First Draft Product
Environmental Footprint
Category Rules (PEFCR)
On behalf of Sustainable Apparel Coalition
1
Table of Contents
Glossary and Terminology ......................................................................................................... 4
1.
2.
General Information about the PEFCR .............................................................................. 8
1.1.
Technical Secretariat .................................................................................................. 8
1.2.
Consultation and stakeholders ................................................................................... 9
1.3.
Date of publication and expiration .............................................................................. 9
1.4.
Geographic region ....................................................................................................... 9
1.5.
Language of the PEFCR ........................................................................................... 10
Methodological inputs and compliance ............................................................................ 11
2.1.
3.
4.
5.
Normative references ................................................................................................ 11
PEFCR Review and Background Information .................................................................. 12
3.1.
PEFCR Review Panel ............................................................................................... 12
3.2.
Review requirements for the PEFCR document ...................................................... 12
3.3.
Reasoning for development of PEFCR .................................................................... 12
3.4.
Conformance with the PEFCR Guidance ................................................................. 13
PEFCR Scope .................................................................................................................. 14
4.1.
Unit of analysis .......................................................................................................... 14
4.2.
Representative products ........................................................................................... 14
4.3.
Product classification (NACE/CPA) .......................................................................... 15
4.4.
System boundaries – life cycle stages and processes ............................................. 15
4.5.
Selection of the EF impact categories ...................................................................... 17
4.6.
Additional environmental information........................................................................ 19
4.7.
Assumptions/limitations............................................................................................. 20
Resource Use and Emission Profile................................................................................. 21
5.1.
Screening Step .......................................................................................................... 21
5.2.
Data quality requirements ......................................................................................... 21
5.2.1.
Hot Spot identification ........................................................................................ 21
5.3.
Requirements regarding foreground specific data collection ................................... 38
5.4.
Requirements regarding background generic data .................................................. 39
5.5.
Data gaps .................................................................................................................. 42
5.6.
Use stage .................................................................................................................. 42
5.7.
Logistics..................................................................................................................... 42
5.8.
End-of-Life stage ....................................................................................................... 42
5.9.
Requirements for multifunctional products and processes allocation ...................... 43
2
6.
Benchmark and Classes of Environmental Performance ................................................ 44
6.1.
Benchmarking ........................................................................................................... 44
6.2.
Normalization and Weighting .................................................................................... 45
7.
Interpretation..................................................................................................................... 50
8.
Reporting, Disclosure and Communication...................................................................... 52
8.1.
PEF external communication report ......................................................................... 52
8.1.1.
First element: Summary..................................................................................... 52
8.1.2.
Second element: Main Report ........................................................................... 52
8.1.3.
Third element: Annex ......................................................................................... 54
8.1.4.
Fourth element: Confidential Annex .................................................................. 55
8.2.
PEF performance tracking report .............................................................................. 55
8.3.
PEF declaration ......................................................................................................... 55
8.4.
PEF label ................................................................................................................... 56
9.
Verification ........................................................................................................................ 61
10.
Reference Literature ..................................................................................................... 62
11.
Supporting Information for the PEFCR......................................................................... 65
12.
List of Annexes ............................................................................................................. 66
12.1.
Annex I – Representative product and existing footwear standards .................... 66
12.2.
Annex II – Bill of Material ....................................................................................... 70
12.3.
Annex III – Supporting studies .............................................................................. 72
12.4.
Annex IV – Benchmark and classes of environmental performance.................... 72
12.5.
Annex V – Upstream scenarios (optional) ............................................................ 73
12.6.
Annex VI – Downstream scenarios (optional) ....................................................... 73
12.7.
Annex VII– Normalisation factors .......................................................................... 73
12.8.
Annex VIII – Weighting factors .............................................................................. 74
12.9.
Annex IX – Foreground data ................................................................................. 74
12.9.1.
12.10.
Raw Materials and Processes – Foreground Data........................................ 75
Annex X – Background data.................................................................................. 75
12.10.1.
Fuels and Energy – Background Data ........................................................... 75
12.10.2.
Raw Materials and Processes – Background Data ....................................... 76
12.11.
Annex XI - Methodology and Example for Durability Testing ............................... 79
12.12.
Annex XII - PCR references .................................................................................. 81
3
Glossary and Terminology
The following terms and definitions apply for this document.
Additional Environmental Information – Environmental footprint impact categories and
other environmental indicators that are calculated and communicated alongside PEF results.
[PEF Guide]
Allocation – An approach to solving multi-functionality problems. It refers to partitioning the
input or output flows of a process, a product system or a facility between the system under
study and one or more other systems” (based on ISO 14040:2006).
Average Data – Refers to a production-weighted average of specific data.
Background Process – Refers to those processes of the product supply chain for which no
direct access to information is possible. For example, most of the upstream supply-chain
processes and generally all processes further downstream will be considered to be
background processes.
Business-to-Business (B2B) – Describes transactions between businesses, such as
between a manufacturer and a wholesaler, or between a wholesaler and a retailer.
Business-to-Consumers (B2C) – Describes transactions between businesses and
consumers, such as between retailers and consumers. According to ISO 14025:2006, a
consumer is defined as “an individual member of the general public purchasing or using goods,
property or services for private purposes”.
Characterisation – Calculation of the magnitude of the contribution of each classified
input/output to their respective EF impact categories, and aggregation of contributions within
each category. This requires a linear multiplication of the inventory data with characterisation
factors for each substance and EF impact category of concern. For example, with respect to
the EF impact category “climate change”, CO2 is chosen as the reference substance and
tonne CO2 -equivalents as the reference unit.
Characterisation factor – Factor derived from a characterisation model which is applied to
convert an assigned Resource Use and Emissions Profile result to the common unit of the EF
category indicator (based on ISO 14040:2006)
Classification – Assigning the material/energy inputs and outputs inventoried in the
Resource and Emissions Profile to EF impact categories according to each substance’s
potential to contribute to each of the EF impact categories considered.
Closed loop & open loop – A closed-loop allocation procedure applies to closed-loop product
systems. It also applies to open-loop product systems where no changes occur in the inherent
properties of the recycled material. In such cases, the need for allocation is avoided since the
use of secondary material displaces the use of virgin (primary) materials. An open-loop
allocation procedure applies to open-loop product systems where the material is recycled into
other product systems and the material undergoes a change to its inherent properties.
4
Cradle to grave – Addresses the environmental aspects and potential environmental impacts
(e.g. use of resources and environmental consequences of releases) throughout a product's
life cycle from raw material acquisition until the end of life.
Cradle to gate – Addresses the environmental aspects and potential environmental impacts
(e.g. use of resources and environmental consequences of releases) throughout a product's
life cycle from raw material acquisition until the end of the production process (“gate of the
factory”). It may also include transportation until use phase.
Environmental Footprint (EF) impact assessment – Phase of the EF analysis aimed at
understanding and evaluating the magnitude and significance of the potential environmental
impacts for a system throughout the life cycle (ISO 14044:2006). The EF impact assessment
methods provide impact characterisation factors for elementary flows in order to aggregate
the impact to obtain a limited number of midpoint and/or damage indicators.
Environmental Footprint (EF) Impact Assessment Method – Protocol for quantitative
translation of Resource Use and Emissions Profile data into contributions to an environmental
impact of concern.
Environmental Footprint (EF) Impact Category – Class of resource use or environmental
impact to which the Resource Use and Emissions Profile data are related.
Environmental Footprint (EF) Impact Category Indicator – Quantifiable representation of
an EF impact category (based on ISO 14044:2006)
Environmental impact – Any change to the environment, whether adverse or beneficial, that
wholly or partially result from an Organisation’s activities or products (EMAS regulation).
Foreground Process – Refers to those processes of the product life cycle for which direct
access to information is available. For example, the producer’s site and other processes
operated by the producer or contractors (e.g. goods transport, head-office services, etc.)
belong to the foreground system.
Functional Unit – quantified performance of a product system for use as a reference unit.
Gate to Gate – a partial product supply chain that includes only the processes within a specific
manufacturer or site.
Generic Data – Refers to data that are not directly collected, measured, or estimated, but
rather sourced from a third-party life cycle inventory database or other source that complies
with the data quality requirements of the PEF Guide; synonymous with “secondary data”.
Intermediate product – Output form a unit process that is input to other unit processes that
require further transformation within the system (ISO 14040:2006).
Life cycle – Consecutive and interlinked stages of a product system, from raw material
acquisition or generation from natural resources to final disposal (based on ISO 14040:2006).
Life cycle assessment (LCA) – Compilation and evaluation of the inputs, outputs and the
potential environmental impacts of a product system throughout its life cycle (based on ISO
14040:2006).
Life-Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) – Phase of life cycle assessment that aims at
understanding and evaluating the magnitude and significance of the potential environmental
impacts for a system throughout the life cycle (based on ISO 14040:2006). The LCIA methods
5
used provide impact characterisation factors for elementary flows in order to aggregate the
impact to obtain a limited number of midpoint and/or damage indicators.
Multi-functionality – If a process or facility provides more than one function, i.e. it delivers
several goods and/or services ("co-products"), it is “multi-functional”. In these situations, all
inputs and emissions linked to the process must be partitioned between the product of interest
and the other co-products in a principled manner. Similarly, where a jointly owned and/or
operated facility produces multiple products, it may be necessary to partition related inputs
and emissions among the products within the defined Product Portfolios of different
organisations. Organisations undertaking an OEF study may therefore have to address multifunctionality problems both at the product and facility level.
Non-elementary (or complex) flows – Remaining inputs and outputs which are not
elementary flows and need further modelling efforts to be transformed into elementary flows.
Examples of non-elementary inputs are electricity, materials, transport processes and
examples of non-elementary outputs are waste and by-products.
Output – Product, material or energy flow that leaves a unit process. Products and materials
include raw materials, intermediate products, co-products and releases (based on ISO
14040:2006).
Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules (PEFCRs) – Product-type-specific, lifecycle-based rules that complement general methodological guidance for PEF studies by
providing further specification at the level of a specific product category. PEFCRs can help to
shift the focus of the PEF study towards those aspects and parameters that matter the most,
and hence contribute to increased relevance, reproducibility and consistency.
Product Category Rules (PCR) – Set of specific rules, requirements and guidelines for
developing Type III environmental declarations for one or more product categories (based on
ISO 14025).
PEF Profile – The quantified results of a PEF study. It includes the quantification of the
impacts for the most relevant impact categories and the additional environmental information
considered necessary to be reported.
Sensitivity analysis – Systematic procedures for estimating the effects of the choices made
regarding methods and data on the outcome of PEF study (based on ISO 14040: 2006).
Soil Organic Matter (SOM) – Is the measure of the content of organic material in soil. This
derives from plants and animals and comprises all of the organic matter in the soil exclusive
of the matter that has not decayed.
Specific Data – Refers to directly measured or collected data representative of activities at a
specific facility or set of facilities; synonymous with “primary data”.
System Boundary – Definition of aspects included or excluded from the study. For example,
for a “cradle-to-grave” environmental footprint analysis, the system boundary should include
all activities from the extraction of raw materials through the processing, manufacturing, use,
repair and maintenance processes as well as transport, waste treatment and end-of- life
processes.
System Boundary diagram – Schematic representation of the analysed system. It details
which parts of the product supply chain are included or excluded from the analysis.
6
Uncertainty analysis – Procedure to assess the uncertainty introduced into the results of a
PEF study due to data variability and choice-related uncertainty.
Unit of analysis – The unit of analysis defines the qualitative and quantitative aspects of the
function(s) and/or service(s) provided by the Organisation being evaluated; the unit of analysis
definition answers the questions “what?”, “how much?”, “how well?”, and “for how long?”.
Unit process – Smallest element considered in the Resource Use and Emissions Profile for
which input and output data are quantified (based on ISO 14040:2006).
Upstream – Occurring along the supply chain of purchased goods/services prior to entering
the manufacturing site for the product.
Waste – Substances or objects which the holder intends or is required to dispose (based on
ISO 14025).
shall, should and may –The term “shall” is used to indicate a requirement. The term “should”
is used to indicate a recommendation rather than a requirement. The term “may” is used to
indicate an option that is permissible.
7
1. General Information about the
PEFCR
This PEFCR provides a structure to ensure that all Product Environmental Footprints (PEF)
for non-leather shoes are derived, verified, and presented in a harmonized way.
Abbreviations:
ADP
AP
BOM
CML
EC
ELCD
EoL
HTNC
GaBi
GWP
ILCD
ISO
LCA
LCI
LCIA
MSI
NMVOC
PEF
PEFCR
PM
POF
RD
TS
VOC
W/W
Abiotic Depletion Potential
Acidification Potential
Bill of Materials
Centre of Environmental Science at Leiden
European Commission
European Life Cycle Database
End-of-Life
Human Toxicity, Non-Cancer
Ganzheitliche Bilanzierung (German for holistic balancing)
Global Warming Potential
International Cycle Data System
International Organization for Standardization
Life Cycle Assessment
Life Cycle Inventory
Life Cycle Impact Assessment
Materials Sustainability Index (provided by SAC)
Non-methane Volatile Organic Compound
Product Environmental Footprint
Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules
Particulate Matter
Photochemical Ozone Formation
Resource Depletion
Technical Secretariat
Volatile Organic Compound
Work / Waterproof
1.1. Technical Secretariat
The members of the technical secretariat (TS) are listed in the following table.
Table 1-1: Members of the Technical Secretariat
Authors
Adam Brundage
Alexis Haass
Company name
Adidas AG
Adidas AG
8
Sandra Brandt
Marie-Amelie Dupraz-Ardiot
Ruth Freiermuth Knuchel
Saskia Sanders
Erik Karlsson
German García Ibáñez
Verónica García López
Annette Herboth
Jeremy Lardeau
Diana Eggers
John Jewell
Claire Bergkamp
Baptiste Carriere-Pradal
Betsy H. Blaisdell
Dai Forterre
Jason Kibbey
Natalia Capelan
Ben Bowers
Kimbrely Matsoukas
Bernhard Kiehl
Stewart Sheppard
Adidas AG
FOEN - Federal Office for the Environment Switzerland
FOEN - Federal Office for the Environment Switzerland
FOEN - Federal Office for the Environment Switzerland
Hennes & Mauritz
Inditex
Inditex
Nike Inc.
Nike Inc.
thinkstep (formerly PE INTERNATIONAL)
thinkstep (formerly PE INTERNATIONAL)
Stella McCartney
Sustainable Apparel Coalition
Sustainable Apparel Coalition
Sustainable Apparel Coalition
Sustainable Apparel Coalition
Valora Consultores representing Inditex
VF Corporation
VF Corporation
W. L. Gore & Associates GmbH
W. L. Gore & Associates GmbH
1.2. Consultation and stakeholders
SAC provided cumulative description of participants and statistical figures related to each
consultation.
This PEFCR was prepared by:
1-1)
members of the Technical Secretariat (Table
Consultation period:
to be completed after consultation
Consultation meetings:
to be completed after consultation
Web page for PEFCR development:
https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/wikis/display/EUENVFP/Stakeholder+workspace:+PEFC
R+pilot+Non-leather+shoes
1.3. Date of publication and expiration
Version number:
Rev. 0.1
Date of publication/revision:
April 22, 2015
Date of expiration:
to be completed after consultation
1.4. Geographic region
The PEFCR document is valid for products sold within the: European Union.
9
1.5. Language of the PEFCR
The PEFCR document is developed in English.
10
2. Methodological inputs and
compliance
2.1. Normative references
The following referenced documents are indispensable for the application of this document.
For dated references, only the edition cited applies. For undated references, the latest edition
of the referenced document (including any amendments) applies.
The PEFCR complies with the PEF Guide (2013) References:
ISO 14040:
2006
ISO 14044:
2006
Environmental management - Life cycle assessment - Principles and
framework
Environmental management - Life cycle assessment - Requirements and
guidelines
See Appendix A in the Screening Report for more detail on additional references.
11
3. PEFCR Review and Background
Information
3.1. PEFCR Review Panel
To be filled out after review has begun
Name
Contact information
affiliation
chair
other members
other members
3.2. Review requirements for the PEFCR
document
3.3. Reasoning for development of PEFCR
The development of this PEFCR was led by the Sustainable Apparel Coalition (SAC), a trade
organization comprised of brands, retailers, manufacturers, government, and nongovernmental organizations and academic experts, representing more than a third of the
global apparel and footwear market.
