IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v10y2018i8p2898-d163913.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) Pilot Phase—Comparability over Flexibility?

Author

Listed:
  • Vanessa Bach

    (Chair of Sustainable Engineering, Institute of Environmental Technology, Technische Universität Berlin, Strasse des 17. Juni 135, 10623 Berlin, Germany)

  • Annekatrin Lehmann

    (Chair of Sustainable Engineering, Institute of Environmental Technology, Technische Universität Berlin, Strasse des 17. Juni 135, 10623 Berlin, Germany)

  • Marcel Görmer

    (Chair of Sustainable Engineering, Institute of Environmental Technology, Technische Universität Berlin, Strasse des 17. Juni 135, 10623 Berlin, Germany)

  • Matthias Finkbeiner

    (Chair of Sustainable Engineering, Institute of Environmental Technology, Technische Universität Berlin, Strasse des 17. Juni 135, 10623 Berlin, Germany)

Abstract

The main goal of the European product environmental footprint (PEF) method is to increase comparability of environmental impacts of products within certain product categories by decreasing flexibility and therefore achieving reproducibility of results. Comparability is supposed to be further increased by developing product category specific rules (PEFCRs). The aim of this paper is to evaluate if the main goal of the PEF method has been achieved. This is done by a comprehensive analysis of the PEF guide, the current PEFCR guide, the developed PEFCRs, as well as the insights gained from participating in the pilot phase. The analysis reveals that the PEF method as well as its implementation in PEFCRs are not able to guarantee fair comparability due to shortcomings related to the (1) definition of product performance; (2) definition of the product category; (3) definition and determination of the representative product; (4) modeling of electricity; (5) requirements for the use of secondary data; (6) circular footprint formula; (7) life cycle impact assessment methods; and (8) approach to prioritize impact categories. For some of these shortcomings, recommendations for improvement are provided. This paper demonstrates that the PEF method has to be further improved to guarantee fair comparability.

