Product Environmental Footprint Methodology Research Articles

Can Italian wines outperform European benchmarks in environmental impact? An examination through the product environmental footprint method

Nowadays, there is a pressing demand for precise tools to quantify sustainability and assess the contributions of products and processes to sustainable development. This requirement extends to the wine industry as well. In 2013, the European Commission introduced the Product Environmental Footprint (PEF), providing a standardized methodology grounded in life cycle thinking for evaluating the environmental impacts of products across various industries. Despite its potential and the availability of specific guidelines for wine, the application of PEF remains unexplored in the sector. This study contributes to the knowledge by applying PEF to assess environmental impacts of Italian still and sparkling wines production, identifying variations from European benchmarks. Additionally, it aims to pinpoint pivotal hotspots and provide guidance for effective mitigation strategies.Average data from 27 wines certified as sustainable under Italian VIVA program, were collected and used to perform a life cycle assessment in accordance with PEF protocol. Results revealed that Italian still wines exhibited a greater environmental impact than the European reference value, while sparkling wines displayed a slightly more favourable environmental performance compared to the European average. Notably, specific impact categories remained consistent across different wines and countries, with climate change, resource utilization, land use, and particulate matter harmful for human health accounting for nearly 80 % of the overall environmental footprint. Hotspot analysis identified the plantation/destruction of vines, energy usage in the winery, and packaging as significant factors influencing the environmental footprint of Italian wines. Addressing these elements could enhance the environmental competitiveness of the Italian wine sector relative to its European counterparts. However, to validate these findings, further studies are necessary, both within Italy and in other European wine-producing regions. Such research initiatives will improve and strengthen PEF methodology, bolstering its adoption as the primary tool for environmental impact assessment of wine at the community level.

The environmental impact of permanent meadows-based farms: A comparison among different dairy farm management systems of an Italian cheese

The environmental impact of dairy production is heavily influenced by milk farm efficiency, farm characteristics, and farming activities, such as feed management. The existing research on the environmental impacts of the differently managed dairy farm systems is often in contrast and difficult to be compared. Thus, the present study aimed to assess the environmental impacts of milk used for the same cheese by comparing four dairy farm systems different for feed management choices, geographical area, herd size and milk productivity. A Life Cycle Assessment was performed following the Product Environmental Footprint methodology using primary data collected in 70 farms and one average cheese factory. The results showed that the raw milk production phase was the most significant contributor to the environmental impacts of cheese production. The self-produced feed and purchased feed resulted as the main hotspot processes, covering 64–77 % of the total impact. In fact, among the four different farm systems, the Permanent Meadows Farms showed the best environmental performance, with the lowest values registered for 14 of 19 impact indicators. Similar impacts were observed for the North Italy Representative Farms, while Small Plain Farms disclosed the highest outcomes, resulting most impacting than the Mountain Farms. Results demonstrate that different feed management choices can affect the final cheese impact and could be considered by private and public policies focused on green transformation objectives.

Enviroscore: normalization, weighting, and categorization algorithm to evaluate the relative environmental impact of food and drink products

A 5-scale label that relativizes the environmental impact of a given product referred to the impact of the European food basket is proposed. It was developed based on the Product Environmental Footprint methodology with the following stepwise approach. First, a set of normalization and weighting factors were defined to aggregate all the environmental impact categories into a single dimensionless index referred to as the European food basket, coined the European Food Environmental Footprint Single Index (EFSI). Next, the effectiveness of the EFSI index was evaluated by assessing the distribution of the EFSI results on 149 hypothetical food items and comparing it with the results obtained with EC Single Score. Finally, the thresholds to translate the EFSI index into the 5-scale Enviroscore (A, B, C, D, and E) were established and validated using the Delphi method. Results indicated that both, Enviroscore and EFSI, were able to account for impact variability between and within food products. Differences on the final score were observed due to the type of products (vegetables vs. animal products), the country of origin and the mean of transportation. Regarding country of origin, results indicated that differences in water stress impact category were better captured by the EFSI index (r = 0.624) than by the EC Single Score (r = 0.228). Finally, good agreement achieved with the Delphi method (weighted Kappa 0.642; p = 0.0025), ensures the acceptability of the Enviroscore. In conclusion, this study developed a method to communicate environmental impact assessment in a front-of-packaging label.

LCA of an industrial luminaire using product environmental footprint method

This paper presents a life cycle assessment (LCA) for the industrial Light Emitting Diode (LED) luminaire by using Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) methodology. The assessment is carried out for raw material, assembly, distribution, use and end of life (EoL) stages, and all upstream emissions are considered. The analysis results show that the electricity consumption in use stage is the significant contributor for the overall impacts. Environmental benefits are identified from the EoL scenario analysis due to the adopted WEEE treatments. Electricity mix for the UK and other European countries are modelled for the comparison study that shows the use of renewable resources for electricity generation has lower overall impacts from the PEF view, but the impact towards land use that is caused by using biomass energy source for electricity production is noticeable, which is barely mentioned in the existing LCA studies. This research has made the following original contributions: 1) it is the first study examining the LED luminaire environmental performance by using the PEF methodology; 2) the electricity mix modelling for the European countries in the comparison study reveals the possible trade-off between using renewable/non-renewable resources for the electricity generation, which would be beneficial for further policy development for lighting and energy sectors; 3) the availability demonstration of the current PEF database for luminaires, and the reported analysis results would assist future similar LCA studies.

