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

Vanessa Bach, Annekatrin Lehmann, Marcel Görmer and Matthias Finkbeiner
Additional contact information
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

Sustainability, 2018, vol. 10, issue 8, 1-18

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.

Keywords: product environmental footprint; PEF; pilot phase; LCA; ISO 14044; ISO 14040; comparability; comparative assertions (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: O13 Q Q0 Q2 Q3 Q5 Q56 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2018
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (5)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/8/2898/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/8/2898/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:8:p:2898-:d:163913

Access Statistics for this article

Sustainability is currently edited by Ms. Alexandra Wu

More articles in Sustainability from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().