Suggested Citation

  • Vanessa Bach & Annekatrin Lehmann & Marcel Görmer & Matthias Finkbeiner, 2018. "Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) Pilot Phase—Comparability over Flexibility?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-18, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:8:p:2898-:d:163913
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/8/2898/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/8/2898/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Annekatrin Lehmann & Vanessa Bach & Matthias Finkbeiner, 2016. "EU Product Environmental Footprint—Mid-Term Review of the Pilot Phase," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-13, January.
    2. Genovese, Andrea & Acquaye, Adolf A. & Figueroa, Alejandro & Koh, S.C. Lenny, 2017. "Sustainable supply chain management and the transition towards a circular economy: Evidence and some applications," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 66(PB), pages 344-357.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Willem Haanstra & Willem-Jan Rensink & Alberto Martinetti & Jan Braaksma & Leo van Dongen, 2020. "Design for Sustainable Public Transportation: LCA-Based Tooling for Guiding Early Design Priorities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-17, November.
    2. Roel J. K. Helmes & Pietro Goglio & Silvia Salomoni & Daan S. van Es & Iris Vural Gursel & Lusine Aramyan, 2022. "Environmental Impacts of End-of-Life Options of Biobased and Fossil-Based Polyethylene Terephthalate and High-Density Polyethylene Packaging," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-16, September.
    3. Katarzyna Joachimiak-Lechman & Dawid Garstecki & Marcin Konopczyński & Anna Lewandowska, 2020. "Implementation of Life Cycle Based Tools in the Circular Economy Context—Case Study of Plastic Waste," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-15, November.
    4. Vassilis Litskas & Athanasia Mandoulaki & Ioannis N. Vogiatzakis & Nikolaos Tzortzakis & Menelaos Stavrinides, 2020. "Sustainable Viticulture: First Determination of the Environmental Footprint of Grapes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-18, October.
    5. Golinucci, Nicolò & Tonini, Francesco & Rocco, Matteo Vincenzo & Colombo, Emanuela, 2023. "Towards BitCO2, an individual consumption-based carbon emission reduction mechanism," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 183(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. German Arana‐Landin & Waleska Sigüenza & Beñat Landeta‐Manzano & Iker Laskurain‐Iturbe, 2024. "Circular economy: On the road to ISO 59000 family of standards," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(3), pages 1977-2009, May.
    2. Prosman, Ernst Johannes & Cagliano, Raffaella, 2022. "A contingency perspective on manufacturing configurations for the circular economy: Insights from successful start-ups," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 249(C).
    3. Jacopo Zotti & Andrea Bigano, 2019. "Write circular economy, read economy’s circularity. How to avoid going in circles," Economia Politica: Journal of Analytical and Institutional Economics, Springer;Fondazione Edison, vol. 36(2), pages 629-652, July.
    4. Inês A. Ferreira & Radu Godina & Helena Carvalho, 2020. "Waste Valorization through Additive Manufacturing in an Industrial Symbiosis Setting," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-21, December.
    5. Patricia van Loon & Luk N. Van Wassenhove & Ales Mihelic, 2022. "Designing a circular business strategy: 7 years of evolution at a large washing machine manufacturer," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(3), pages 1030-1041, March.
    6. Hongtao Ren & Wenji Zhou & Marek Makowski & Hongbin Yan & Yadong Yu & Tieju Ma, 2021. "Incorporation of life cycle emissions and carbon price uncertainty into the supply chain network management of PVC production," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 300(2), pages 601-620, May.
    7. Claudia Aparecida De Mattos & Thiago Lourenço Meira De Albuquerque, 2018. "Enabling Factors and Strategies for the Transition Toward a Circular Economy (CE)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-18, December.
    8. Davies, Jennifer & Sharifi, Hossein & Lyons, Andrew & Forster, Rick & Elsayed, Omar Khaled Shokry Mohamed, 2024. "Non-fungible tokens: The missing ingredient for sustainable supply chains in the metaverse age?," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    9. L. Rocchi & L. Paolotti & C. Cortina & F. F. Fagioli & A. Boggia, 2021. "Measuring circularity: an application of modified Material Circularity Indicator to agricultural systems," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 9(1), pages 1-13, December.
    10. Arnita Rishanty & Maxensius Tri Sambodo & Mesnan Silalahi & Erliza Hambali, 2021. "Zero-Waste Bioenergy To Lower Energy Transition Risks In Indonesia," Working Papers WP/17/2021, Bank Indonesia.
    11. Gil Lamata, Mercedes & Latorre Martínez, María Pilar, 2022. "The Circular Economy and Sustainability: A Systematic Literature Review," Cuadernos de Gestión, Universidad del País Vasco - Instituto de Economía Aplicada a la Empresa (IEAE).
    12. Gunasekara, Lahiru & Robb, David J. & Zhang, Abraham, 2023. "Used product acquisition, sorting and disposition for circular supply chains: Literature review and research directions," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 260(C).
    13. Graziela Darla Araujo Galvão & Steve Evans & Paulo Sergio Scoleze Ferrer & Marly Monteiro de Carvalho, 2022. "Circular business model: Breaking down barriers towards sustainable development," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(4), pages 1504-1524, May.
    14. Bressanelli, Gianmarco & Visintin, Filippo & Saccani, Nicola, 2022. "Circular Economy and the evolution of industrial districts: a supply chain perspective," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 243(C).
    15. Saeedeh Anvari & Metin Turkay, 2017. "The facility location problem from the perspective of triple bottom line accounting of sustainability," International Journal of Production Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 55(21), pages 6266-6287, November.
    16. Mariana Oliveira & Mécia Miguel & Sven Kevin Langen & Amos Ncube & Amalia Zucaro & Gabriella Fiorentino & Renato Passaro & Remo Santagata & Nick Coleman & Benjamin H. Lowe & Sergio Ulgiati & Andrea Ge, 2021. "Circular Economy and the Transition to a Sustainable Society: Integrated Assessment Methods for a New Paradigm," Circular Economy and Sustainability, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 99-113, June.
    17. Fredrick Betuel Sawe & Anil Kumar & Jose Arturo Garza‐Reyes & Rohit Agrawal, 2021. "Assessing people‐driven factors for circular economy practices in small and medium‐sized enterprise supply chains: Business strategies and environmental perspectives," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(7), pages 2951-2965, November.
    18. Suzanne, Elodie & Absi, Nabil & Borodin, Valeria, 2020. "Towards circular economy in production planning: Challenges and opportunities," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 287(1), pages 168-190.
    19. Claudio Siminelli, 2017. "Consumer behaviours and attitudes towards a circular economy: Knowledge and culture as determinants in a four-market analysis," ECONOMICS AND POLICY OF ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2017(1-2), pages 135-169.
    20. Dennis Vegter & Jos van Hillegersberg & Matthias Olthaar, 2021. "Performance Measurement Systems for Circular Supply Chain Management: Current State of Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-18, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:8:p:2898-:d:163913. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.