Requirements on Consumer Information about Product ... - ANEC
Requirements on Consumer Information about Product ... - ANEC
Requirements on Consumer Information about Product ... - ANEC
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
C<strong>on</strong>sumer Informati<strong>on</strong> <strong>about</strong> PCF<br />
• Criteria are chosen by the companies themselves and are not necessarily agreed up<strong>on</strong><br />
<strong>on</strong> a broader level (e.g. industry associati<strong>on</strong>s). A broad stakeholder involvement is not<br />
necessary.<br />
• A third party certificati<strong>on</strong> does not take place. The credibility of the labels is therefore<br />
restricted.<br />
Carb<strong>on</strong> footprints or CO2e emissi<strong>on</strong>s increasingly play a role in type II labels including the<br />
aspect of CO2e compensati<strong>on</strong>. The above described Casino Carb<strong>on</strong> Index is <strong>on</strong>e example of<br />
such a label. There is a proliferati<strong>on</strong> of such labels that make it c<strong>on</strong>fusing for c<strong>on</strong>sumers to<br />
try to integrate climate reducti<strong>on</strong> in their purchasing decisi<strong>on</strong>. At large, the variety of labels<br />
bears the risk that c<strong>on</strong>sumers lose c<strong>on</strong>fidence, mix up their purchase decisi<strong>on</strong>s or even loose<br />
interest in c<strong>on</strong>sidering climate impact in their purchase decisi<strong>on</strong>s at all.<br />
It may be generally c<strong>on</strong>cluded that for type II labels<br />
• it is problematic that companies can pick <strong>on</strong>e specific aspect – in this case CO2e<br />
emissi<strong>on</strong>s / the climate change issue – which is then addressed by the label.<br />
C<strong>on</strong>cerning other envir<strong>on</strong>mental impacts, the performance of that specific product may<br />
be significantly worse or the focus <strong>on</strong> CO2e emissi<strong>on</strong> may actually be counterproductive.<br />
It even may not be the most relevant envir<strong>on</strong>mental impact of the product in<br />
questi<strong>on</strong> at all;<br />
• there is, besides that, no democratic stakeholder involvement foreseen.<br />
Type III Envir<strong>on</strong>mental <strong>Product</strong> Declarati<strong>on</strong>s (ISO 14025)<br />
• EPDs base <strong>on</strong> the methodology of Life Cycle Assessment (ISO 14040) and give informati<strong>on</strong><br />
<strong>on</strong> the envir<strong>on</strong>mental impacts of a product over its whole life cycle together with<br />
technical informati<strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong> the product. C<strong>on</strong>cerning the restricti<strong>on</strong>s of this approach see<br />
Prakash et al. (2008) and chapter 5.1 of this study.<br />
• The covered impacts include the classical impact categories of LCA supplemented by<br />
additi<strong>on</strong>al informati<strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong> specific aspects of the particular product (e.g. radioactive<br />
radiati<strong>on</strong>, leaching behaviour etc.).<br />
• This complex set of informati<strong>on</strong> is given preferably to professi<strong>on</strong>al customers (B2B),<br />
communicati<strong>on</strong> to c<strong>on</strong>sumers is not yet very relevant.<br />
• The definiti<strong>on</strong> of <strong>Product</strong> Category Rules, which is necessary before generating an<br />
EPD includes stakeholder involvement.<br />
• Third party certificati<strong>on</strong> is obligatory if communicati<strong>on</strong> (B2C) is intended.<br />
The informati<strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong> CO2e emissi<strong>on</strong>s is included in an EPD as standard category am<strong>on</strong>g<br />
other impact categories and parameters. As the development of ISO standards for the<br />
quantificati<strong>on</strong> of PCF is still <strong>on</strong>going, it is unclear whether the greenhouse gas emissi<strong>on</strong>s<br />
calculated in a “traditi<strong>on</strong>al” EPD directly corresp<strong>on</strong>d to a specific PCF value calculated<br />
30