Carbon Footprint Assessment of Construction Waste Packaging Using the Package-to-Product Indicator

The environmental impacts of buildings are based on the construction products, which together with their packaging can be assessed as one product system. To reduce the environmental impacts of buildings, the products and their packaging need to be optimised and analysed using environmental assessment. The purpose of this study is to assess the packaging related to the product according to the Life Cycle Assessment method. The environmental assessment was performed using the Product Environmental Footprint methodology, version 3.0. To compare the primary, secondary, and tertiary packaging, the results of the climate change indicator were used as a base to calculate the Package-to-Product (PtP) indicator. Among the considered scenarios to handle the waste packaging (landfilling scenario, material recovery scenario, energy recovery scenario, and the mixed scenario), the material recovery scenario is the most preferable and, for most of the packaging materials, the scenario with the lowest impact. Following the PtP result, the secondary packaging in the roof tile system has a significant share of the impact of the whole system (16% for the energy recovery scenario). Moreover, the results confirm the PtP indicator as the appropriate indicator to analyse the environmental impacts of construction products.

Product environmental footprint of a cross-laminated timber system: a case study in Italy

This study aims to apply the product environmental footprint (PEF) methodology to a wooden wall element, the Massiv–Holz–Mauer® (MHM), in an existing building in Northern Italy. The PEF is a multi-criteria measure of the environmental performance of products throughout their life cycle (European Commission 2013). The environmental footprint of the MHM wall element was calculated for the impact categories required by the PEF, using a cradle-to-grave approach. Foreground data was collected at each life stage and completed using data from the Ecoinvent 3.1 database (Wernet et al. 2016). An additional analysis (optional according to the PEF methodology) was conducted for assessing the sustainability of forest management in the sites where wood is extracted from, using data from the forest management plan. The results show that, for most of the environmental indicators, the use phase has the highest environmental impact, followed by the production, end-of-life, raw material acquisition, and construction phases. These results depend on the different duration of the life cycle phases, and on the attribution of the total operational energy of the building to the structural components of the wall, though other factors, such as the efficiency of the heating system, may be responsible. Future PEF sectorial specification should specify how to account for the use phase of structural building components. For the majority of the impact categories, the impact is mainly due to processes that occur in the background system, such as production of capital goods and construction of facilities and storehouses. The wooden material production generates relatively low impacts, thanks to the fact that the wood is sourced locally and from forests where a close-to-nature forest management is adopted, characterized by natural regeneration without the use of fertilizers and pesticides. This study shows that the PEF methodology can be successfully applied to a single wood supply chain, allowing the identification of the main hotspots and actions for reducing the environmental impacts. The PEF leaves space for additional environmental information, which, for some product categories, may play an important role. In the case of wood products, we suggest the inclusion of an assessment, even qualitative, of the sustainability of forest management.

Assessing product environmental performance with PEF methodology: reliability, comparability, and cost concerns

The Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) method was launched by the European Commission to harmonize the measurement of the product’s environmental performance. The PEF aims to increase the supply of green products in EU markets by lowering the cost of measuring the product’s environmental performance, enabling reliable environmental claims, and conducting proper product comparison. This study assesses whether the methodological choices of PEF enable reliable and comparable PEF studies to be conducted in a cost-efficient way. The PEF was compared with ISO 14044, ISO/TS 14067, and the Greenhouse Gas Protocol Product Standard to identify the differences in the methodological choices. From a practical perspective, the possible challenges for PEF that could not be identified by a method comparison were obtained via interviews. The interviewees were company representatives participating in a 3-year PEF pilot phase to create Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules (PEFCR). To discover the possible advantages and disadvantages of the PEF, the methodological choices for PEF itself were assessed from the standpoints of reliability, comparability, and cost. In conclusion, some proposals for improvements have been suggested. The impact assessment phase, i.e., some of the predefined impact assessment methods, together with a selected normalization method include disadvantages as regards reliability and comparability. They are not sufficiently mature to properly reflect both the product studied and its potential environmental impact. From a cost perspective, the inventory analysis phase increases the workload due to the cutoff ban, the numerous predefined impact assessment categories, and the data quality assessment of all data. However, the predefined issues, e.g., requirements for data quality to be determined in PEFCRs, could also increase the comparability and lower the costs of the PEF study, since these need not be determined separately for each study. Additionally, the reliability maybe increased due to the data quality assessment of all data. Currently, in the PEFs 3-year pilot phase, both advantages and disadvantages exist as regards reliability, costs, and comparability. Since PEF aims are important, the Commission and PEFCR developers should devote time to finding the most appropriate methodological choices and continue developing the method further. It is important to find a balance between comparability, reliability, and costs. Additionally, the current issues and characteristics of EU green products market should be taken into account when implementing PEF.