To set forth a globally accepted quantitative approach for measuring life cycle environmental
performance of apparel and footwear products, the SAC developed PCR Guidance for
footwear and apparel (shared with the European Commission). A review of these and other
PCR or PCR related references demonstrated a need for creating a comprehensive PEFCR
for non-leather shoes specifying a range of different shoe types that meet different functions.
When developing this PEFCR, convergence with leading, relevant global standards were
sought as a guiding principle to the extent possible. During the PEF supporting studies and
refinement of the PEFCR subsequent to the studies, the results will be tested to evaluate
opportunities for harmonization with existing industry-specific efforts, including the SAC’s PCR
Guidance.
12
3.4. Conformance with the PEFCR Guidance
This PEFCR has been developed in conformance with the PEF Guide and the Guidance
Products v4.0.
13
4. PEFCR Scope
4.1. Unit of analysis
This document provides Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules (PEFCR) for
product environmental footprints (PEF) for non-leather shoes (any shoes with less than 50%
leather by weight) with different functions:
Sports,
Leisure / Fashion, and
Work / Waterproof
The following definition of the Functional Unit is used:
1.
2.
3.
4.
The function / service provided: “what”
• Non-leather shoe
The magnitude of the function or service: “how much”
• One pair of non-leather shoes
The expected level of quality: “how well”
• Wear in good condition with appropriate use
The life time/duration/reference wearing time of the product: “how long”
• One year
Depending on the durability testing agreed by the brands, the shoes’ lifetime may be used to
evaluate shoes with a different duration than one year. These shoes’ impacts will be scaled
up or down to be consistent with the reference flow of one year.
The reference flow has been defined as “one pair of non-leather shoes including packaging
used for one year”. Each of the shoe styles evaluated in this screening have been evaluated
for a single, representative size (EU size 42 for men’s models, 38 for women’s models, or 40
for mixed models).
4.2. Representative products
In order to accurately reflect differences in shoes’ function and performance, the subcategories Sports, Leisure / Fashion, and Work / Waterproof have been defined. Some
information on market shares was available (as described in the screening report), but a
weighted average across different brands or across different shoe sizes was not possible
within each shoe sub-category. Instead, the shoes within each category were simply
combined with an arithmetic average. Note that leisure and fashion shoes are not
differentiated in the NACE/CPA classification system. Due to the subjective nature of ‘fashion’
vs. ‘leisure’ and the fact that many shoes could qualify as one, the other, or both leisure and
fashion, these sub-categories identified in the screening have been combined for the purposes
of benchmarking and PEF calculation.
14
4.3. Product classification (NACE/CPA)
The three sub-categories of shoes are defined as follows:
Sports (CPA code 15.20.20)
Leisure & Fashion (CPA code 15.20.10),
Work & Waterproof (CPA codes 15.20.30 and 15.20.11, respectively)
4.4. System boundaries – life cycle stages and
processes
The system boundaries, as defined by the Hotspot Analysis version 4.0 paper, shall include:
Life Cycle Phases
Raw material acquisition and pre-processing (including
production of parts and unspecific components);
Production of the main product;
Product distribution and storage
Use stage scenario (if in scope);
End-of-life (including product / part reuse, recovery /
recycling; if in scope).
Shorthand names
Raw Materials
Manufacturing
Distribution
Use
EOL
The PEF calculations shall include inputs (electricity, water, heat, auxiliaries, etc.), emissions
to air, water, soil, and production waste for all relevant life cycle stages.
The processes included in the system boundaries shall be divided into foreground processes
(i.e. core processes in the product life cycle for which direct access to information is available)
and background processes (i.e. those processes in the product life cycle for which no direct
access to information is possible).
15
Figure 4-1: Process flow diagram
The first two boxes from the left encompass raw materials as well as their pre-processing
steps. The colors of the boxes in the first two columns are arbitrary. The processes considered
here are related to all materials needed for the production of the shoe that are derived from
petrochemicals (e.g. polyester, nylon, etc.), cotton, natural rubber, raw leather,
cardboard/paper and metals (e.g. eyelets). The data included here takes into account all the
impacts associated with the manufacturing of materials until they are in a state ready to be
used in the manufacturing of the shoe.
“Product distribution and storage” comprises the manufacturing processes for the upper and
bottom part of the shoe, the assembly of these shoe parts into the final product, and the
packaging for sale. Shoe processing and assembly is divided into three main phases:
Tier 1 represents the final assembly and consolidation of the varied components which
are created upstream. Tier 1 steps include stockfitting, assembly, and packaging of
the shoes.
Tier 2 represents the making of components which will be used in Tier 1. Cutting,
some assembly, and different types of molding are done in Tier 2. Specific steps can
include compound mixing (EVA, PU, rubber), compound forming (injection and/or
compression molding, PU pouring, rubber vulcanization , etc.), die cutting, lamination,
sewing, heat processing, high frequency welding, sockliner production, membrane
production, molding / forming of shanks, plates, airbag, torsion bar, heel counter etc.,
stamping, machining, etc. of metal parts.
Tier 3 represents upstream manufacturing of materials used in Tier 2. These steps
can include fabric knitting, weaving, dyeing, and finishing, beamhouse / tanning / posttanning of leather, fiber and yarn making, packaging production, and process chemical
manufacturing. The manufacturing of all other raw materials is included in Tier 3,
though process energy, water, and emissions from these steps have all been removed
16
from data brands collected to avoid double counting since they were captured in
upstream raw material LCIs from the GaBi databases.
Figure 4-1 indicates that care/cleaning in the use phase is a consideration for some shoe
types. The use phase for shoes was shown to be insignificant in the screening report.
For the end of life stage we assume that shoes and packaging are disposed as household
waste in Europe. Thus, a European average for collection and treatment of household waste
and its associated environmental impacts are accounted for.
4.5. Selection of the EF impact categories
The PEF guidance recommends a list of impact categories to consider in the evaluation. The
impacts are described in Table 4-1.
Table 4-1: Default EF impact categories (with respective EF impact category indicators) and EF
impact assessment models for PEF studies
EF Impact Category
Climate Change
Ozone Depletion
Ecotoxicity for aquatic
fresh water
Human Toxicity cancer effects
Human Toxicity non-cancer effects
Particulate
Matter/Respiratory
Inorganics
Ionising Radiation human health effects
Photochemical Ozone
Formation
EF Impact
Assessment Model
Bern model - Global
Warming Potentials
(GWP) over a 100
year time horizon.
EDIP model based on
the ODPs of the
World Meteorological
Organization (WMO)
over an infinite time
horizon.
USEtox model
USEtox model
USEtox model
Within Humbert (2009),
USEtox (Rosenbaum et
al. 2008) is used for
primary PM and CO,
Greco et al. (2007) for
secondary PM from
SO2 and NOx, Van
Zelm et al. (2008) for
secondary PM from
NH3 and RiskPoll (Rabl
and Spadaro 2004) to
differentiate among
high-stack, low-stack,
and ground-level
emissions of primary
PM for urban and rural
conditions, respectively
Human Health effect
model
LOTOS-EUROS model
EF Impact Category
indicators
kg CO2 equivalent
Source
kg CFC-11 (*)
equivalent
WMO, 1999
CTUe (Comparative
Toxic Unit for
ecosystems)
CTUh (Comparative
Toxic Unit for humans)
CTUh (Comparative
Toxic Unit for humans)
kg PM2.5 (**)
equivalent
Rosenbaum et al.,
2008
kg kBq U235 equivalent
(to air)
kg NMVOC (***)
equivalent
Dreicer et al., 1995
Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate
Change, 2007
Rosenbaum et al.,
2008
Rosenbaum et al.,
2008
Humbert. 2009
Van Zelm et al., 2008
as applied in ReCiPe
17
Accumulated
Exceedance model
Accumulated
Exceedance model
EUTREND model
mol H+ eq
Eutrophication –
aquatic (freshwater)
EUTREND model
fresh water: kg P
equivalent
Resource Depletion water
Resource Depletion mineral, fossil
Land Use
Swiss Ecoscarcity
model
CML2002 model
m³ water use related to
local scarcity of water
kg antimony (Sb)
equivalent
kg C deficit
Acidification
Eutrophication terrestrial
Eutrophication –
aquatic (marine)
(*)
(**)
(***)
CFC-11 =
PM2.5 =
NMVOC=
Soil Organic Matter
(SOM) model
mol N eq
marine: kg N equivalent
Seppälä et al.,2006;
Posch et al., 2008
Seppälä et al.,2006:
Posch et al., 2008
Struijs et al., 2009 as
implemented in
ReCiPe
Struijs et al., 2009 as
implemented in
ReCiPe
Frischknecht et al.,
2008
van Oers et al., 2002
Milà i Canals et al.,
2007
Trichlorofluoromethane, also called freon-11 or R-11, is a chlorofluorocarbon.
Particulate Matter with a diameter of 2.5 µm or less.
Non-Methane Volatile Organic Compounds
Some of these impact methods yield results which are unstable due to inadequacies in the
characterization methodologies and others need for additional specificity in the background
data. For the reasons described in the screening report, the following impact methods have
been temporarily removed from calculation of the benchmarks though they will be included in
all company-specific PEFs:
Ecotoxicity for aquatic fresh water
Human Toxicity - cancer effects
Human Toxicity - non-cancer effects
Resource Depletion -mineral, fossil
Resource Depletion – water
Land Use
Therefore, the authors recommend to use the following impact methods for calculation of
benchmarks and the PEF scores themselves:
Climate Change,
Ozone Depletion,
Particulate Matter,
Ionising Radiation,
Photochemical Ozone Formation,
Acidification, Eutrophication – terrestrial,
Eutrophication – freshwater,
Eutrophication – marine
Eutrophication - terrestrial.
This represents 9 out of the total 15 EF Impact Categories which will be used in the calculation
of the benchmarks. That said, some impacts which are therefore not represented in the
benchmark (i.e., Resource Depletion - water and fossil, as well as land use- related impacts)
were listed as high importance topics by members of the Technical Secretariat. All 15 methods
will be tested during calculation of supporting studies.
18
4.6. Additional environmental information
According to [PEF Guide, section 4.5]: Relevant potential environmental impacts of a product
may go beyond the widely accepted life-cycle-based EF impact assessment models. It is
important to consider these environmental impacts whenever feasible. For example,
biodiversity impacts due to land use changes may occur in association with a specific site or
activity. This may require the application of additional EF impact categories that are not
included in the default list provided in the PEF Guide, or even additional qualitative
descriptions where impacts cannot be linked to the product supply chain in a quantitative
manner.
For example, the following methods are described in the SAC’s PCR Guidance:
Figure 4-2: SAC’s Required Life Cycle Indicators
Figure 4-3: SAC's Optional Life Cycle Indicators
Such additional methods should be viewed as complementary to the default list of EF impact
categories and can be tested in the supporting studies.
19
4.7. Assumptions/limitations
The TS has provided recommendations regarding standard assumptions and predefined
options, reflected in the data quality requirements defined in Table 5-7 and Note that for many
activity data in Table 5-8, default assumptions are linked to the technological rating
‘Fair’. Since these defaults should be used if no better information is available, the data
quality ratings Poor and Very poor should not be used.
It should be noted that the Higg Index referenced in Table 5-8 is free to access and use via
msi.apparelcoalition.org. The Higg Index includes a list of common processing steps which
are used throughout the Tier 2 and Tier 3 manufacturing stages. The Higg Index does not
include full LCIs for these processes, but brands should use the information in the Higg
Index as a guide to identify processes & materials.
Table 5-8.
The use of these assumptions is necessary to allow calculation of the thousands of shoes
designed and manufactured each season. As brands and footwear manufacturers’ data
collection systems and procedures improve each year, the data quality requirements may
improve – primary data on certain life cycle stages may be required in future versions of the
PEFCR.
Any deviations from the PEFCR and any limitation and assumptions shall be transparently
reported and justified. Note that quality of the data collection, availability of LCIs for materials,
knowledge of the supply chain / processing steps for a given shoe, access to a shoe’s BOM
are all potential limitations.
20
5. Resource Use and Emission
Profile
5.1. Screening Step
See the screening report for more information. In summary, the sport and leisure shoes’ life
cycle is dominated first by raw materials (specifically, the production of manmade fibers,
foams, auxiliary materials and natural fibers), then by energy use in Tier 1, 2, and 3
manufacturing. The fashion and work / waterproof shoes’ results were different since the
presence of leather in the upper causes a significant burden across most impact categories,
elevating the importance of raw materials over manufacturing.
The contributions from transport, retail, use, and disposal are small but evaluated with
sensitivity analysis to identify any situations where they could become relevant. Transport to
customer via container ocean freight has a mentionable contribution in Acidification Potential,
Particulate Matter and Photochemical Ozone Formation due to NOx, SOx, and PM emissions.
Note that emissions from boats tend to occur far from population and therefore the assessment
may over-estimate the impacts on the impact categories Particulate Matter, and
Photochemical Ozone Formation from boat emissions as compared to other life cycle stages.
The End of Life stage is below 5% of all results except for Global Warming Potential.
5.2. Data quality requirements
Based on the outcome of the screening, the most important aspects of the life cycle are raw
material acquisition and manufacturing. Since Raw material acquisition and Manufacturing
are quite broad phases with many individual inputs and outputs, these two life cycle phases
have been separated into a bit more detail to provide meaningful guidance regarding the data
quality requirements.
In creating this PEFCR, we based our methodology and assumptions on the specific
processes & supply chain related to this industry. Creating a process and method that can
accurately and consistently measure environmental product performance that is relevant and
feasible for our sector is our primary goal. While at this stage the non-leather shoe PEFCR
may have some differences to the EU Guidance documents, it is our intention to leverage the
supporting studies as a means to test and validate our stated PEFCR approach, as well as
the EU guidance to arrive at a final proposal, supported by data.
5.2.1. Hot Spot identification
The most relevant impact categories have been identified in the screening report, and are
reproduced in Section 4.5. Though a subset of only 9 impacts will be used in the
benchmarking exercise, all 15 impacts are evaluated for hotspots. Dominant life cycle phases
have been identified which contribute to at least 80% of the cumulative result for each impact.
For all three shoe types, Raw Material Acquisition and pre-processing (Raw Materials) as well
21
as Production of the main product (Manufacturing) have either the first or second highest
contributions in all 15 impacts considered. Two exceptions exist for Terrestrial and Marine
Eutrophication in the Sport shoe category. The Marine Eutrophication category also has a
hotspot for the End of Life phase, and the Terrestrial Eutrophication category has a hotspot
for the Product Distribution and Storage phase.
Table 5-1 shows the most relevant life cycle phases which contribute to at least 80% of
cumulative result for each impact considered, in decreasing order of relevance. The most
relevant life cycle stage is shown under the column heading #1, then the second most relevant
stage is shown under column heading #2. If a single life cycle stage represents at least 80%
of the result, no second phase is shown.
Table 5-1: Life cycle phases contributing to 80% of the cumulative result for each impact
considered for Sport, L/F, and W/W shoes.
Sport
Acidification
#1
Manufacturing
L/F
#2
Distribution
& Retail
W/W
#1
Manufacturing
#2
-
#1
Manufacturing
Raw Materials
-
Raw Materials
Raw Materials
-
Raw Materials
Ecotoxicity,
fresh water
Eutrophication
Manufacturing
Human toxicity,
cancer
Human toxicity,
non-cancer
Ionising
radiation
Global Warming
excluding
biogenic C
Global Warming
including
biogenic C
Marine
Eutrophication
Ozone Depletion
Particulate
matter
Photochemical
ozone formation
Resource
Depletion –
mineral, fossil
Terrestrial
Eutrophication
Resource
Depletion - water
Raw Materials
Raw Materials
-
Raw Materials
Manufacturing
Raw Materials
-
Manufacturing
Manufacturing
Raw Materials
-
Manufacturing
Manufacturing
Manufacturing
-
Manufacturing
Manufacturing
Manufacturing
-
Manufacturing
Raw Materials
-
Manufacturing
Raw Materials
Manufacturing
Raw Materials
Raw Materials
-
Manufacturing
Manufacturing
Manufacturing
Manufacturing
-
Manufacturing
Raw Materials
Raw Materials
-
Raw Materials
Manufacturing
Raw Materials
-
Manufacturing
Raw Materials
Raw Materials
-
Raw Materials
Manufacturing
Manufacturing
Raw
Materials
Raw
Materials
#2
Raw Materials
Manufacturing
Raw Materials
Raw Materials
22
For each of the impact categories considered, only a handful of elementary flows dominate the potential impact. Single elementary flows which
contribute more than 5% of the overall life cycle emissions have been highlighted in Table 5-2. Note that for cells with 0 shown, this flow has
less than 5% contribution to the shoe type indicated, but the flow is relevant for another shoe type. These listed elementary flows contribute
cumulatively to more than 80% of each impact category.
