Comparing product category rules from different programs: learned outcomes towards global alignment

PURPOSE: Product category rules (PCRs) provide category-specific guidance for estimating and reporting product life cycle environmental impacts, typically in the form of environmental product declarations and product carbon footprints. Lack of global harmonization between PCRs or sector guidance doc...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The international journal of life cycle assessment 2012-08, Vol.17 (7), p.892-903
Hauptverfasser: Subramanian, Vairavan, Ingwersen, Wesley, Hensler, Connie, Collie, Heather
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 903
container_issue 7
container_start_page 892
container_title The international journal of life cycle assessment
container_volume 17
creator Subramanian, Vairavan
Ingwersen, Wesley
Hensler, Connie
Collie, Heather
description PURPOSE: Product category rules (PCRs) provide category-specific guidance for estimating and reporting product life cycle environmental impacts, typically in the form of environmental product declarations and product carbon footprints. Lack of global harmonization between PCRs or sector guidance documents has led to the development of duplicate PCRs for the same products. Differences in the general requirements (e.g., product category definition, reporting format) and LCA methodology (e.g., system boundaries, inventory analysis, allocation rules, etc.) diminish the comparability of product claims. METHODS: A comparison template was developed to compare PCRs from different global program operators. The goal was to identify the differences between duplicate PCRs from a broad selection of product categories and propose a path toward alignment. We looked at five different product categories: milk/dairy (two PCRs), horticultural products (three PCRs), wood–particleboard (two PCRs), and laundry detergents (four PCRs). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Disparity between PCRs ranged from broad differences in scope, system boundaries, and impacts addressed (e.g., multi-impact vs. carbon footprint only) to specific differences of technical elements. The differences primarily reflected the different purposes of the PCR (e.g., label/report), the different standards they were based on (e.g., ISO 14025/PAS 2050), the use of different product categorization systems, or simply the result of being developed independently. Differing degrees of specificity and terminology between PCRs allowed for varied interpretation—at times making direct comparison difficult. For many of the differences between PCRs, however, there was no clear rationale why they could not be consistent in the future. CONCLUSIONS: These results were used to outline a general guidance document for global alignment of PCRs which recommends (1) alignment of PCRs for different purposes, (2) provision of guidance for the adoption of aspects of other PCRs, and (3) provision of greater specificity on content. The overall recommendations also suggest collaboration among program operators to facilitate alignment on issues that evolve from independent development.
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s11367-012-0419-6
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1027029639</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2715719581</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c340t-bd8d9a6c7ccbd5cce6362d408f4d040e995918d61963714b124951b3c7c294333</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kE1L7TAQQIMoeP34Aa4MuK7OJGnavJ1c_ALBhboOaZKWStvcl7SI_95c6sKNq9mcMzMcQi4QrhGgukmIXFYFICtAoCrkAdmgRFFUJbBDsgEl6oJzoY7JSUofAAxBlRtit2HcmdhPHd3F4BY7U2tm34X4ReMy-ETbGEbq-rb10U_znuqiGdM_OngTJ-9oWGYbxkzO4dNEl2g3hMYM1Ax9N43ZOSNHrRmSP_-Zp-T9_u5t-1g8vzw8bW-fC8sFzEXjaqeMtJW1jSut9ZJL5gTUrXAgwCtVKqydRCV5haJBJlSJDc8CU4Jzfkqu1r35x_-LT7P-CEuc8kmNwCpgWVSZwpWyMaQUfat3sR9N_MqQ3rfUa0udW-p9Sy2zw1Yn7fapfPy9-W_pcpVaE7TpYp_0-ysDFABYc8ZL_g241oDy</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1027029639</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparing product category rules from different programs: learned outcomes towards global alignment</title><source>Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals</source><creator>Subramanian, Vairavan ; Ingwersen, Wesley ; Hensler, Connie ; Collie, Heather</creator><creatorcontrib>Subramanian, Vairavan ; Ingwersen, Wesley ; Hensler, Connie ; Collie, Heather</creatorcontrib><description>PURPOSE: Product category rules (PCRs) provide category-specific guidance for estimating and reporting product life cycle environmental impacts, typically in the form of environmental product declarations and product carbon footprints. Lack of global harmonization between PCRs or sector guidance documents has led to the development of duplicate PCRs for the same products. Differences in the general requirements (e.g., product category definition, reporting format) and LCA methodology (e.g., system boundaries, inventory analysis, allocation rules, etc.) diminish the comparability of product claims. METHODS: A comparison template was developed to compare PCRs from different global program operators. The goal was to identify the differences between duplicate PCRs from a broad selection of product categories and propose a path toward alignment. We looked at five different product categories: milk/dairy (two PCRs), horticultural products (three PCRs), wood–particleboard (two PCRs), and laundry detergents (four PCRs). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Disparity between PCRs ranged from broad differences in scope, system boundaries, and impacts addressed (e.g., multi-impact vs. carbon footprint only) to specific differences of technical elements. The differences primarily reflected the different purposes of the PCR (e.g., label/report), the different standards they were based on (e.g., ISO 14025/PAS 2050), the use of different product categorization systems, or simply the result of being developed independently. Differing degrees of specificity and terminology between PCRs allowed for varied interpretation—at times making direct comparison difficult. For many of the differences between PCRs, however, there was no clear rationale why they could not be consistent in the future. CONCLUSIONS: These results were used to outline a general guidance document for global alignment of PCRs which recommends (1) alignment of PCRs for different purposes, (2) provision of guidance for the adoption of aspects of other PCRs, and (3) provision of greater specificity on content. The overall recommendations also suggest collaboration among program operators to facilitate alignment on issues that evolve from independent development.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0948-3349</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1614-7502</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s11367-012-0419-6</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag</publisher><subject>Boundaries ; Carbon cycle ; Carbon dioxide ; Carbon footprint ; Detergents ; Earth and Environmental Science ; Environment ; Environmental Chemistry ; Environmental Economics ; Environmental Engineering/Biotechnology ; Environmental impact ; environmental product declaration ; Greenhouse gases ; horticulture ; inventories ; ISO standards ; Laundry ; life cycle assessment ; milk ; product life cycle ; Product lifecycle management ; Sustainable Development ; terminology</subject><ispartof>The international journal of life cycle assessment, 2012-08, Vol.17 (7), p.892-903</ispartof><rights>Springer-Verlag 2012</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c340t-bd8d9a6c7ccbd5cce6362d408f4d040e995918d61963714b124951b3c7c294333</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c340t-bd8d9a6c7ccbd5cce6362d408f4d040e995918d61963714b124951b3c7c294333</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11367-012-0419-6$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11367-012-0419-6$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,778,782,27907,27908,41471,42540,51302</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Subramanian, Vairavan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ingwersen, Wesley</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hensler, Connie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Collie, Heather</creatorcontrib><title>Comparing product category rules from different programs: learned outcomes towards global alignment</title><title>The international journal of life cycle assessment</title><addtitle>Int J Life Cycle Assess</addtitle><description>PURPOSE: Product category rules (PCRs) provide category-specific guidance for estimating and reporting product life cycle environmental impacts, typically in the form of environmental product declarations and product carbon footprints. Lack of global harmonization between PCRs or sector guidance documents has led to the development of duplicate PCRs for the same products. Differences in the general requirements (e.g., product category definition, reporting format) and LCA methodology (e.g., system boundaries, inventory analysis, allocation rules, etc.) diminish the comparability of product claims. METHODS: A comparison template was developed to compare PCRs from different global program operators. The goal was to identify the differences between duplicate PCRs from a broad selection of product categories and propose a path toward alignment. We looked at five different product categories: milk/dairy (two PCRs), horticultural products (three PCRs), wood–particleboard (two PCRs), and laundry detergents (four PCRs). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Disparity between PCRs ranged from broad differences in scope, system boundaries, and impacts addressed (e.g., multi-impact vs. carbon footprint only) to specific differences of technical elements. The differences primarily reflected the different purposes of the PCR (e.g., label/report), the different standards they were based on (e.g., ISO 14025/PAS 2050), the use of different product categorization systems, or simply the result of being developed independently. Differing degrees of specificity and terminology between PCRs allowed for varied interpretation—at times making direct comparison difficult. For many of the differences between PCRs, however, there was no clear rationale why they could not be consistent in the future. CONCLUSIONS: These results were used to outline a general guidance document for global alignment of PCRs which recommends (1) alignment of PCRs for different purposes, (2) provision of guidance for the adoption of aspects of other PCRs, and (3) provision of greater specificity on content. The overall recommendations also suggest collaboration among program operators to facilitate alignment on issues that evolve from independent development.</description><subject>Boundaries</subject><subject>Carbon cycle</subject><subject>Carbon dioxide</subject><subject>Carbon footprint</subject><subject>Detergents</subject><subject>Earth and Environmental Science</subject><subject>Environment</subject><subject>Environmental Chemistry</subject><subject>Environmental Economics</subject><subject>Environmental Engineering/Biotechnology</subject><subject>Environmental impact</subject><subject>environmental product declaration</subject><subject>Greenhouse gases</subject><subject>horticulture</subject><subject>inventories</subject><subject>ISO standards</subject><subject>Laundry</subject><subject>life cycle assessment</subject><subject>milk</subject><subject>product life cycle</subject><subject>Product lifecycle management</subject><subject>Sustainable Development</subject><subject>terminology</subject><issn>0948-3349</issn><issn>1614-7502</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2012</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kE1L7TAQQIMoeP34Aa4MuK7OJGnavJ1c_ALBhboOaZKWStvcl7SI_95c6sKNq9mcMzMcQi4QrhGgukmIXFYFICtAoCrkAdmgRFFUJbBDsgEl6oJzoY7JSUofAAxBlRtit2HcmdhPHd3F4BY7U2tm34X4ReMy-ETbGEbq-rb10U_znuqiGdM_OngTJ-9oWGYbxkzO4dNEl2g3hMYM1Ax9N43ZOSNHrRmSP_-Zp-T9_u5t-1g8vzw8bW-fC8sFzEXjaqeMtJW1jSut9ZJL5gTUrXAgwCtVKqydRCV5haJBJlSJDc8CU4Jzfkqu1r35x_-LT7P-CEuc8kmNwCpgWVSZwpWyMaQUfat3sR9N_MqQ3rfUa0udW-p9Sy2zw1Yn7fapfPy9-W_pcpVaE7TpYp_0-ysDFABYc8ZL_g241oDy</recordid><startdate>20120801</startdate><enddate>20120801</enddate><creator>Subramanian, Vairavan</creator><creator>Ingwersen, Wesley</creator><creator>Hensler, Connie</creator><creator>Collie, Heather</creator><general>Springer-Verlag</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>FBQ</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7TB</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>F28</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>KR7</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>SOI</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20120801</creationdate><title>Comparing product category rules from different programs: learned outcomes towards global alignment</title><author>Subramanian, Vairavan ; Ingwersen, Wesley ; Hensler, Connie ; Collie, Heather</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c340t-bd8d9a6c7ccbd5cce6362d408f4d040e995918d61963714b124951b3c7c294333</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2012</creationdate><topic>Boundaries</topic><topic>Carbon cycle</topic><topic>Carbon dioxide</topic><topic>Carbon footprint</topic><topic>Detergents</topic><topic>Earth and Environmental Science</topic><topic>Environment</topic><topic>Environmental Chemistry</topic><topic>Environmental Economics</topic><topic>Environmental Engineering/Biotechnology</topic><topic>Environmental impact</topic><topic>environmental product declaration</topic><topic>Greenhouse gases</topic><topic>horticulture</topic><topic>inventories</topic><topic>ISO standards</topic><topic>Laundry</topic><topic>life cycle assessment</topic><topic>milk</topic><topic>product life cycle</topic><topic>Product lifecycle management</topic><topic>Sustainable Development</topic><topic>terminology</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Subramanian, Vairavan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ingwersen, Wesley</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hensler, Connie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Collie, Heather</creatorcontrib><collection>AGRIS</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Mechanical &amp; Transportation Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science &amp; Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Agricultural &amp; Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection (ProQuest)</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection (ProQuest)</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>ANTE: Abstracts in New Technology &amp; Engineering</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Science Database (ProQuest)</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><jtitle>The international journal of life cycle assessment</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Subramanian, Vairavan</au><au>Ingwersen, Wesley</au><au>Hensler, Connie</au><au>Collie, Heather</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparing product category rules from different programs: learned outcomes towards global alignment</atitle><jtitle>The international journal of life cycle assessment</jtitle><stitle>Int J Life Cycle Assess</stitle><date>2012-08-01</date><risdate>2012</risdate><volume>17</volume><issue>7</issue><spage>892</spage><epage>903</epage><pages>892-903</pages><issn>0948-3349</issn><eissn>1614-7502</eissn><abstract>PURPOSE: Product category rules (PCRs) provide category-specific guidance for estimating and reporting product life cycle environmental impacts, typically in the form of environmental product declarations and product carbon footprints. Lack of global harmonization between PCRs or sector guidance documents has led to the development of duplicate PCRs for the same products. Differences in the general requirements (e.g., product category definition, reporting format) and LCA methodology (e.g., system boundaries, inventory analysis, allocation rules, etc.) diminish the comparability of product claims. METHODS: A comparison template was developed to compare PCRs from different global program operators. The goal was to identify the differences between duplicate PCRs from a broad selection of product categories and propose a path toward alignment. We looked at five different product categories: milk/dairy (two PCRs), horticultural products (three PCRs), wood–particleboard (two PCRs), and laundry detergents (four PCRs). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Disparity between PCRs ranged from broad differences in scope, system boundaries, and impacts addressed (e.g., multi-impact vs. carbon footprint only) to specific differences of technical elements. The differences primarily reflected the different purposes of the PCR (e.g., label/report), the different standards they were based on (e.g., ISO 14025/PAS 2050), the use of different product categorization systems, or simply the result of being developed independently. Differing degrees of specificity and terminology between PCRs allowed for varied interpretation—at times making direct comparison difficult. For many of the differences between PCRs, however, there was no clear rationale why they could not be consistent in the future. CONCLUSIONS: These results were used to outline a general guidance document for global alignment of PCRs which recommends (1) alignment of PCRs for different purposes, (2) provision of guidance for the adoption of aspects of other PCRs, and (3) provision of greater specificity on content. The overall recommendations also suggest collaboration among program operators to facilitate alignment on issues that evolve from independent development.</abstract><cop>Berlin/Heidelberg</cop><pub>Springer-Verlag</pub><doi>10.1007/s11367-012-0419-6</doi><tpages>12</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0948-3349
ispartof The international journal of life cycle assessment, 2012-08, Vol.17 (7), p.892-903
issn 0948-3349
1614-7502
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_1027029639
source Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals
subjects Boundaries
Carbon cycle
Carbon dioxide
Carbon footprint
Detergents
Earth and Environmental Science
Environment
Environmental Chemistry
Environmental Economics
Environmental Engineering/Biotechnology
Environmental impact
environmental product declaration
Greenhouse gases
horticulture
inventories
ISO standards
Laundry
life cycle assessment
milk
product life cycle
Product lifecycle management
Sustainable Development
terminology
title Comparing product category rules from different programs: learned outcomes towards global alignment
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-16T12%3A30%3A04IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparing%20product%20category%20rules%20from%20different%20programs:%20learned%20outcomes%20towards%20global%20alignment&rft.jtitle=The%20international%20journal%20of%20life%20cycle%20assessment&rft.au=Subramanian,%20Vairavan&rft.date=2012-08-01&rft.volume=17&rft.issue=7&rft.spage=892&rft.epage=903&rft.pages=892-903&rft.issn=0948-3349&rft.eissn=1614-7502&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s11367-012-0419-6&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2715719581%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1027029639&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true