requirements that set out how the LCA of a product should be carried out and the results disclosed. They provide guidance that, in theory, enables fair comparison among products of the same category.[15]
Criteria contained in a PCR includes: a description of the product category, the goal of the LCA, functional units, system boundaries, cut-off criteria, allocation rules, environmental impact categories, information on the product's use phase, required units, LCA calculation procedures, requirements for data quality assessment, and other relevant information.[16] The goal of PCRs is to help develop EPDs for products that are comparable to others within a product category. ISO 14025 establishes the procedure for developing PCRs and the required content of a PCR, as well as requirements for comparability.[17]
LCA studies can vary in terms of assumptions and methodological choices made during the LCA and consequently, the results for products that fulfil the same function may not be consistent with one another.[18][19][20]
Duplication of PCRs for similar product categories in different regions.[21] PCRs developed in under the European Committee for Standardization framework may differ from PCRs developed under ISO framework,[20] reducing the comparability of EPDs for like-products from different regions. This may also increase administrative burden for manufacturers operating in multiple regions, which may be required to produce EPDs using different PCRs to align with heterogenous reporting requirements.[20]
Interpretation of the rules and requirements in PCRs can lead to variances in methodological choices and data reporting within an LCA, even where the same PCR is used. If the choices made are justifiable, this may not be flagged during the verification process.[20]
Secondary databases can offer significantly different emission values for the same process, activity or input (e.g., the embodied emissions of 1 metric tonne of coking coal). PCRs permit the use of secondary data for emission flows out of the control of the manufacturer creating the EPD (e.g., emissions from the upstream supply chain), and LCA practitioners have the choice of several, commercially operated databases. This variance decreases comparability of data in EPDs.[20]
Lack of rigorous third-party review: Inconsistency in the interpretation of the PCRs means that various accounting practices can be reasonably justified within in EPDs for similar products,[22] leading to different outcomes that are not comparable.
Financial Constraints: Carrying out a detailed LCA and publishing an EPD can be cost-intensive.[23][24]
EPDs are most commonly found for construction products. In Europe, the European Committee for Standardization has published EN 15804:2012+A2:2019/AC:2021,[25] a common PCR for construction materials. Other complementary standards, for example for environmental building assessment (EN 15978) were also published by this Technical Committee.
In order to enhance harmonization, the main Programme Operators for EPD verification in the construction sector created ECO Platform, with members from various European countries. The Programme Operators approved to issue EPDs with the ECO Platform verified logo[26] are:
Asociación Española de Normalización y Certificación (AENOR) - GlobalEPD Program (Spain)
Bau EPD GmbH (Austria)
EPD International AB - International EPD System (Sweden)
The ECO Platform also includes the following trade associations:
Construction Products Europe
Ceramie Unie ASBL
Eurima AiSBL
Some of these Programme Operators are under bilateral mutual recognition agreements:[27] IBU (Germany), EPD International (Sweden) and AENOR GlobalEPD (Spain).
The following programme operators are based in North America and Asia,[5][3][28] and their PCRs are typically based on ISO 21930[29]
ISO 21930
Sustainability in buildings and civil engineering works — Core rules for environmental product declarations of construction products and services
^Matthews, H. Scott; Hendrickson, Chris T.; Deanna H., Matthews (2015). "4". Life Cycle Assessment: quantitative approaches for Decisions that Matter. Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike. pp. 88–95.
^"How to get an EPD". Building Transparency. 19 April 2021. Retrieved 6 July 2022.
^Ingwersen, Wesley W.; Stevenson, Martha J. (2012). "Can we compare the environmental performance of this product to that one? An update on the development of product category rules and future challenges toward alignment". Journal of Cleaner Production. 24: 102–108. Bibcode:2012JCPro..24..102I. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.10.040. ISSN0959-6526.
^Almeida, Marisa Isabel; Dias, Ana Cláudia; Demertzi, Martha; Arroja, Luís (2015). "Contribution to the Development of Product Category Rules for Ceramic Bricks". Journal of Cleaner Production. 92: 206–215. Bibcode:2015JCPro..92..206A. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.12.073. hdl:10773/16706 – via Elsevier ScienceDirect.
^Subramanian, Vairavan; Ingwersen, Wesley; Hensler, Connie; Collie, Heather (20 April 2012). "Comparing product category rules from different programs: learned outcomes towards global alignment". The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. 17 (7): 892–903. Bibcode:2012IJLCA..17..892S. doi:10.1007/s11367-012-0419-6. ISSN0948-3349.
^Sébastien Lasvaux, Yann Leroy, Capucine Briquet, Jacques Chevalier. International Survey on Critical Review and Verification Practices in LCA with a Focus in the Construction Sector. 6th International Conference on Life Cycle Management - LCM 2013, Aug 2013, Gothenburg, Sweden. hal-01790869
^Fet, A. M., & Skaar, C. (2006). Eco-labelling, Product Category Rules and Certification Procedures Based on ISO 14025 Requirements (6 pp). The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 11(1), 49–54. doi:10.1065/lca2006.01.237
^Tasaki, T., Shobatake, K., Nakajima, K., & Dalhammar, C. (2017). International Survey of the Costs of Assessment for Environmental Product Declarations. Procedia CIRP, 61, 727– 731.doi:10.1016/j.procir.2016.11.158
^Hunsager, Einar Aalen; Bach, Martin; Breuer, Lutz (2014). "An institutional analysis of EPD programs and a globaal PCR registry". The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. 19 (4): 786–795. Bibcode:2014IJLCA..19..786H. doi:10.1007/s11367-014-0711-8. ISSN1614-7502.
^"ISO 21930:2017". International Organization for Standardization. Retrieved 23 May 2024.