Table 5-2 Relevant Elementary Flows
Impact Category
Acidification
Emission
Inorganic emissions to air
Ecotoxicity, fresh water
Emissions to air
Emissions to freshwater
Other emissions to freshwater
Eutrophication
Human toxicity, cancer
Human toxicity, non-cancer
Inorganic emissions to fresh
water
Emissions to fresh water
Organic emissions to air
Emissions to freshwater
Emissions to agricultural soil
Ionizing Radiation
Radioactive emissions to air
Radioactive emissions to fresh
water
Emissions to sea water
Chemical
Ammonia
Nitrogen oxides
Sulphur dioxide
Zinc (+II)
Copper (+II)
Nickel (+II)
Zinc (+II)
Alachlor
Zinc (+II)
Chlorpyriphos
Phosphate
L/F
0.02667
6.98E-02
0.113249
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.321794
1.67E-04
Sport
0
0.024102
0.031806
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
W/W
0
0.012984
0.021692
0.349614
0.421686
0.576671
0.651035
0.344249
-0.65525
0
8.97E-04
Chromium
Acrylic acid
Arsenic (+V)
Cadmium (+II)
Lead (+II)
Mercury (+II)
Carbon (C14)
Radon (Rn222)
7.49E-08
4.88E-08
6.53E-08
0
6.00E-08
3.65E-08
0.758377
1.79E-07
4.88E-08
5.70E-08
0
3.93E-08
0.00E+00
0.684505
1.85E-07
4.88E-08
1.13E-07
1.74E-07
0.00E+00
0
0.845408
0.013129
0.021393
0.014801
0.000552
0.001191
0.000613
0.002377
0.000659
0.001432
0
0.001056
0
Cesium (Cs137)
Radium (Ra226)
Carbon (C14)
23
Global Warming (both including and
excluding biogenic Carbon)
Marine Eutrophication
Ozone Depletion
Particulate Matter
Photochemical ozone formation
Inorganic emissions to air
Carbon dioxide
Inorganic emissions to fresh
water
Halogenated organic emissions to
air
Inorganic emissions to air
Particles to air
Inorganic emissions to air
Organic emissions to air (group
VOC)
Nitrate
Nitrogen organic bounded
Chloromethane (methyl
chloride)
Dust (PM10)
Dust (PM2.5)
Nitrogen oxides
Butanone (methyl ethyl
ketone)
NMVOC (unspecified)
Lead
Silver
Zinc
Ammonia
Nitrogen oxides
Water (ground water)
Water (lake water)
Water (river water)
Water (river water from
technosphere, cooling water)
Water (river water from
technosphere, turbined)
Water (river water from
technosphere, waste water)
Resource Depletion – mineral, fossil
Non-renewable elements
Terrestrial Eutrophication
Inorganic emissions to air
Resource Depletion - water
Renewable resources
Other emissions to fresh water
7.751327
0.002222
0.013654
6.985543
-0.00131
0.002134
10.82755
0
0
1.80E-06
0
0.014047
0.03257
0.00E+00
0
0
0.017546
0
0.009371
0.031446
0.044227
0.010336
0
0.00012
0.000497
0.000129
0.029574
0.138749
0.062275
0.087733
1.122053
0.010336
0
0
0
0
0
0.074745
0.008987
0.081517
1.247308
0.010336
0.016911
0.00017
0.000716
0.000183
0.085733
0.188405
0.033583
0.208601
2.033883
-0.02897
-0.02686
-0.03589
-1.16924
-1.29697
-2.19026
-0.00631
0
-0.01063
24
Within these life cycle phases, a handful of processes have been identified as hotspots if
contributing cumulatively more than 80% to at least one impact category. For this exercise,
the products’ life cycle has been separated into the following processes:
Raw Material Acquisition
o Acrylics
o Auxiliary materials
o Foams
o Leather
o Manmade fibers
o Metals
o Natural fibers
o Plastics
o Rubber
Production
o Tier 1 manufacturing (unspecified processes)
o Process chemicals (Tier 1)
o Chemical emissions (Tier 1)
o Tier 2 manufacturing (unspecified processes)
o Filmmaking (Tier 2)
o Injection molding (Tier 2)
o Knitting (Tier 2)
o Metal part making (Tier 2)
o Nonwoven fabric making (Tier 2)
o Thermoforming (Tier 2)
o Vulcanization (Tier 2)
o Weaving (Tier 2)
o Fiber making (Tier 3)
o PET fabric dyeing (Tier 3)
o PET fabric weaving (Tier 3)
o Rubber recycling (Tier 3)
Packaging
Retail
Transport to assembly
Transport to customer
Transport to EOL
Use
End of Life
The processes identified as hotspots for each impact category are shown in Table 5-3, Table
5-4, and Table 5-5. For each impact evaluated, the top contributor is shown in the column
with header ‘1’, followed by the second largest contributor in column ‘2’, and so on until 80%
of the cumulative impact has been reached.
25
Table 5-3: Process hotspots for Sport shoe
Acidification
Ecotoxicity - fresh
water
Eutrophication
Human toxicity,
cancer
Human toxicity, noncancer
Ionising radiation
Global Warming
excluding biogenic C
Global Warming
including biogenic C
Marine
Eutrophication
Ozone Depletion
Particulate matter
Photochemical
ozone formation
Resource Depletion
– mineral, fossil
Terrestrial
Eutrophication
Resource Depletion water
1
2
3
4
5
6
Tier 2
manufacturing
Tier 1
manufacturing
Tier 1
manufacturing
Plastics
Transport to
customer
Weaving
Tier 1
manufacturing
Process
Chemicals
Foams
Weaving
Foams
Plastics
Foams
Plastics
Tier 2
manufacturing
Packaging
Rubber
Auxiliary
materials
Tier 2
manufacturing
Tier 2
manufacturing
Tier 2
manufacturing
Transport to
assembly
Rubber
Tier 1
manufacturing
Chemical
emissions
Metals
Process
Chemicals
PET fabric
weaving
Foams
Tier 1
manufacturing
Plastics
Weaving
Tier 2
manufacturing
Foams
Plastics
Transport to
customer
Process
Chemicals
Chemical
emissions
Process
Chemicals
Process
Chemicals
Manmade
Fibers
Foams
Manmade
Fibers
Process
Chemicals
Packaging
Tier 1
manufacturing
Tier 1
manufacturing
Tier 2
manufacturing
Weaving
Tier 2
manufacturing
Tier 2
manufacturing
Transport to
customer
Tier 1
manufacturing
Rubber
Transport to
customer
Tier 2
manufacturing
Tier 2
manufacturing
Rubber
Tier 1
manufacturing
Tier 1
manufacturing
Weaving
Foams
Foams
Plastics
End of Life
Transport to
customer
Weaving
Plastics
7
8
Manmade
Fibers
Chemical
emissions
Weaving
Weaving
Weaving
Foams
Manmade
Fibers
Weaving
26
Table 5-4: Process hotspots for Leisure / Fashion shoe
1
2
3
4
5
6
Acidification
Rubber
Weaving
Natural fibers
Rubber
Transport to
customer
Metals
Tier 2
manufacturing
Tier 1
manufacturing
Knitting
Ecotoxicity - fresh
water
Eutrophication
Tier 1
manufacturing
Weaving
Rubber
End of Life
Human toxicity,
cancer
Human toxicity, noncancer
Ionising radiation
Plastics
Rubber
Rubber
Auxiliary
materials
Foams
Global Warming
excluding biogenic C
Global Warming
including biogenic C
Marine
Eutrophication
Ozone Depletion
Particulate matter
Photochemical
ozone formation
Resource Depletion
– mineral, fossil
Terrestrial
Eutrophication
Resource Depletion water
Auxiliary
materials
Weaving
Auxiliary
materials
Rubber
Rubber
Rubber
Chemical
emissions
Metals
Rubber
Auxiliary
materials
Weaving
Transport to
assembly
Weaving
Rubber
Transport to
customer
Tier 1
manufacturing
Foams
Process
Chemicals
Process
Chemicals
Tier 1
manufacturing
Tier 1
manufacturing
Transport to
customer
Auxiliary
materials
Weaving
End of Life
Tier 2
manufacturing
Tier 2
manufacturing
Weaving
Tier 1
manufacturing
Tier 2
manufacturing
Plastics
Foams
Plastics
Foams
Auxiliary
materials
Process
Chemicals
Tier 1
manufacturing
Transport to
customer
Weaving
Tier 1
manufacturing
Weaving
Tier 2
manufacturing
7
8
Process
Chemicals
Process
Chemicals
Leather
End of Life
Rubber
27
Table 5-5: Process hotspots for Work / Waterproof shoe
1
2
3
4
5
6
Acidification
Leather
Ecotoxicity - fresh
water
Eutrophication
Human toxicity,
cancer
Human toxicity, noncancer
Ionising radiation
Leather
Tier 2
manufacturing
Tier 2
manufacturing
Transport to
customer
Metals
Natural fibers
Foams
Process
Chemicals
Process
Chemicals
Foams
Auxiliary
materials
End of Life
Metals
Foams
Chemical
emissions
Global Warming
excluding biogenic C
Global Warming
including biogenic C
Marine
Eutrophication
Ozone Depletion
Leather
Tier 2
manufacturing
PET fabric
weaving
Tier 2
manufacturing
Tier 2
manufacturing
Foams
Plastics
Tier 2
manufacturing
Metals
Foams
Plastics
Metals
Process
Chemicals
Process
Chemicals
Manmade
Fibers
Manmade
Fibers
Chemical
emissions
Tier 2
manufacturing
Tier 2
manufacturing
Natural fibers
Transport to
customer
Tier 2
manufacturing
Particulate matter
Photochemical
ozone formation
Resource Depletion
– mineral, fossil
Terrestrial
Eutrophication
Resource Depletion water
Leather
Plastics
Leather
Leather
Leather
7
8
Leather
Leather
Process
Chemicals
Leather
Leather
Metals
Leather
Leather
28
Table 5-6 describes the activity data needed to calculate the full environmental profile of a pair
of non-leather shoes. Based on results from the hot spot analysis, certain of these activity
data are directly related to the most relevant processes and others are less relevant. For each
data need, the relevance is described for the shoe sub-types (designated by prefix S, LF, and
WW for Sport, Leisure/Fashion, and Work/Waterproof, respectively) followed by the number
of impact categories for which each data need is relevant based on the identification of
hotspots in Table 5-3, Table 5-4, and Table 5-5. For example, the designation S(14) for line
item 1 means that for sport shoes, raw material processes are hotspots (contribute to 80% of
cumulative result) in 14 of the 15 impacts evaluated.
Table 5-6: List of data needs for calculating a PEF
Life cycle phase
Data description
1
Raw Materials
material inputs weight by material
2
Raw Materials
n/a
3
Raw Materials
identification of tier 2 and tier 3
processing steps for each
material
primary packaging inputs
4
Raw Materials
km
5
Tier 1 and 2
manufacturing
inbound transport distance and
mode to assembly for each
material
quantifying process elec + thermal
energy demand (specified by fuel)
6
Tier 1 and 2
manufacturing
location
n/a
7
Tier 1 and 2
manufacturing
chemical inputs (solvents, glues,
cleaners, etc.)
kg / pair
8
Tier 1 and 2
manufacturing
chemical emissions (solvents to
air, emissions to water, etc.)
kg / pair
9
Tier 1 and 2
manufacturing
water inputs and outputs
kg / pair
10
Tier 1 and 2
manufacturing
manuf waste disposal pathway
n/a
11
elec + thermal energy demand
MJ / pair
location
13
Tier 3
manufacturing
(excluding raw
materials)
Tier 3
manufacturing
(excluding raw
materials)
Retail
14
Retail
12
Unit of
Measure
kg / pair
All 15
impacts
S(14),
LF(15),
WW(14)
S(13),
LF(11),
WW(12)
S(2),
LF(0),
WW(2)
S(1),
LF(1),
WW(1)
S(13),
LF(11),
WW(12)
S(13),
LF(11),
WW(12)
S(6),
LF(5),
WW(5)
S(3),
LF(1),
WW(2)
S(13),
LF(11),
WW(12)
S(13),
LF(11),
WW(12)
S(1),
LF(0),
WW(1)
Relevant
9 impacts
S(8),
LF(9),
WW(8)
S(8),
LF(8),
WW(8)
S(2),
LF(0),
WW(2)
S(1),
LF(1),
WW(1)
S(8),
LF(8),
WW(8)
S(8),
LF(8),
WW(8)
S(3),
LF(3),
WW(2)
S(1),
LF(1),
WW(1)
S(8),
LF(8),
WW(8)
S(8),
LF(8),
WW(8)
S(1),
LF(0),
WW(1)
n/a
S(1),
LF(0),
WW(1)
S(1),
LF(0),
WW(1)
transport mode from factory to
retail
km
transport dist from factory to retail
km
S(5),
LF(4),
WW(4)
S(5),
LF(4),
WW(4)
S(5),
LF(4),
WW(4)
S(5),
LF(4),
WW(4)
kg / pair
MJ / pair
29
15
Retail
elec + thermal energy demand
MJ / pair
16
Maint
washing procedure (if
recommended by brands)
n/a
17
Maint
DWR application (if
recommended by brands)
kg / pair
18
EOL
EOL pathway recommended by
brands
n/a
19
EOL
durability (standard lifetime)
months
S(0),
LF(0),
WW(0)
S(0),
LF(0),
WW(0)
S(0),
LF(0),
WW(0)
S(1),
LF(3),
WW(4)
S(15),
LF(15),
WW(15)
S(0),
LF(0),
WW(0)
S(0),
LF(0),
WW(0)
S(0),
LF(0),
WW(0)
S(1),
LF(3),
WW(3)
S(9),
LF(9),
WW(9)
Each numbered item in Table 5-6 should be included in the environmental calculations for a
PEF, albeit at different levels of data quality and completeness. Most of these data needs are
either outside the control of brands or have low environmental relevance so should be
modeled with generic data such as industry averages, assumptions, or proxies.
Almost no brands have a direct, contractual relationship with material suppliers. Those that
are able to identify those suppliers and request data typically receive data that is either of
unverifiable or unusable quality. Oftentimes, materials suppliers will not provide data because
of intellectual property concerns. The SAC seeks to improve data quality within Tier 2 and Tier
3 by collecting, analyzing, and modeling materials data provided by our members' suppliers in
an aggregated and comparable way. This PEF process will help us identify where the biggest
gaps and needs are so we are able to improve our overall industry's access to better data.
The primary data collected may be available at different levels of specificity – an overall Data
Quality Rating (DQR) should be calculated for each PEF in addition to its environmental score.
This DQR is meant to represent a minimum level of data quality – the DQR score will not be
reported on the PEF communication vehicle (label, display, website, etc.) and will not affect
the actual PEF score in relation to the benchmark classes. The PEF Guide 2013 defines DQRs
for the following six areas:
•
Technological representativeness
•
Geographical representativeness
•
Temporal representativeness
•
Completeness
•
Precision (parameter for uncertainty)
•
Methodological appropriateness and consistency
Possible quality ratings are Very good, Good, Fair, Poor, and Very poor, as defined further in
Table 5-7. The technological representativeness score for a PEF is difficult to assess as a
whole, so the technological representativeness for each data need should be evaluated
individually, then aggregated. Specifics regarding rating the technological representativeness
data quality indicator have been defined in Note that for many activity data in Table 5-8, default
assumptions are linked to the technological rating ‘Fair’. Since these defaults should be used if no
better information is available, the data quality ratings Poor and Very poor should not be used.
It should be noted that the Higg Index referenced in Table 5-8 is free to access and use via
msi.apparelcoalition.org. The Higg Index includes a list of common processing steps which
are used throughout the Tier 2 and Tier 3 manufacturing stages. The Higg Index does not
30
include full LCIs for these processes, but brands should use the information in the Higg
Index as a guide to identify processes & materials.
Table 5-8.
31
Table 5-7: Detailed data quality ratings
Rating
Very
Good
Definition
Meets the criterion to a very
high degree, without need for
improvement.
