Benchmarking and additional environmental information in ... - ANEC

communicating environmental information. Furthermore, the simple information
is readily used to compare the impacts of two or more products.
The results can easily be presented in more detail with respect to where in the
life cycle the impacts arise, e.g. by using stacked bar diagrams.
Option 2. This option has been “invented” by 2.-0 Consultants, using the same
basic approach as in the EIPRO project (Tukker et al., 2005). A main – but
somewhat controversial – element is that by including the price/cost of the
product, buying a cheaper alternative with the same environmental impacts as a
more expensive one will show to be more demanding on the environment,
simply because the saved money will be used for “average consumption”: It is
acknowledged that the approach is a possible way of reflecting the ultimate
consequences of a purchasing decision, but explaining it to common consumers
is judged to be difficult, and it is probably even more difficult to gain their
acceptance. As illustrated by the example in Box 1 and discussed below, the
most serious concern is however that the approach in practice may lead to
purchasing decisions which are not in favour of the environment.
The main argument of 2.-0 Consultants against using the approach is that for
many product groups it will not be possible to distinguish between two products.
This is true - unless a very detailed scale is applied – which leads to the
question whether such information should be presented to consumers at all, if
their choice of one product or the other does not affect the environment to any
significant extent.
Option 3). The approach in Option 3) makes further use of the database
developed through EIO, comparing the impacts per Euro spent on a specific
product to the impacts per Euro spent on the average product within the same
product group. The results of this approach are also examplified in Box 1 and
discussed below.
The EIO-results can fairly easily be manipulated in order to produce somewhat
crude results for an average product, whereas it is much more demanding to
produce the information if a bottom-up approach is used, as it is done in the
MEEUP-studies (Kemna et al. (2005)). The use of EIO-data is therefore a
crucial element in using Option 3), unless large resources are devoted to
produce the same results for the broad range of product groups relevant to
common consumers. It is remarked, that this also applies to Option 2), although
not necessarily to the same extent.
Suggestion from 2.-0 Consultants. The suggestion of 2.-0 Consultants is to use
Options 2) and 3) above to produce graphical information which is additional to
the conventional presentation of LCA-results in EPD’s. Whether this way of
presenting environmental information can be comprehended by common
consumers is most probably a question of education, as is also the case for
presentation of conventional results. More serious is, however, the risk that
“wrong” decisions can be taken when the price/cost of the product is used for
normalisation.
38