Completeness
very good
completeness (>=
90%)
Data Age
< 2 years
old
Technology
See technological
representativeness table
Meets the criterion to a high
degree, with little significant
need for improvement.
good
completeness (80
- 90%)
2 - 4 years
old
See technological
representativeness table
Fair
Meets the criterion to an
acceptable degree, but merits
improvement.
fair completeness
(70 - 80%)
5 – 8 years
old
See technological
representativeness table
Poor
Does not meet the criterion to
a sufficient degree, but rather
requires improvement.
poor
completeness (50
– 70%)
8 - 14
years old
See technological
representativeness table
Very
Poor
Does not meet the criterion.
Substantial improvement is
necessary OR: This criterion
was not judged/reviewed or its
quality could not be verified/is
unknown.
very poor
completeness (<
50%)
> 14 years
old
See technological
representativeness table
Good
Geography
country-specific grid mix,
thermal energy mix, and
region-specific LCIs for
natural materials
country-specific grid mix,
regional proxy for
thermal energy, and
region-specific LCIs for
natural materials
regional proxy for grid
mix and thermal energy,
and regional proxy LCIs
for natural materials
proxies for grid mix,
thermal energy, and LCIs
for natural materials from
other region(s)
other; unknown
Uncertainty
very low
(<10%)
low (10 - 20%)
fair (20 - 30%)
high (30 - 50%)
very high
(>50%)
Note that geographical granularity is defined in this table only with regards to the energy sources. Geographic granularity for materials is
important but differences across regions are more common for natural materials (e.g., leather or cotton) which are often driven by cultivation
practices, climate, etc. than for synthetic materials which are often similar in technology and often only different in the upstream energy use.
32
Note that for many activity data in Table 5-8, default assumptions are linked to the technological rating ‘Fair’. Since these defaults should be
used if no better information is available, the data quality ratings Poor and Very poor should not be used.
It should be noted that the Higg Index referenced in Table 5-8 is free to access and use via msi.apparelcoalition.org. The Higg Index includes
a list of common processing steps which are used throughout the Tier 2 and Tier 3 manufacturing stages. The Higg Index does not include
full LCIs for these processes, but brands should use the information in the Higg Index as a guide to identify processes & materials.
Table 5-8: Detailed technological representativeness ratings
life cycle phase
data description
1
Raw Materials
Gross material
weight per pair
and material
content
identification
2
Raw Materials
Identification of
tier 2 and tier 3
material
processing steps
for each part
Very good
Good
technological representativeness
Gross weight and
80% of the shoe parts
material content
by weight are
identification is
provided according to
provided at the
Very Good data
individual part level,
quality methodology.
for 100% of the shoe Rest of parts' gross
parts. Gross weight
weight and material
is calculated based
content identification
on model-specific
is estimated based on
documentation (e.g.
Fair data quality
bill of materials) or
methodology.
measured. Material
identification must
match Higg Index
material list.
Fair
Poor
Very poor
Net weight is
provided for shoe
subassemblies
(upper / midsole /
outsole), default
material efficiency
rate is applied to
obtain gross
weights.
no data;
unknown;
input
materials
can't be
linked to a
weight
processing step
identified for 100% of
materials
choose default
processing step(s)
per Higg Index
Net weight is
provided for entire
shoe. Default
material efficiency
rate is applied to
obtain gross weight.
Default breakdown
of subassembly
weight % is used to
obtain subassembly
weights.
Material content
composition is
estimated for each
subassembly based
on model-specific
duty rate
categorization and
existing labelling
requirements.
no data; unknown
processing step
identified for 80% of
materials (specific to
this shoe)
no data;
unknown
33
3
Raw Materials
primary packaging
inputs
4
Raw Materials
5
Tier 1 and 2
manufacturing
inbound transport
distance and
mode to assembly
for each material
Energy use per
pair, by energy
source, for Tier 1
and Tier 2
processes
6
Tier 1 and 2
manufacturing
Location of Tier 1
and Tier 2
processes
7
Tier 1 and 2
manufacturing
chemical inputs
(solvents, glues,
cleaners, etc.)
actual packaging
weight and
composition
measured /
calculated
transp distance and
mode calculated for
each material
choose from standard
assumption options
(as defined in Table
5-9)
Energy per pair by
energy source
calculated based on
data collected at
factory(ies)
producing the
specific model, no
more than 12
months prior to the
planned date of
production for Tier 1
and 100% of parts'
Tier 2.
Energy per pair by
energy source is
calculated based on
data collected at
factory(ies) producing
the specific model, no
more than 12 months
prior to the planned
date of production, for
Tier 1 and Tier 2 (for
more than 50% of
parts by weight).
Must identify which
parts' Tier 2
processes are not
included, and default
values shall be used
for those.
country identified for
Tier 1 and 80% of Tier
2 processing steps
country identified for
Tier 1 and 100% of
Tier 2 processing
steps
shoe-specific
chemical inputs
estimated
transp distance and
mode calculated for
each sub-assembly
brand-specific
chemical inputs
estimated
choose from
standard
assumption
options (as defined
in Table 5-9)
transp distance
and mode
estimated for each
sub-assembly
use default Tier 1,
2 manuf energy
(as defined in
Table 5-9)
pkg weight or
material type
missing
no data;
unknown
transp distance or
mode missing for
some subassemblies
no data; unknown
no data;
unknown
country identified
for Tier 1 and that
country assumed
for Tier 2
default chemical
inputs (as defined
in Table 5-9)
country identified for
Tier 1 and that
country assumed for
Tier 2
no data; unknown
no data;
unknown
no data;
unknown
no data;
unknown
34
8
Tier 1 and 2
manufacturing
shoe-specific
chemical emissions
estimated
brand-specific
chemical emissions
estimated
default chemical
emissions (as
defined in Table
5-9)
no data; unknown
no data;
unknown
Tier 1 and 2
manufacturing
chemical
emissions
(solvents to air,
emissions to
water, etc.)
water inputs and
outputs
9
shoe-specific water
inputs and outputs
estimated
brand-specific water
inputs and outputs
estimated
no data; unknown
no data;
unknown
10
Tier 1 and 2
manufacturing
manuf waste
disposal pathway
shoe-specific manuf
waste disposal
pathway identified
brand-specific manuf
waste disposal
pathway identified
no data; unknown
no data;
unknown
11
Tier 3
manufacturing
(excluding raw
materials)
water, elec +
thermal energy
demand
default water, energy
(as defined in Table
5-9) linked to
identified processes
no data; unknown
no data;
unknown
12
transport mode
from factory to
retail
same country
assumed for Tier 3
as for Tier 1
no data;
unknown
13
Tier 3
manufacturing
(excluding raw
materials)
Retail
water, energy
collected specific to
the processes
identified in second
row
country identified for
100% of Tier 3 of
material vendors
default water
inputs and outputs
(as defined in
Table 5-9)
default manuf
waste pathway (as
defined in Table
5-9)
default water,
energy (as defined
in Table 5-9)
linked to identified
processes
same country
assumed for Tier 3
as for Tier 1
transport mode
from factory to
retail
shoe specific
airfreight % for
European market
brand specific
airfreight %
transp distance or
mode missing
no data;
unknown
14
Retail
transport dist from
factory to retail
shoe specific
distances for each
mode
brand specific
distances for each
mode
default airfreight %
(as defined in
Table 5-9) = 20%
air, 80% boat
default distance =
country of tier 1 to
Europe
transp distance or
mode missing
no data;
unknown
15
Retail
elec + thermal
energy demand
energy calculated /
measured then
allocated to one unit
energy calculated /
measured then
allocated to one unit
default retail (as
defined in Table
5-9)
no data; unknown
no data;
unknown
16
Maint
washing
procedure (if
recommended by
brands)
default assumption =
no washing when
relevant
default assumption =
no washing when
relevant
default assumption
= no washing
when relevant
no data; unknown
no data;
unknown
country identified for
80% of Tier 3 material
vendors
35
17
Maint
DWR application
(if recommended
by brands)
default assumption =
300 mL for shoes
when relevant
default assumption =
300 mL for shoes
when relevant
18
EOL
EOL pathway
recommended by
brands
shoe specific
recycling rate
brand-specific
recycling rates
19
EOL
durability
(standard lifetime)
lifetime tested per
Grenelle guidance
longer lilfetime tested
by some other
industry accepted
method
default assumption
= 300 mL for
shoes when
relevant
default recycling
rates (as defined
in Table 5-9)
no data; unknown
no data;
unknown
no data; unknown
no data;
unknown
default limetime
(as defined in
Table 5-9) = 1
year
lifetime assumed to
be the same as
industry avg with no
justification
no data;
unknown
The study’s overall DQR rating is based on the arithmetic average of the 6 DQRs technological representativeness, geographical
representativeness, time representativeness, completeness, precision/uncertainty, and methodological appropriateness, but cannot be better
than the rating for the DQR technological representativeness. If the primary data used to populate the model is of low quality, all other factors
(recent data, geographically relevant, consistent methods, etc.) are all invalidated. As noted above, the DQR acts as a minimum threshold for
data quality but will not actually affect the PEF score for a given product.
An assessment scheme provided by the PEF Guide [PEF 2013] and the Data Quality Needs [Data requirements in PEFCRs_v1] paper should
be used during PEF supporting studies to calculate the average value from the 6 DQRs and use it for the overall quality. The method used in
this assessment schemes is illustrated in Figure 5.1.
36
Figure 5-1: Overall data quality according to PEF assessment scheme [PEF GUIDE 2013]
37
5.3. Requirements regarding foreground specific
data collection
Foreground data refers to the processes for which primary data collection are required. The
foreground data must achieve an overall data quality score of ‘Fair’ per Table 5-7.
In order to maximize data quality while reducing the amount of primary data collected for each
shoe style, the only primary data required are related to Raw material acquisition and
Manufacturing. Within these two life cycle phases, two areas have been identified for which the
brands have the most information and control (which makes collecting data more scalable) and
have high environmental relevance. These two areas (defined as the foreground system) are the
Bill of Materials (BOM) and the location of Tier 1 manufacturing, which represents the shoe’s
assembly.
In order to capture accurate information about a shoe’s Raw material acquisition phase, a BOM
must capture the type and amount of each material used. Ideally, the BOM would include gross
material inputs and their composition. However, many brands do not have access to gross
material weight so a technological representativeness score of ‘Fair’ is given to brands for
collecting the net weight of shoe subassemblies then applying a default efficiency (as defined in
Note that for many activity data in Table 5-8, default assumptions are linked to the technological rating
‘Fair’. Since these defaults should be used if no better information is available, the data quality ratings
Poor and Very poor should not be used.
It should be noted that the Higg Index referenced in Table 5-8 is free to access and use via
msi.apparelcoalition.org. The Higg Index includes a list of common processing steps which are
used throughout the Tier 2 and Tier 3 manufacturing stages. The Higg Index does not include
full LCIs for these processes, but brands should use the information in the Higg Index as a
guide to identify processes & materials.
Table 5-8). Since many of the inputs to shoe assembly are components themselves, the Tier 2
and Tier 3 processing steps used for each material must be identified and linked to secondary
data.
Primary data collection for Tier 1 manufacturing energy and emissions is important since this data
is most accessible to brands and has a significant contribution to most impacts considered.
Though primary data is not required, process electricity and thermal energy demand for Tier 1
and 2 manufacturing would greatly enhance the accuracy and quality of a given PEF. Additionally,
the country of manufacturing should be specified. The TS has also provided some predefined
options describing typical Tier 1 processing options. The use of these predefined manufacturing
data will be acceptable, albeit providing a lower technological representativeness DQR than if
primary data is calculated / measured.
By identifying the location of Tier 1 manufacturing, the distance to retail can be calculated based
on average distances and a brand-specific mix of transport modes. This primary data has a
smaller contribution to the results than raw materials and manufacturing, but should be easy to
calculate since Tier 1 manufacturing location is already required.
The collection of manufacturing data shall cover 12 months, though deviations are possible if they
are representative of the process and are justified. Exceptions from the given rule are e.g. shoes
that produced in seasonal variations or shoes, which have a very short (some weeks) design to
market cycle. The, mentioned exceptions might lead to rather unspecific product definitions or
38
mixed products in the phase of data collection. The data collection and calculation procedures
shall be documented in the project report.
5.4. Requirements regarding background generic
data
For processes in the supply chain that are not directly under the control of the brand (such as
Raw Material Acquisition, Tier 2 and Tier 3 manufacturing, Retail, Use, and Disposal) it is allowed
to use background data comprised of generic datasets, data, and assumptions. Brands can
collect primary data on some of these items to improve their overall data quality score, but generic
data will be acceptable for most of the PEF model’s inputs.
Table 5-9 describes the level of technological representativeness and assumptions that are
minimally required for the background generic data. Note that the background LCIs described
are defaults, but other LCIs (differentiated by region, technology, age, methodology, etc.) could
have different data quality ratings (better or worse).
39
Table 5-9: Default assumptions for the background system
Life cycle phase
Data description
Level of technological representativeness and assumptions
1
Raw Materials
Gross material weight per pair and
material content identification
2
Raw Materials
Identification of tier 2 and tier 3
material processing steps for each
part.
3
Raw Materials
Primary packaging inputs
4
Raw Materials
Inbound transport distance and mode
to assembly for each material
Net weight is provided for shoe subassemblies (upper / midsole / outsole).
Default material efficiency rate is applied to obtain gross weights.
(reference Table 4-2 in the screening report for the difference between total
raw material inputs / shoe weight)
Material content composition is estimated for each subassembly based on
model-specific documentation (e.g. using a bill of materials that lists
materials but not quantities) or brand-specific default composition profiles
pre-approved for use. Material identification must match the Higg Index
material list and LCIs in Table 12-5.
Use the process steps as defined in the Higg Index: TIER 3: (1) Raw
material extraction – farm, forest, wellhead, mine, other; (2) Raw material
processing – refining, milling, chipping, pulping, smelting, processing raw
material into fiber, other; (3) Material pre-manufacturing – polymerization,
ingot, sheet, paper and board making, yarn spinning, other; TIER 2: (4)
Material pre-manufacturing - casting, stamping, foaming, molding,
vulcanizing, box making, other; (5) Material post-manufacturing –
anodizing, coating, dyeing and finishing, other. Note: The Higg Index
framework is being updated this year. Check for updates here [SAC staff to
provide URL to download updates]
Choose from the following predefined packaging scenarios, as further
specified in Table 12-3:
Men’s standard cardboard box
Men’s Fancy/XL cardboard box
Women’s standard cardboard box
Women’s Fancy/XL cardboard box
Young athletes’ standard box
Use transport distance and mode estimated for each sub-assembly as in
the screening report (section 4.4)
5
Tier 1 and 2
manufacturing
6
Tier 1 and 2
manufacturing
Tier 1 and 2
manufacturing
Energy use per pair, by energy
source, for Tier 1 and Tier 2
processes
Location of Tier 1 and Tier 2
processes
Chemical inputs (solvents, glues,
cleaners, etc.)
7
Use Tier 1 and Tier 2 energy inputs as specified for each representative
product in the screening report (Tables 3.2, 3.3, 3.4 and 4.2)
Country identified for Tier 1 and that country assumed for Tier 2
Use chemical inputs as specified in the screening report (Table 4.3)
40
8
Tier 1 and 2
manufacturing
Chemical emissions (solvents to air,
emissions to water, etc.)
Use chemical emissions as specified in the screening report (Table 4.3)
9
Water inputs and outputs
Use water inputs as specified for each representative product in the
screening report (Table 4.2)
Assume manufacturing waste is 100% landfilled.
13
Tier 1 and 2
manufacturing
Tier 1 and 2
manufacturing
Tier 3 manufacturing
(excluding raw
materials)
Tier 3 manufacturing
(excluding raw
materials)
Retail
14
Retail
15
Retail
16
Care during use
17
Care during use
18
19
10
11
12
Manufacturing waste disposal
pathway
Electricity and thermal energy
demand
Use the datasets as specified in the screening report (Table 4-4) for the
processes identified in data need row # 2.
Location of Tier 3 processes
Same country assumed for Tier 3 as for Tier 1.
Transportation mode from factory to
retail
Assume 20% airfreight and 80% boat delivery of shoes from Asia to
Europe.
Transportation distance from factory
to retail
Electricity demand
Assume distance between country identified for Tier 1 to Europe
Washing procedure (if recommended
by brands)
DWR application (if recommended by
brands)
Assume no washing occur during use.
EOL
EOL pathway recommended by
brands
EOL
Durability (standard lifetime)
Assume baseline scenario used in the screening report: shoes are
collected and disposed as household waste in Europe, 58% is sent to
landfill and 42% is sent to incineration (no recycling).*
Assume 1 year for all 3 shoe sub-categories.
Use the averaged retail data as specified in the screening report (Table
4.5)
Assume the worst case scenario: a full 300 ml can of DWR is used on a
pair of shoes over their full lifetime
* Note that recycling shoe packaging is not currently common practice and therefore has not been assessed in the model.
41
5.5. Data gaps
Due to the distributed nature of the footwear supply chain and difficulty collecting primary data on
footwear manufacturing, data gaps in the calculation of PEFs are inevitable. Since the screening
report identified raw material use and manufacturing as the largest environmental hotspots, it is
foreseen that the contribution of such generic data in the background system shall not account
for more than 10 % of the overall contribution to each EF impact category considered [PEF Guide,
p. 33, table 4). This is reflected in the data quality requirements defined in Table 5-7 and Note
that for many activity data in Table 5-8, default assumptions are linked to the technological
rating ‘Fair’. Since these defaults should be used if no better information is available, the
data quality ratings Poor and Very poor should not be used.
It should be noted that the Higg Index referenced in Table 5-8 is free to access and use via
msi.apparelcoalition.org. The Higg Index includes a list of common processing steps which are
used throughout the Tier 2 and Tier 3 manufacturing stages. The Higg Index does not include
full LCIs for these processes, but brands should use the information in the Higg Index as a
guide to identify processes & materials.
Table 5-8. If data gaps still exist, they should be filled with worst case assumptions.
5.6. Use stage
According to brands' recommendations, specific cleaning or care is not widely recommended.
Therefore, the base case for results calculations includes no shoe maintenance activities during
use. Also, the use phase parameters tested (i.e., washing in household washer and application
of DWR spray) had small effects on the results so are not required to be included in PEF
supporting studies.
The lifetime of shoes shall be assumed to be 1 year unless brands can document their shoes’
performance in the French Grenelle (ADEME/ AFNOR) footwear durability testing (see 12.11
Annex XI - Methodology and Example for Durability Testing) or other comparable tests.
5.7. Logistics
The TS has provided standard assumptions and predefined options for most of these parameters
(see Table 5-9). The only transport parameters requiring primary data are distance and mode
from assembly to retail. Any additional primary data collection efforts would improve the data
technological representativeness score but are optional.
5.8. End-of-Life stage
The TS has provided standard assumptions for these parameters (see Table 5-9). Any additional
primary data collection efforts would improve the data quality score but are optional.
42
5.9. Requirements for multifunctional products and
processes allocation
Based on the results from the PEF screening, the only area where treatment of multi-functionality
has significant results is the inclusion of impacts from cattle husbandry in the production of leather.
Note that the leather dataset in the model uses a 3.4% economic allocation. Also note that the
leather dataset does not include any Land Use Change. The treatment of multifunctional products
and processes will be addressed by the Leather pilot and any shoe PEFs should follow the
guidance provided by that group. Other allocations at End of Life (the PEF recycling formulas)
had very small contribution to the overall results.
Within the manufacturing processes no treatment of multi-functionality is applicable.
If multifunctional products and multi-products are applicable within a specific PEF for shoes, the
PEF Guidance shall be followed and documented.
43
6. Benchmark and Classes of
Environmental Performance
Due to the limited availability of manufacturing data on shoes across the different categories, the
creation of a benchmark at this time is only a draft. After more shoes have been evaluated during
the PEF supporting studies, a broader range of styles, sizes, materials, etc. will be available and
the benchmark classes will be defined further. This update will happen as part of the step
‘Confirmation of benchmark(s) and determination of performance classes’ as described in
[Guidance Products] sections 2.6.1 and 3.2.
6.1. Benchmarking
The average shoe evaluated in the screening report has been defined as the ‘C’ level for each
sub-category. A selected list of primary data inputs were modified to create ‘B’ and ‘D’ class
shoes. To create these shoe scenarios, certain data inputs were set to the lowest and highest
reported value within the sample of shoes already evaluated. These inputs were chosen based
on their overall relevance to the environmental profile and their ease of testing. The inputs
evaluated are listed below in Table 6-1. These assumptions are also used in the calculation of
best case ‘A’ and worst case ‘E’ shoes.
It should be noted that the choice of best and worst case manufacturing regions in the screening
(Spain and Indonesia, respectively) did not consider the same environmental impacts,
normalization, and weighting now being used for benchmarking. In order to identify the ‘best’ and
‘worst’ regions for electricity and thermal energy production, environmental results were
calculated for each of the countries sampled in the screening then their impacts were normalized
and weighted (equally). The ‘best’ regions for electricity and thermal energy were identified as
Taiwan and Indonesia, respectively. The ‘worst’ regions for electricity and thermal energy were
identified as China and the US, respectively.
Table 6-1: Assumptions used in benchmarking
A/B
All Shoes
Transport to Customer
Transport to Customer
Transport to Customer
Manufacturing Region
Manufacturing Region
Manufacturing Region
Sport
Overall Weight
Manufacturing Electricity
Manufacturing Thermal
Water Use
Leisure / Fashion
Overall Weight
standard delivery
20% airfreight
local delivery
TW (elec) & ID (thermal)
Average Mix
CN (elec) & US (thermal)
C
D/E
x
x
-
x
x
-
x
x
Gross Weight [kg / pair]
Tier 1 + 2 [MJ / pair]
Tier 1 + 2 [MJ / pair]
[L / pair]
0.576
8.28
0
5.6
0.817
12.73
8.66
8.17
1.03
17.2
13
13.3
Gross Weight [kg / pair]
0.852
0.968
1.19
44
Manufacturing Electricity
Manufacturing Thermal
Water Use
Work / Waterproof
Overall Weight
Manufacturing Electricity
Manufacturing Thermal
Water Use
Tier 1 + 2 [MJ / pair]
Tier 1 + 2 [MJ / pair]
[L / pair]
Gross Weight [kg / pair]
Tier 1 + 2 [MJ / pair]
Tier 1 + 2 [MJ / pair]
[L / pair]
4.96
0
4.85
9.92
0.162
6.15
18
0
8.89
1.03
7.56
0.184
7.3
1.25
4.92
0.5
7.3
1.51
12.2
0.605
7.3
Modifying the shoes’ mix of individual materials was not as simple as modeling each ingredient
with its highest and lowest reported value. That being said, the different materials used in a shoe’s
construction have different environmental impacts, and so material substitutions or ‘recipe’
changes should be evaluated in the context of a best or worst case benchmark. Rather than
using the existing shoe ‘recipes’ provided by brands, the statistical tool Monte Carlo analysis was
used to evaluate changes in the shoe’s recipe.
The Monte Carlo analysis involved first assigning a statistical range (upper and lower limit based
on one standard deviation per a normal distribution) to each material in each shoe’s BOM. The
upper limit to each ingredient was assigned to match the highest reported amount for that material.
The lower limit for each ingredient was zero. Using GaBi’s Monte Carlo simulation tool, the
materials’ amounts were then randomly moved up and down within their ranges. In this way,
many random recipes for different shoes could be evaluated despite the small sample size
evaluated in the screening. Environmental results were calculated for the shoes with random
recipes 100 times and aggregated. The 100 sets of results were then split by 10% percentile,
25% percentile, Median, 75% percentile, and 90% percentile.
The A class represents the best possible shoe recipe along with the best possible weight,
manufacturing energy, location, etc. as defined for the B class shoe. The environmental impact
of the A class is defined by the 10% percentile from the Monte Carlo simulation. Similarly, the E
class is defined by the 90% percentile results applied to the D class shoe.
6.2. Normalization and Weighting
In order to create single scores for each shoe evaluated and each benchmark, normalization and
weighting were also applied. The normalization factors recommended by the EC used. It should
be noted that the introduction of normalization factors provides another level of uncertainty to
results when communication of absolute results is adequate in many communication channels.
However, in order to create a single score for each shoe (required by the EC and necessary for
labelling), normalization must occur before weighting the results into a single score.
For each impact category evaluated, each shoe scenario was scaled by the normalization factor
and then given an equal weighting. The sum of these normalized results represents a score for
each performance class. The calculated score for a given shoe would fall into the ranges
described in each table. These normalization factors should be used for PEFs until a new set of
benchmark classes is established.
The absolute results, normalization factors, normalized results, and single scores are shown for
the benchmark classes for each sub-category in Table 6-2, Table 6-3, and Table 6-4. Note that
45
GWP results are shown with and without biogenic Carbon for completeness. The GWP including
biogenic C results have not been included in the benchmarking results and won’t be used in the
calculation of PEFs; this is just to show that the exercise would yield almost identical results if
using this alternate method.
Note that the results for GWP including biogenic C are slightly lower than those including biogenic
C. This difference is linked to a small amount of biogenic carbon which has been sequestered
during the production of raw materials. For products with leather, the majority of the biogenic C
is sequestered during growth of cattle feed. Smaller contributions to the difference come from
cultivation of trees for use in paper and cardboard.
Table 6-2: Absolute and normalized impacts of Sport shoes
A
B
C
D
E
Normalization
factors
0.0297
9.83E-05
0.391
5.23
5
0.000724
4E-08
0.00313
0.0344
0.052
0.0314
6.5E-05
0.303
6.16
6.1
0.000829
8.17E-08
0.00383
0.0399
0.0752
0.0575
7.34E-05
0.415
9.17
9.11
0.00102
9.79E-08
0.0062
0.0562
0.137
0.072
9.48E-05
0.487
12.3
12.3
0.0013
1.13E-07
0.00679
0.0693
0.189
0.0796
0.000159
0.749
14.9
14.5
0.00153
2.46E-07
0.00898
0.0786
0.226
2.36E+10
7.41E+08
5.64E+11
4.55E+12
4.55E+12
8.42E+09
1.08E+07
2.41E+09
1.59E+10
8.73E+10
A
B
C
D
E
Acidification
Eutrophication
Ionising radiation
Global Warming excl biogenic C
Global Warming incl biogenic C
Marine Eutrophication
Ozone Depletion
Particulate matter
Photochemical ozone formation
Terrestrial Eutrophication
1.26E-12
1.33E-13
6.93E-13
1.15E-12
8.60E-14
3.70E-15
1.30E-12
2.16E-12
5.96E-13
7.38E-12
1.33E-12
8.78E-14
5.38E-13
1.35E-12
9.84E-14
7.57E-15
1.59E-12
2.51E-12
8.61E-13
8.37E-12
2.44E-12
9.90E-14
7.36E-13
2.01E-12
1.21E-13
9.06E-15
2.57E-12
3.53E-12
1.57E-12
1.31E-11
3.05E-12
1.28E-13
8.64E-13
2.70E-12
1.55E-13
1.04E-14
2.82E-12
4.36E-12
2.16E-12
1.62E-11
3.37E-12
2.15E-13
1.33E-12
3.27E-12
1.82E-13
2.28E-14
3.73E-12
4.94E-12
2.59E-12
1.96E-11
Total Score (Equal Weighting)
1.26E-12
1.33E-12
2.44E-12
3.05E-12
3.37E-12
below
1.26E-12
1.26E-12 –
1.33E-12
1.33E-12 –
2.44E-12
2.44E-12 –
3.05E-12
above
3.05E-12
Absolute Results (Sport)
Acidification
Eutrophication
Ionising radiation
Global Warming excl biogenic C
Global Warming incl biogenic C
Marine Eutrophication
Ozone Depletion
Particulate matter
Photochemical ozone formation
Terrestrial Eutrophication
Normalized Results (Sport)
Score Ranges
46
Table 6-3: Absolute impacts of Leisure/Fashion shoes
Absolute Results (L/F)
Acidification
Eutrophication
Ionising radiation
Global Warming excl biogenic C
Global Warming incl biogenic C
Marine Eutrophication
Ozone Depletion
Particulate matter
Photochemical ozone formation
Terrestrial Eutrophication
Normalized Results (L/F)
Acidification
Eutrophication
Ionising radiation
Global Warming excl biogenic C
Global Warming incl biogenic C
Marine Eutrophication
Ozone Depletion
Particulate matter
Photochemical ozone formation
Terrestrial Eutrophication
Total Score (equal weighting)
Score Ranges
A
B
C
D
E
0.022
2.88E-04
0.205
3.99
3.87
0.00191
1.24E-07
0.00408
0.0329
0.0551
0.0378
2.10E-04
0.39
5.25
4.88
0.00196
3.35E-07
0.00773
0.039
0.0831
0.0794
3.54E-04
0.503
10
9.32
0.00363
6.04E-07
0.0156
0.0658
0.202
0.104
4.80E-04
0.673
14.1
13.2
0.0049
8.14E-07
0.0208
0.0874
0.297
0.148
9.51E-04
0.833
18.3
17
0.011
1.83E-06
0.0377
0.117
0.42
A
B
C
D
E
9.32E-13
3.89E-13
3.63E-13
8.77E-13
8.51E-13
2.27E-13
1.15E-14
1.69E-12
2.07E-12
6.31E-13
1.6E-12
2.83E-13
6.92E-13
1.15E-12
1.07E-12
2.32E-13
3.1E-14
3.21E-12
2.45E-12
9.52E-13
3.36E-12
4.78E-13
8.92E-13
2.2E-12
2.05E-12
4.31E-13
5.6E-14
6.49E-12
4.14E-12
2.31E-12
4.4E-12
6.48E-13
1.19E-12
3.11E-12
2.9E-12
5.82E-13
7.54E-14
8.64E-12
5.5E-12
3.4E-12
6.27E-12
1.28E-12
1.48E-12
4.02E-12
3.74E-12
1.31E-12
1.69E-13
1.56E-11
7.36E-12
4.81E-12
7.19E-12
1.06E-11
2.04E-11
2.75E-11
4.23E-11
below
7.19E-12
7.19E-12 –
1.06E-11
1.06E-11 –
2.04E-11
2.04E-11 –
2.75E-11
Above
2.75E-11
Normalization
factors
2.36E+10
7.41E+08
5.64E+11
4.55E+12
4.55E+12
8.42E+09
1.08E+07
2.41E+09
1.59E+10
8.73E+10
Table 6-4: Absolute and normalized impacts of Work/Waterproof shoes
Absolute Results (W/W)
Acidification
Eutrophication
Ionising radiation
Global Warming excl biogenic C
Global Warming incl biogenic C
Marine Eutrophication
Ozone Depletion
Particulate matter
Photochemical ozone formation
Terrestrial Eutrophication
Normalized Results (W/W)
Acidification
Eutrophication
Ionising radiation
Global Warming excl biogenic C
Global Warming incl biogenic C
Marine Eutrophication
Ozone Depletion
Particulate matter
Photochemical ozone formation
A
B
C
D
E
Normalization
factors
0.0601
2.78E-04
0.592
9.28
8.9
0.00269
5.06E-08
0.00825
0.0523
0.131
0.102
9.01E-04
0.725
13
12.1
0.0151
8.07E-08
0.0394
0.0756
0.253
0.114
9.90E-04
0.855
14.6
13.7
0.0166
8.49E-08
0.0441
0.0828
0.285
0.162
1.31E-03
1.04
21.4
20.3
0.0221
9.87E-08
0.0589
0.114
0.42
0.242
2.57E-03
1.43
28
27.2
0.0417
2.47E-07
0.109
0.154
0.636
2.36E+10
7.41E+08
5.64E+11
4.55E+12
4.55E+12
8.42E+09
1.08E+07
2.41E+09
1.59E+10
8.73E+10
A
B
C
D
E
2.55E-12
3.75E-13
1.05E-12
2.04E-12
1.95E-12
3.19E-13
4.69E-15
3.42E-12
3.29E-12
4.3E-12
1.22E-12
1.28E-12
2.85E-12
2.66E-12
1.79E-12
7.48E-15
1.64E-11
4.75E-12
4.83E-12
1.34E-12
1.52E-12
3.2E-12
3E-12
1.98E-12
7.86E-15
1.83E-11
5.21E-12
6.86E-12
1.77E-12
1.84E-12
4.71E-12
4.45E-12
2.62E-12
9.14E-15
2.44E-11
7.17E-12
1.03E-11
3.47E-12
2.54E-12
6.15E-12
5.97E-12
4.95E-12
2.29E-14
4.52E-11
9.69E-12
47
Terrestrial Eutrophication
Total Score (equal weighting)
Score Ranges
1.5E-12
1.45E-11
2.9E-12
3.55E-11
3.27E-12
3.97E-11
4.81E-12
5.42E-11
7.29E-12
8.96E-11
below
1.45E-11
1.45E-11 –
3.55E-11
3.55E-11 –
3.97E-11
3.97E-11 –
5.42E-11
above
5.42E-11
These benchmarks were tested with the existing shoes evaluated in the screening. The PEF
score for each shoe (anonymized as a number 1 through 7) has been calculated to show the
distribution of shoes according to the A – E class definitions.
The performance of existing shoes in relation to the benchmarks is shown in Figure 6-1, Figure
6-2, and Figure 6-3.
Figure 6-1: Sport Benchmarks and Individual Shoe Scores
48
Figure 6-2: Leisure / Fashion Benchmarks and Individual Shoe Scores
Figure 6-3: Work / Waterproof Benchmarks and Individual Shoe Scores
49
7. Interpretation
It should be noted that numerical PEF scores (after normalization and weighting) should not
be compared from shoe to shoe. Comparing shoes’ overall benchmark classes would be
acceptable (e.g., B vs. C) but the uncertainly inherent in the foreground and background
system makes a more detailed comparison inappropriate.
Within the development of a PEF profile for non-leather shoes an interpretation shall be
conducted and reported including:
•
•
•
•
Assessment of the robustness of the PEF model (e.g. completeness and
consistency check),
Identification of Hotspots,
Estimation of Uncertainty,
Conclusions, Recommendations and Limitations.
Most Relevant Impact Categories:
For the purposes of benchmarking and calculation of PEFs, all the environmental impacts
have been included with exceptions noted in Section 4.5. The impacts removed from the
benchmark calculation have been done so due to instability in either the impact methodology
or incompleteness in the underlying background data.
Environmental Hotspots: In summary, the sport shoe’s life cycle has relevant contributions
from raw materials (specifically manmade fibers and auxiliary materials). Electricity use in Tier
1, 2, and 3 manufacturing are all relevant, but varying across impact category which is most
important. Transportation to customer is relevant for impacts related to boat emissions such
as Acidification, Particulate Matter, and Photochemical Ozone Formation. Note that emissions
from boats tend to occur far from population and therefore the assessment may over-estimate
the impacts on the impact categories "Particulate Matter", and "Photochemical Ozone
Formation" from boat emissions as compared to other life cycle stages
The leisure / fashion shoe’s life cycle has strong contributions from raw materials (specifically
natural fibers and leather), as well as energy use in Tier 3 manufacturing, followed by energy
in Tier 1. Emissions during Tier 1 manufacturing have a large effect on Human Toxicity and
Photochemical Ozone Formation, so efforts to capture those data accurately can improve
confidence in the conclusions. The relative irrelevance of Tier 2 manufacturing could be
related to data gaps, but the region of manufacture can have a significant effect on the results.
Similar to the fashion shoe, the work / waterproof shoe’s results are driven by leather in the
upper across most impact categories, elevating the importance of raw materials over
manufacturing.
The contributions from transport, retail, use, and disposal are often relatively unimportant,
even after evaluation with sensitivity analysis to identify any situations where they could
become relevant.
The impacts associated with the life cycle phase ‘raw material acquisition’ are affected by a
combination of the shoe’s overall weight and its specific BOM, with the presence of leather
outweighing other choices in the construction of a shoe. If the choice is made to evaluate
leather without the impacts of cattle husbandry, the importance of leather in the construction
will be significantly reduced.
50
The impacts associated with energy are linked to both the amount of energy as well as the
fuels which are used to create that energy. The fuel mix in each region is fairly different and
should be evaluated in sensitivity analysis.
Uncertainties in footwear evaluations: Due to the distributed nature of the footwear supply
chain and difficulty collecting primary data on footwear manufacturing, reasonable levels of
uncertainty in the calculation of PEFs are inevitable. These uncertainties are reduced by data
quality requirements from detailed BOM data and location of Tier 1 & 2 manufacturing, the
largest hotspots across all impacts. The default values calculated for the industry (which can
be used throughout the rest of the PEF calculation) will also be updated as additional PEF
supporting studies increase the sample size.
Conclusions: Since the calculation of PEFs will be possible with limited primary data (i.e.,
only basic BOMs and location of manufacturing), these two aspects of the life cycle will
dominate results. The purpose of PEF supporting studies is to evaluate a larger sample size
and to test if the proposed data collection requirements and calculation methods reinforce
conclusions from the screening study. For this reason, updates to the method are certainly
possible between the PEF supporting studies and the 3rd draft of the PEFCR.
51
8. Reporting, Disclosure and
Communication
8.1. PEF external communication report
The PEF report shall follow the structure and requirements on content described in the PEF
Commission Recommendation. Deviations from this Recommendation shall be justified in the
report.
A PEF report consists of at least three elements: a Summary, the Main Report, and an Annex.
Confidential and proprietary information can be documented in a fourth element - a
complementary Confidential Report. Review reports are either annexed or referenced.”
8.1.1. First element: Summary
The Summary shall be able to stand alone without compromising the results and
conclusions/recommendations (if included). The Summary shall fulfil the same criteria about
transparency, consistency, etc. as the detailed report. The Summary shall, as a minimum,
include:
Key elements of the goal and scope of the study with relevant limitations and
assumptions;
A description of the system boundary;
The main results from the Resource Use and Emissions Profile and the EF impact
assessment components: these shall be presented in such a way as to ensure the
proper use of the information; the results shall be declared separately for each of the
selected life cycle stages.
Summary of interpretation
If applicable, environmental improvements compared to previous periods;
Relevant statements about data quality, assumptions and value judgments;
A description of what has been achieved by the study, any recommendations made
and conclusions drawn;
Overall appreciation of the uncertainties of the results.
8.1.2. Second element: Main Report
The Main Report shall, as a minimum, include the following components:
Goal of the study - Mandatory reporting elements include, as a minimum:
Intended application(s);
Methodological or EF impact category limitations;
Reasons for carrying out the study;
Target audience;
52
Whether the study is intended for comparison or for comparative assertions to
be disclosed to the public;
Reference PCRs;
Commissioner of the study.
Scope of the study
The Scope of the study shall identify the analyzed system in detail and address the overall
approach used to establish the system boundaries. The Scope of the study shall also address
data quality requirements. Finally, the Scope shall include a description of the methods applied
for assessing potential environmental impacts and which EF impact categories are included.
Mandatory reporting elements include, as a minimum:
Unit of analysis and reference flow;
System boundaries, including omissions of life-cycle stages, processes or data
needs, quantification of energy and material inputs and outputs, assumptions
about electricity production, use and end-of-life stages;
The reasons for and potential significance of any exclusions;
All assumptions and value judgements, along with justifications for the
assumptions made;
Data representativeness, appropriateness of data, and types/ sources of
required data and information;
PEF impact categories, models and indicators;
normalisation and weighting factors (if used);
Treatment of any multi-functionality issues encountered in the PEF modelling
activity.
Compiling and recording the Resource Use and Emissions Profile -Mandatory reporting
elements include, as a minimum:
Description and documentation of all unit process data collected;
Data collection procedures;
Sources of published literature;
Information on any use and end-of-life scenarios considered in downstream
stages;
Calculation procedures;
Validation of data, including documentation and justification of allocation
procedures;
If a sensitivity analysis has been conducted, this shall be reported.
Calculating PEF impact assessment results - Mandatory reporting elements include:
The EF impact assessment procedure, calculations and results of the PEF
study;
Limitation of the EF results relative to the defined goal and scope of the PEF
study;
The relationship of the EF impact assessment results to the defined goal and
scope;
53
If any exclusion from the default EF impact categories has been made, the
justification for the exclusion(s) shall be reported;
If any deviation from the default EF impact assessment methods has been
made (which shall be justified and included under additional environmental
information), then the mandatory reporting elements shall also include:
Impact categories and impact category indicators considered, including a
rationale for their selection and a reference to their source;
Description of or reference to all characterisation models, characterisation
factors and methods used, including all assumptions and limitations;
Description of or reference to all value-choices used in relation to the EF impact
categories, characterisation models, characterisation factors, normalisation,
grouping, weighting and a justification for their use and their influence on the
results, conclusions and recommendations;
A statement and justification of any grouping of the EF impact categories;
Any analysis of the indicator results, for example sensitivity and uncertainty
analysis on the use of other impact categories or additional environmental
information, including any implication for the results;
Additional environmental information, if any;
Information on carbon storage in products;
Information on delayed emissions;
data and indicator results reached prior to any normalisation;
If included, normalisation and weighting factors and results.
Interpreting PEF results - Mandatory reporting elements include:
Assessment of data quality;
Full transparency of value choices, rationale and expert judgements;
Identification of environmental hotspots;
Uncertainty (at least a qualitative description);
Conclusions, recommendations, limitations, and improvement potentials.
8.1.3. Third element: Annex
The Annex serves to document supporting elements to the main report which are of a more
technical nature. It shall include:
Descriptions of all assumptions, including those assumptions that have been shown to be
irrelevant;
Critical review report, including (where applicable) the name and affiliation of
reviewer or review team, a critical review, responses to recommendations (if
any);
Resource Use and Emissions Profile (optional if considered sensitive and
communicated separately in the Confidential Report, see below);
Reviewers’ self-declaration of their qualification, stating how many points they
achieved for each criterion defined in section 10.3 of this PEF Guide.
54
8.1.4. Fourth element: Confidential Annex
The Confidential Report is an optional reporting element that shall contain all those data
(including raw data) and information that are confidential or proprietary and cannot be made
externally available. It shall be made available confidentially to the critical reviewers.
8.2. PEF performance tracking report
Communication of performance tracking may be made when they are due to:
a) Improvements made by the reporting organization,
b) Selection of other suppliers,
c) Deliberate and verifiable improvements made by suppliers,
d) Improvements in the use stage and in the end-of-life stage made by improved product
design or an improved end-of-life procedure,
e) Changes due to process improvements.
Changes due to seasonal changes or finding better secondary data sources shall not be
reported as performance changes.
The communication may be supported by a graphical representation of the processes in the
life cycle of the product, which allows an understanding of the system boundary, the
contribution to the PEF profile and the changes included.”
8.3. PEF declaration
The PEF declaration should include:
a) Identification and description of the organization making the declaration,
b) Product identification (e.g. trade name, model number, other common names of the
product),
c) Description of the function, technical performance, intended use of the product,
d) Characteristics of the product relevant to the specification of the delivery or unit of
analysis: e.g. lifetime, mass, composition
e) Description of the final application,
f) PEFCR identification,
g) Date of publication and period of validity of the declaration,
h) Results of the PEF calculation separately for each of the selected life cycle stages,
i) Additional environmental information,
j) Information on which life cycle stages are not considered, if the declaration is not based on
an PEF study covering all life cycle stages,
55
k) Statement that environmental declarations from different programmes may not be
comparable,
l) Web site address where explanatory material and all supporting information related to the
calculations done is available,
m) Information about the verification.
n) Details for the End of Life stage shall be declared:
8.4. PEF label
Objectives and the communications approach
The main aims for the non-leather shoes PEF communication vehicle are to contribute to more
sustainable consumption overall by helping consumers make more informed choices on the products
they buy; increasing the attractiveness of products with a better PEF score; and improving the
environmental performance of individual products through improved product design and increased
competition for performance across a level playing field.
With this in mind, and utilising much of the existing wealth of behavioural insights on the successful
communication of environmental information for consumers, including the Commission’s own
background document, the following principles have guided the development of the non-leather shoes
PEF communication vehicle:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Transparency (product performance, assessment procedure).
Availability and accessibility (at diverse points of sale, with additional information).
Reliability (accuracy and verifiable).
Clarity (precise, understandable, appropriate for the target audience).
Comparability (consumers can compare between similar products).
Relevance and completeness (information in relation to most relevant impacts, across relevant
life cycle stages).
Usefulness (to the consumer and the product, not overstating, information provided simply, but
allowing for prioritisation).
For this non-leather shoes pilot project, the communications vehicle has been defined as an
environmental performance label to be located on various point-of-sale locations (Level 1), with
accompanying supporting information (Level 2 – see table below). An additional layer of information
(Level 3) is also recommended for those expert stakeholders who require the most detailed information
around, the PEFCR calculation and impacts, scores for products and brands and information on the
assessment procedure and data quality.
Level
1
Audience
Consumers
Sales
employees
2
‘Curious
consumers’
General
stakeholder
s
Possible forms
Label at diverse points of sales,
both brick-and-mortar and digital,
e.g.
•
Hanging label.
•
Sticker for shoes,
shoebox.
•
Shelving display label.
•
Icon and information tab in
online store.
•
Online page/s within each
brand website including
website.
•
App launched through
code, short links, QR code
reader.
Core content
Initiative name.
Rating scheme.
EU reference.
About the label.
What the PEF is.
What the scores mean.
What the PEF measures.
Who is involved in the initiative.
The product scores.
56
(employees,
media, etc)
3
Expert
Stakeholder
s
A continuation of the information on
the online brand websites, with
summary information about the
PEF project and/or pilot.
To include links to the European
Commission and Sustainable
Apparel Coalition pages introducing
the project.
Explanation around the life cycle stages.
More detail on the environmental impact
categories.
Supplementary info, e.g. PEF external
communication report, declaration, data quality
score.
Detailed PEF scores per product.
Transparency on assessment procedure.
Data quality statement.
This approach focuses on the buyer by giving them the critical information in a format that is
accessible at the point in which they make their purchasing decision. It allows the
communications to take advantage of participating brands’ close connections with consumers
and their store assets across multiple test countries in the EU.
Proposed direction of the label
Given the length of the communications testing period (a full calendar year – 2016) and the
need to resolve many technical questions before the communications roll out, the Secretariat
has decided to focus the proposed communications vehicle to the Level 1 label at the points
of sale.
Through workshops with participating brands and the Sustainable Apparel Coalition, we are
proposing the below Level 1 label. This is comprised of:
PEF initiative name:
o ‘Environmental Score’
A rating system:
o A (best performance)
o B
o C (average performance)
o D
o E (worst performance)
Reference to being an EU initiative
o In partnership with the EU (with or without the flag)
Creative expression
o Route based on ‘measurement’, characterised by simplicity, boldness and clear
representation of the scale
The image below shows the proposed direction and graphical guidelines of the Level 1 label.
It is characterised by being simple to apply and easy to understand within a small space at
point of sale. The top to bottom A-E scale uses a commonly understood visual impression of
scores and ratings. The typeface is oriented to be bold and utilitarian in style, in order to reflect
trust and authenticity. Similarly the EU reference is included fairly high up the hierarchy of
information.
The label allows for some interpretation by brands: e.g. colour, overall shape, size. It is subject
to minor refinement before the market testing period to allow for implementation of further
feedback.
Image 1 – Without EU flag
NB: the five labels across the bottom represent the approximate minimum size the label would
be displayed
57
58
Image 2 – With EU flag
NB: the five labels across the bottom represent the approximate minimum size the label
would be displayed
Feedback from the Technical Secretariat informing the direction of the level 1 label:
‘Environmental Score’
• ‘Eco’ can be confused with Economic and associated with greenwashing.
• ‘Quality’ and ‘performance’ have established meaning for the products.
• To maximise label real estate recommend avoiding ‘product’ in the label name.
The A-E rating system:
• “Easier to understand what's the best/highest score. A-E colour bars are already
recognisable to consumers.”
• Should take advantage of existing consumer familiarity with letter rating systems.
EU reference:
• ‘In partnership with the EU’ demonstrates the EU connection that adds legitimacy to
the label, and also references collaboration.
• Inclusion of the EU flag remains open to debate. Some members of the Technical
Secretariat suggested that it adds clarity and more legitimacy, as well as making the
connection to other EU labelling schemes such as energy ratings. Others felt that it
might confuse the consumer regarding the origin of the product and take up excess
design space.
Creative expression
• Does not need to be overly designed, simple is better.
• Neutral.
59
Gathering feedback
In order to evaluate the effectiveness of the PEF communication vehicle and individual
elements, the Technical Secretariat will conduct in-market sales testing as well as
supplementary consumer testing to monitor actual consumer behaviour and choices in
response to the different levels of information.
The methodology for the market testing is in the process of being developed and agreed
upon. It is expected that the test will be conducted in multiple European countries, potentially
involving in-store, online and dedicated market research studies.
60
9. Verification
61
10. Reference Literature
APELDOORN 2004
Declaration of Apeldoorn on LCIA of Non-Ferro Metals, Apeldoorn 2004,
(http://media.leidenuniv.nl/legacy/declaration_of_apeldoorn.pdf)
GUINÉE 2001
Guinée et al, An operational guide to the ISO-standards, Centre for
Milieukunde (CML), Leiden, the Netherlands, 2001
ISO 14040 : 2006
ISO 14040 Environmental management – Life cycle assessment –
Principles and Framework, 2006
ISO 14044 : 2006
ISO 14044 Environmental management – Life cycle assessment –
Requirements and guidelines, 2006
PE INTERNATIONAL
2013
GaBi 6 dataset documentation, PE INTERNATIONAL AG, LeinfeldenEchterdingen, 2013 (http://www.gabi-software.com/support/gabi/gabi-6-lcidocumentation)
ROSENBAUM 2008
Rosenbaum et al, USEtox™—the UNEP-SETAC toxicity model:
recommended characterisation factors for human toxicity and freshwater
ecotoxicity in life cycle impact assessment, International Journal of Life
Cycle Assessment (2008) 13:532–546
GHG Protocol
World Resource Institute, WBCSD, Product Life Cycle Accounting and
Reporting Standard. September 2011;
http://www.ghgprotocol.org/standards/product-standard
GaBi Modeling
Guidelines 2013
GaBi Database & Modelling Principles 2013; PE INTERNATIONAL AG,
Leinfelden-Echterdingen, 2013 (http://www.gabisoftware.com/uploads/media/GaBi_Modelling_Principles_2013.pdf)
PEF Guide
Official Journal of the European Union L124: Commission
Recommendation of 9 April 2013 on the use of common methods to
measure and communicate the life cycle environmental performance of
products and organisations – Annex II: PRODUCT ENVIRONMENTAL
FOOTPRINT (PEF) GUIDE, May 4th 2013
Guidance Products
European Commission (EC): Guidance for the implementation of the EU
Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) during the Environmental Footprint
(EF) pilot phase, Version 4.0, May 2014
ADEME/ AFNOR
ADEME-Afnor, Grenelle: Methodology for the environmental impacts
assessment of shoes, product category shoes, France, 2010
EN ISO 17708
EN ISO 17708: 2003 Footwear -- Test methods for whole shoe -- Upper
sole adhesion
EN ISO 17707
EN ISO 17707:2005 Footwear -- Test methods for outsoles -- Flex
resistance
EN 13512
EN 13512:2002 Footwear - Test methods for uppers and lining - Flex
resistance
EN 12770
EN 12770:2000 Footwear. Test methods for outsoles. Abrasion resistance
62
EN 13571
EN 13571:2002 Footwear - Test methods for uppers, lining and insocks Tear strength
EN 12771
EN 12771:2000 Footwear. Test methods for outsoles. Tear strength
ISO 17704
ISO 17704:2004 Footwear -- Test methods for uppers, linings and insocks
-- Abrasion resistance
EN ISO 12947-2
EN ISO 12947-2:2007-04 Textiles - Determination of abrasion resistance
of fabrics by the Martindale method - Part 2: Determination of specimen
breakdown (ISO 12947-2:1998+Cor. 1:2002)
EN ISO 17700
ISO 17700:2004 Footwear -- Test methods for uppers, linings and insocks
-- Colour fastness to rubbing
van Oers 2002
van Oers et al, Abiotic resource depletion in LCA: Improving
characterisation factors abiotic resource depletion as recommended in the
new Dutch LCA handbook, 2002
Eurostat 2012
Summary waste generated & treatment in EU-28 2012, date of extraction,
17 Oct 2014 10:16:14 MEST;
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do?tab=table&init=1&plugin=1&l
anguage=en&pcode=tsdpc240
Staikos et al 2006
Staikos, T.; Heath, R.; Haworth, B.; Rahimifard, S.: End-of-Life Management
of Shoes and the Role of Biodegradable Materials. Loughborough
University, 2006.
Monier et al 2012
Monier, V.; Hestin, M.; Kermorgant, R.: État de l’art du tri, du recyclage et
de la valorisation des chaussures à destination des ménages, Rapport final.
BIO IS, October 2012.
Scotchgard 2014
http://multimedia.3m.com/mws/mediawebserver?mwsId=SSSSSuUn_zu8l
00xM8melx_ZOv70k17zHvu9lxtD7SSSSSS--
JRC 2013
JRC; Background Report: Revision of Ecolabel for the product group
“Footwear”, 2013
GUINÉE 2001
Guinée et al, An operational guide to the ISO-standards, Centre for
Milieukunde (CML), Leiden, the Netherlands, 2001
ISO 14040 : 2006
ISO 14040 Environmental management – Life cycle assessment –
Principles and Framework, 2006
ISO 14044 : 2006
ISO 14044 Environmental management – Life cycle assessment –
Requirements and guidelines, 2006
PE INTERNATIONAL
2013
GaBi 6 dataset documentation, PE INTERNATIONAL AG, LeinfeldenEchterdingen, 2013 (http://www.gabi-software.com/support/gabi/gabi-6-lcidocumentation)
ROSENBAUM 2008
Rosenbaum et al, USEtox™—the UNEP-SETAC toxicity model:
recommended characterisation factors for human toxicity and freshwater
ecotoxicity in life cycle impact assessment, International Journal of Life
Cycle Assessment (2008) 13:532–546
ECOLABEL 2013
European Commission, JRC Scientific and Policy Reports, Background
report, Service Offer Subject: Revision of Ecolabel for the product group
“Footwear”, September 2013
63
64
11. Supporting Information for the
PEFCR
Supporting information on the PEFCR are described in the screening study.
65
12. List of Annexes
Annex I – Representative product
Annex II – Supporting studies
Annex III – Benchmark and classes of environmental performance
Annex IV – Upstream scenarios (optional)
Annex V – Downstream scenarios (optional)
Annex VI – Normalisation factors
Annex VII – Weighting factors
Annex VIII – Foreground data
Annex IX – Background data
Annex X – EOL formulas
Annex XI – PCR References
12.1. Annex I – Representative product and
existing footwear standards
A non-exhaustive list of relevant standards for footwear is shown below.
Standard
ISO 10717:2010
ISO 10748:2011
Title
Footwear -- Test method for slide fasteners -- Burst strength
ISO 10750
Footwear -- Test method for slide fasteners -- Attachment strength of
end stops
Footwear -- Test method for the characterization of elastic materials
-- Tensile performance
Footwear -- Test method for the determination of the resistance of
elastic materials for footwear to repeated extension -- Fatigue
resistance
Footwear -- Resistance to crack initiation and growth -- Belt flex
method
Footwear -- Critical substances potentially present in footwear and
footwear components
Footwear -- Critical substances potentially present in footwear and
footwear components -- Determination of organotin compounds in
footwear materials
ISO 10765:2010
ISO 10768:2010
ISO 16177:2012
ISO/TR 16178:2012
ISO/TS 16179:2012
Footwear -- Test method for slide fasteners -- Slider locking strength
66
ISO/TS 16181:2011
ISO/TS 16186:2012
ISO 16187:2013
ISO/TS 16189:2013
ISO/TS 16190:2013
ISO 17693:2004
ISO 17694:2003
ISO 17695:2004
ISO 17696:2004
ISO 17697:2003
ISO 17698:2003
ISO 17699:2003
ISO 17700:2004
ISO 17701:2003
ISO 17702:2003
ISO 17703:2003
ISO 17704:2004
ISO 17705:2003
ISO 17706:2003
ISO 17707:2005
ISO 17708:2003
Footwear -- Critical substances potentially present in footwear and
footwear components -- Determination of phthalates in footwear
materials
Footwear -- Critical substances potentially present in footwear and
footwear components -- Test method to quantitatively determine
dimethyl fumarate (DMFU) in footwear materials
Footwear and footwear components -- Test method to assess
antibacterial activity
Footwear -- Critical substances potentially present in footwear and
footwear components -- Test method to quantitatively determine
dimethylformamide in footwear materials
Footwear -- Critical substances potentially present in footwear and
footwear components -- Test method to quantitatively determine
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) in footwear materials
Footwear -- Test methods for uppers -- Resistance to damage on
lasting
Footwear -- Test methods for uppers and lining -- Flex resistance
Footwear -- Test methods for uppers -- Deformability
Footwear -- Test methods for uppers, linings and insocks -- Tear
strength
Footwear -- Test methods for uppers, lining and insocks -- Seam
strength
Footwear -- Test methods for uppers -- Delamination resistance
Footwear -- Test methods for uppers and lining -- Water vapour
permeability and absorption
Footwear -- Test methods for uppers, linings and insocks -- Colour
fastness to rubbing
Footwear -- Test methods for uppers, lining and insocks -- Colour
migration
Footwear -- Test methods for uppers -- Water resistance
Footwear -- Test methods for uppers -- High temperature behaviour
Footwear -- Test methods for uppers, linings and insocks -- Abrasion
resistance
Footwear -- Test methods for uppers, lining and insocks -- Thermal
insulation
Footwear -- Test methods for uppers -- Tensile strength and
elongation
Footwear -- Test methods for outsoles -- Flex resistance
Footwear -- Test methods for whole shoe -- Upper sole adhesion
67
ISO 17709:2004
ISO 18454:2001
ISO 18895:2006
ISO 18896:2006
ISO 19952:2005
ISO 19953:2004
ISO 19954:2003
ISO 19956:2004
ISO 19957:2004
ISO 19957:2004/Cor
1:2005
ISO 19958:2004
ISO/TR 20572:2007
ISO/TR 20573:2006
ISO 20863:2004
ISO 20864:2004
ISO 20865:2002
ISO 20866:2001
ISO 20867:2001
ISO 20868:2001
ISO 20869:2010
ISO 20870:2001
ISO 20871:2001
ISO 20872:2001
Footwear -- Sampling location, preparation and duration of
conditioning of samples and test pieces
Footwear -- Standard atmospheres for conditioning and testing of
footwear and components for footwear
Footwear -- Test methods for shanks -- Fatigue resistance
Footwear -- Test methods for shanks -- Longitudinal stiffness
Footwear -- Vocabulary
Footwear -- Test methods for heels -- Resistance to lateral impact
Footwear -- Test methods for whole shoe -- Washability in a
domestic washing machine
Footwear -- Test methods for heels -- Fatigue resistance
Footwear -- Test methods for heels -- Heel pin holding strength
Footwear -- Test methods for heels and top pieces -- Top piece
retention strength
Footwear -- Performance requirements for components for footwear
-- Accessories
Footwear -- Performance requirements for components for footwear
-- Heels and top pieces
Footwear -- Test methods for stiffeners and toepuffs -- Bondability
Footwear -- Test methods for stiffeners and toepuffs -- Mechanical
characteristics
Footwear -- Test methods for outsoles -- Compression energy
Footwear -- Test methods for insoles -- Delamination resistance
Footwear -- Test methods for insoles -- Heel pin holding strength
Footwear -- Test methods for insoles -- Abrasion resistance
Footwear -- Test method for outsoles, insoles, linings and insocks -Water soluble content
Footwear -- Ageing conditioning
Footwear -- Test methods for outsoles -- Abrasion resistance
Footwear -- Test methods for outsoles -- Tear strength
68
ISO 20873:2001
ISO 20874:2001
ISO 20875:2001
ISO 20876:2001
ISO 20877:2011
ISO/TR 20879:2007
ISO/TR 20880:2007
ISO/TR 20881:2007
ISO/TR 20882:2007
ISO/TR 20883:2007
ISO/TR 22648:2007
ISO 22649:2003
ISO 22650:2002
ISO 22651:2002
ISO/NP 22652
ISO 22652:2002
ISO 22653:2003
ISO 22654:2002
ISO 22774:2004
ISO 22775:2004
ISO 22776:2004
ISO 22777:2004
Footwear -- Test methods for outsoles -- Dimensional stability
Footwear -- Test methods for outsoles -- Needle tear strength
Footwear -- Test methods for outsoles -- Determination of split tear
strength and delamination resistance
Footwear -- Test methods for insoles -- Resistance to stitch tear
Footwear -- Test methods for whole shoe -- Thermal insulation
Footwear -- Performance requirements for components for footwear
-- Uppers
Footwear -- Performance requirements for components for footwear
-- Outsoles
Footwear -- Performance requirements for components for footwear
-- Insoles
Footwear -- Performance requirements for components for footwear
-- Lining and insocks
Footwear -- Performance requirements for components for footwear
-- Shanks
Footwear -- Performance requirements for components for footwear
-- Stiffeners and toepuffs
Footwear -- Test methods for insoles and insocks -- Water
absorption and desorption
Footwear -- Test methods for whole shoe -- Heel attachment
Footwear -- Test methods for insoles -- Dimensional stability
Footwear -- Test methods for insoles, lining and insocks -Perspiration resistance
Footwear -- Test methods for insoles, lining and insocks -Perspiration resistance
Footwear -- Test methods for lining and insocks -- Static friction
Footwear -- Test methods for outsoles -- Tensile strength and
elongation
Footwear -- Test methods for accessories: shoe laces -- Abrasion
resistance
Footwear -- Test methods for accessories: Metallic accessories -Corrosion resistance
Footwear -- Test methods for accessories: Touch and close
fasteners -- Shear strength before and after repeated closing
Footwear -- Test methods for accessories: Touch and close
fasteners -- Peel strength before and after repeated closing
69
The report shall describe the representative product. Document all the steps taken to define
the model.
The following elements shall be included:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Specify if it is a real or a virtual product
Description of the product and of sub-products (where applicable)
Bill of materials (BOM) if appropriate
System boundary diagram covering the entire life cycle. This shall include, at a
minimum, foreground (direct) and upstream (indirect) activities associated with the
product. The PEF boundaries shall by default include all supply-chain stages from raw
material acquisition through processing, production, distribution, storage, use and EoL
treatment of the product. All processes within the defined PEF boundaries shall be
considered. Explicit justification shall be provided if downstream (indirect) activities are
excluded
Assumptions related to transportation scenario
Assumptions related to use scenario (if relevant)
Assumptions related to End of Life (if relevant)
12.2. Annex II – Bill of Material
The non-leather footwear PEF pilot will take all shoe materials and operating materials into
account as required in the production steps explained in the system boundaries section. The
Bill of Materials for the representative products are described below.
Table 12-1: Structure of the BOM
Amount
[kg]
Shoe
materials
Acetone
Acrylic
Aluminum
Azodicarb propellant
Ba Zn stearate
Biological waste
Carbon black
Cardboard
Cellulose
Copper
Cotton fiber
Cyclohexane
Ethanol
Ethyl acetate
EVA
Fiberglass
Hardener chemical (ethylene)
Jute
Leather
Limestone flour
MEK
70
Mg carbonate
Natural rubber
Nitrile rubber
Nylon 6 fiber
Nylon 6 granulate
Nylon 6.6 fiber
Nylon 6.6 granulate
Polycarbonate granulate
Pentane
PET fabric
PET fiber
PET granulate
Polybutadiene
PP fiber
PP gran
PU film
PU flex foam
Recy PET
Recy rubber
SBR
Silica sand
Spandex
TDI
TiO2
TPU
Wax / parrafins
Wood pulp
Zinc oxide
Total shoe material input
Packaging Corrugated Cardboard
Paper
Plastic Wrap
Ink
Adhesive
Total primary packaging input
Table 12-2: Manufacturing inputs and outputs
Type
Inputs
Flow
Tier 1 Electricity
Tier 1 Thermal energy mix
Water
Raw materials
Process Chemicals
Tier 2 Electricity
Tier 2 Thermal energy mix
Unit
MJ
MJ
litres
kg
kg
MJ
MJ
Outputs
Pair of Shoes
Waste
Wastewater
VOCs
kg
kg
litres
kg
Amount
71
12.3. Annex III – Supporting studies
12.4. Annex IV – Benchmark and classes of
environmental performance
Reasons for the exclusion of Toxicity indicators:
There are significant methodological and scientific barriers to the application of general toxicity
criteria within a life cycle impact assessment (LCIA). Currently, all methods evaluated in the
ILCD handbook for the assessment of the fate and effects of metal and chemical compounds,
including USEtox, suffer from a lack of precision (i.e. a large uncertainty of 2 to 3 orders of
magnitude). Therefore, the USEtox characterization factors for metal and chemical
compounds are rated as interim in the USEtox website and should only be used with caution
and not for product comparison.
Reasons for the exclusion of Resource Depletion (mineral, fossil) ADP:
The ADP indicator specified in the PEF Guidance is not built upon an ISO-compliant
“environmental mechanism”, is highly uncertain, and lacks robustness and reproducibility. The
calculation method specified in the PEF Guide exacerbates metal depletion potential in
comparison to fossil-based depletion potential, leading to a baseless material preference. The
PEF Guidance specification to use CML 2002 cannot be implemented as it would contravene
the principles of the PEF Guidance and those of ISO 14040:2006. Additionally, the
characterization factors of the recommended method are based on raw data dated from or
before 1995. New energy carriers (e.g. shale gas, bitumen sand etc.) and extraction sites are
not reflected by the use of this method.
Reasons for the exclusion of Resource Depletion (water):
The recommended method to measure water depletion is developed by Frischknecht et. al
and is based on inventory figures which are the summation of all upstream elementary flows
related to water taken from nature. In 2013, the method started to include regionalized
characterization factors for water-related elementary flows (both upstream and downstream).
Due to this change, a regionalized impact assessment is not possible, as regionalized
characterization factors are not available for water-related elementary flows in the life cycle
inventories used today. Hence, the current results cannot provide a scientifically robust
evaluation of water depletion for non-leather shoes.
Reasons for the exclusion of soil organic matter
The soil organic matter (SOM) method is specific to the region of Great Britain. The method
was developed to assess the loss of carbon in different soil types and to then use this loss
assessment as a measure of land use change. This method is not actively maintained by the
developer or an outside party. In the SOM method, inventory data for example used land area
and soil type is required to calculate results for this indicator. Though the method developer
does not provide these land use and soil type data, the supporting studies might be able to
72
use worst-case estimations for the foreground system. Whenever natural fiber materials
(which would have upstream crop cultivation land use) and metals (which would have
upstream mining and exploration activities) are used in non-leather footwear production, the
authors of the supporting studies shall use a worst-case scenario for SOM.
Therefore, the authors recommend to use the following impact methods for calculation of
benchmarks and the PEF scores themselves:
Climate Change,
Ozone Depletion,
Particulate Matter,
Ionising Radiation,
Photochemical Ozone Formation,
Acidification, Eutrophication – terrestrial,
Eutrophication – freshwater,
Eutrophication – marine
Eutrophication - terrestrial.
It is anticipated that the GaBi databases will be updated to include information on SOM as well
as regional water inventories. These updates should be integrated into the background
system in summer of 2015. At that point, the PEF methods water depletion and land use can
be tested and, if yielding stable results, can be integrated into the benchmark classes and
calculation of PEFs.
Another update which could improve the quality of the PEF methods would be updating the
CML 2002 method required by the EC for Resource Depletion. A more recent version of the
CML resource depletion method has been released in April of 2013 and the method has also
been split between fossil and mineral resources.
12.5. Annex V – Upstream scenarios (optional)
This section available for additional information if needed.
12.6. Annex VI – Downstream scenarios (optional)
This section available for additional information if needed.
12.7. Annex VII– Normalisation factors
Normalization shall be carried out per procedure in Section 6.2.
If unstable impact methodologies or limited background data quality prevent material impacts
from being quantified in the supporting studies, additional environmental information might
need to be estimated to more accurately capture material life cycle impacts.
73
The Sustainable Apparel Coalition (SAC) is developing tools and data to help fill gaps in
methodologies and improve data quality. For example, SAC’s factory environmental
assessment module is capturing a growing number of Tier 1 and Tier 2 manufacturer’s
emissions data. This expanding database could be leveraged to help improve the use of
primary data in PEF calculations. These resources and the additional environmental
performance information they provide to the PEF may be developed for review in a subsequent
stakeholder consultation.
12.8. Annex VIII – Weighting factors
The recommended weighting factors according to the PEF guidance protocol 4.0 shall be
used. According to this recommendation an equal weighting is used.
12.9. Annex IX – Foreground data
The following information can be used as foreground data in the calculation of PEFs when
brands do not have access to primary data in their supply chain.
The requirements for ‘very good’, ‘good’, or even ‘fair’ data quality are acknowledged to be a great
challenge for most of the companies in the value chain, especially SMEs. The companies involved in
this EU PEF pilot are likely much more capable and resourced to access and collect data that fulfill
those requirements than the majority of the companies. Collecting accurate raw materials data at the
level required for calculating a PEF is very difficult, even for more advanced companies.
That said, the use of PEFs to support external business and consumer communication does require
meaningful results and confidence on the data underlying those results. This inevitably raises the bar
on data quality requirements. Industry-level efforts to increase data accessibility and quality should
be carried to put into practice and scale what is being created and tested by this pilot.
At the time of writing, the authors anticipate that a PEF calculation tool will be made available to
companies participating in the screening and PEF supporting studies. This tool will be based on the
model used for calculation of screening results and it will allow brands to enter primary data on their
specific shoe’s construction. Since each user of the tool will calculate their PEF results based on the
same underlying model, all PEFs created via this route should achieve the same data quality rating for
Technology, Geography, Uncertainty, and Methodological Appropriateness. The most important
differences in data quality from one PEF to another will occur in the Technological representativeness
category, which is defined further in Note that for many activity data in Table 5-8, default
assumptions are linked to the technological rating ‘Fair’. Since these defaults should be used if no
better information is available, the data quality ratings Poor and Very poor should not be used.
It should be noted that the Higg Index referenced in Table 5-8 is free to access and use via
msi.apparelcoalition.org. The Higg Index includes a list of common processing steps which
are used throughout the Tier 2 and Tier 3 manufacturing stages. The Higg Index does not
include full LCIs for these processes, but brands should use the information in the Higg
Index as a guide to identify processes & materials.
Table 5-8 and Table 5-9. It is anticipated that the European Commission will eventually consolidate
and provide a database and calculation tool available to anyone calculating a PEF. The plan for
74
developing this open approach is not yet formalized, so the intermediate use of a PEF calculation tool
should suffice.
12.9.1. Raw Materials and Processes – Foreground Data
Predefined packaging scenarios are further specified in Table 12-3: Predefined packaging
scenariosTable 12-3.
Table 12-3: Predefined packaging scenarios
Packaging
Material
detail
Shoe box &
Outer carton
Toe stuffing
& wrapping
Grommets
Tape
Unbleached
cardboard
Recycled
paper
Steel
Polyethylen
e film
Men's
standard
cardboar
d box
Men's
Fancy/XL
cardboar
d box
Women's
standard
cardboar
d box
Women's
Fancy/XL
cardboar
d box
Yound
athletes
'
standar
d box
496 g
227 g
277 g
716 g
253 g
26 g
26 g
26 g
26 g
26 g
0g
0.38 g
3.76 g
0.38 g
0g
0.38 g
3.76 g
0.38 g
0g
0.38 g
12.10. Annex X – Background data
12.10.1. Fuels and Energy – Background Data
National and regional averages for fuel inputs and electricity grid mixes were obtained from
the GaBi 6 database 2013 (PE INTERNATIONAL 2013). Table 12-4 shows the most relevant
LCI datasets used in modelling the product systems.
Table 12-4: Key energy datasets used in inventory analysis
Energy
Dataset name
Electricity
Electricity grid mix
Technical heat
Thermal energy from
natural gas
Thermal energy from
biomass (solid)
Thermal energy from
heavy fuel oil
Thermal energy from
light fuel oil
Thermal energy from
LPG
Primary
source
PE
Year
Geography
2010
PE
2010
PE
2010
CN / ES / ID / SK /
TH / TW / US / VN
CN / ES / ID / SK /
TH / TW / US / VN
CN
PE
2010
CN / ID
PE
2010
CN / EU-27 / ID
PE
2010
EU-27
75
12.10.2. Raw Materials and Processes – Background Data
Data for up- and downstream raw materials and processes were obtained from the GaBi 6
database 2013 for the screening study. Table 12-5 shows the most relevant LCI datasets used
in modelling the product systems. Documentation for all non-project-specific datasets can be
found at www.gabi-software.com/support/gabi/gabi-6-lci-documentation.
Materials have been grouped by their technical characteristics for easier consolidation of
results and identification of hotspots. Note that each material is given a footnote which
denotes the grouping that has been applied. 1 = Auxiliary Materials; 2 = Acrylics; 3 = Metals;
4 = Manmade Fibers; 5 = Natural Fibers; 6 = Plastics; 7 = Rubber ingredients; 8 = Foams; 9
= Leather
Table 12-5: Material datasets used in inventory analysis
Material/Process
Dataset name
Primary
source
Acetone1
Acetone
thinkstep
2012
EU27
Polymethylmethacrylate granulate
(PMMA) mix
Aluminium sheet mix
thinkstep
2012
DE
thinkstep
2012
EU27
Azodicarbonamide (propellant)
thinkstep
2012
DE
Barium zinc stearate (stabiliser,
estimation)
Burden free
thinkstep
2012
EU27
Carbon black (furnace black; deep
black pigment)
Kraft paper (EN15804 A1-A3)
thinkstep
2012
DE
thinkstep
2011
EU27
Kraft paper (EN15804 A1-A3)
thinkstep
2011
EU27
Copper mix (99,999% from
electrolysis)
Cotton fiber (bales after ginning)
thinkstep
2012
GLO
CottonInc
2011
Cyclohexane
thinkstep
2012
EU27
Ethanol
thinkstep
2012
DE
Ethyl acetate
thinkstep
2012
DE
Ethylene Vinylacetate Copolymer
(E/VA) (72% Ethylene, 28%
Vinylacetate)
Glass fibres
thinkstep
2012
US
thinkstep
2012
DE
Ethene (ethylene)
thinkstep
2012
DE
Jute hessain net
thinkstep
2012
IN
US: Bovine fresh hide (economic
allocation) + Leather wet blue (Grain
Split, Chromium tanning, Waste
Water av) + Finishing Leather (Split
leather, Chromium tanning, Waste
Water av)
Limestone flour (CaCO3; dried)
thinkstep
2012
US
thinkstep
2012
DE
Methyl ethyl ketone (2-butanone,
MEK)
thinkstep
2012
DE
2
Acrylic
Aluminum3
Azodicarb
propellant1
Ba Zn stearate1
Biological waste1
Carbon black
1
Cardboard5
Cellulose
5
Copper3
Cotton fiber5
Cyclohexane
Ethanol
1
1
Ethyl acetate1
6
EVA
Fiberglass4
Hardener
chemical
(ethylene) 1
Jute5
9
Leather
Limestone flour7
MEK
1
n/a
Year
n/a
Geography
n/a
76
Magnesium carbonate (MgCO3, fine,
washed for fillers)
Natural Rubber
thinkstep
2012
CN
thinkstep
2012
TH
Nitrile-Butadiene-Rubber (NBR)
thinkstep
2012
DE
Polyamide 6 Granulate (PA 6) +
Polypropylene fibermaking
Polyamide 6 Granulate (PA 6)
thinkstep
2012
thinkstep
2012
Polyamide 6.6 granulat (PA 6.6)
(HMDA via adipic acid) +
Polypropylene fibermaking
Polyamide 6.6 granulat (PA 6.6)
(HMDA via adipic acid)
Polybutadiene granulate (PB)
thinkstep
2012
US / DE /
EU27
US / DE /
EU27
US / DE /
EU27
thinkstep
2012
thinkstep
2012
Polycarbonate Granulate (PC)
thinkstep
2012
US / DE /
EU27
US / DE /
EU27
US / DE
Pentane (estimation)
thinkstep
2012
US
PET fiber
Polyester (PET) fabric
thinkstep
2012
EU27
PET granulate6
Polyethylene terephthalate resin (via
terephthalic acid und ethylene glycol)
Polybutadiene granulate (PB)
thinkstep
2012
thinkstep
2012
thinkstep
2012
PP granulate6
Polypropylene granulate (PP) +
Polypropylene fibermaking
Polypropylene granulate (PP)
thinkstep
2012
PU film8
Polyurethane flexible foam (PU)
thinkstep
2012
US / DE /
CN
US / DE /
EU27
US / DE /
EU27
US / DE /
EU27
DE
Polyurethane flexible foam (PU)
thinkstep
2012
DE
Recycling of polyethylene
terephthalate (PET) plastic
Recycling of polyethylene
terephthalate (PET) plastic
Cork grinding (process only)
thinkstep
2012
US
thinkstep
2012
US
thinkstep
2012
EU27
Natural Rubber
thinkstep
2012
TH
Styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR)
thinkstep
2012
US / DE
Styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR) +
Polypropylene fibermaking
Quartz sand (extraction and
processing)
Spandex (estimation) from
MDI+Polyol
Steel sheet
thinkstep
Mg carbonate3
Natural rubber7
Nitrile rubber
Nylon 6 fiber
7
4
Nylon 6 granulate6
Nylon 6.6 fiber4
Nylon 6.6
granulate6
Polybutadiene
fiber4
PC granulate6
Pentane
1
4
Polybutadiene6
PP fiber4
PU flex foam
8
4
Recy fiber
Recy PET6
Recy rubber7
Rubber mix
SBR
7
6
4
SBR fiber
Silica sand7
Spandex4
Steel3
TDI
8
TiO21
TPU
8
Wax / paraffin1
Wood pulp
5
Zinc oxide1
2012
US / DE
thinkstep
2012
EU27
thinkstep
2012
DE
thinkstep
2012
EU27
Toluene diisocyanate (TDI;
Phosgenation)
Titanium dioxide pigment
thinkstep
2012
DE
thinkstep
2012
US / EU27
Thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU,
TPE-U) adhesive
Wax / Paraffins at refinery
thinkstep
2012
US
thinkstep
2010
EU27
Kraft paper (EN15804 A1-A3)
thinkstep
2012
EU27
Zinc mix
thinkstep
2012
GLO
Packaging
Materials
77
thinkstep
/FEFCO
thinkstep
2012
EU27
2013
DE
Glue
Corrugated board incl. paper
production, average composition
Polyethylene Film (PE-LD) without
additives
Starch glue (for paper/cardboard)
thinkstep
2012
EU27
Ink
Polyacrylate ink (estimation)
thinkstep
2012
DE
Paper
Kraft paper (EN15804 A1-A3)
thinkstep
2012
EU27
Corrugate
Plastic film
1
– Auxiliary Materials; 2 – Acrylics; 3 – Metals; 4 – Manmade Fibers; 5 – Natural Fibers; 6 – Plastics; 7 – Rubber ingredients; 8 – Foams; 9 –
Leather
A list of supplementary GaBi datasets used to fill gaps in Tier 2 and Tier 3 processing is
provided in Table 12-6.
Table 12-6: Datasets used to supplement Tier 2 and Tier 3 processing
Process
Dataset name
Primary
source
Tier 2
Plastic injection moulding part
Injection molding
thinkstep
(unspecific)
Metal casting
Aluminium die-cast part
thinsktep
Steel sheet stamping and bending (5%
Metal fabrication
thinkstep
loss)
Infrared Thermoforming (LD-PE Part,
Thermoforming
thinkstep
Ceramic at 950°F/510°C)
Vulcanization
Vulcanisation of synthetic rubber
thinkstep
Tier 3
Eyelet
manufacturing
Fabric dyeing (PET)
Fabric weaving
(PET)
Fabric knitting +
dyeing + finishing
(non-PET)
Fabric weaving +
dyeing + finishing
(non-PET)
Fibermaking (no
granulate included)
Filmmaking
Nonwoven
production
Year
Geography
2013
DE
2013
DE
2013
GLO
2013
EU27
2013
GLO
Punching steel sheet small part
thinkstep
2013
GLO
Dark disperse dyeing in overflow
(PES)
ENEA
2002
IT
Polyester (PET) – fabric
thinkstep
2012
EU27
Textile Manufacturing - Knit Fabric
(Batch Dyed)
CottonInc
2009
GLO
Textile Manufacturing - Woven Fabric
(Continuous Dyed)
CottonInc
2009
GLO
Polypropylene fibers (PP)
thinkstep
2012
DE
Plastic Film (PE, PP, PVC)
thinkstep
2013
GLO
Non-woven fabric (1 sqm)
thinkstep
2012
GLO
78
12.11. Annex XI - Methodology and Example for
Durability Testing
General description of methodology proposed in the French Grenelle:
1. A set of durability tests are carried out on a reference pair of shoes according to EN/ISO
standards, which define the technical details and test procedure for the testing.
Test
Standard equivalent
Sole/Upper adhesion (tear resistance)
EN 17708
Sole abrasion resistance
EN 12770/ ISO 20868
Sole flex resistance
EN 17707
Tear strength resistance
EN 13571/ ISO 17696
Lining abrasion resistance
ISO 17704/ ISO 12947-2
2. Points are then awarded to the test results: A maximum and minimum test result value
was predefined. They are appointed maximum/minimum points (7.5 and 0) respectively.
For all results in between, a linear correlation is assumed, e.g. for the test of upper/sole
tear resistance:
Upper/Sole tear resistance EN ISO 17708
7.5
5
2.5
0
2.5
Test results (daN/cm)
4.5
3. The final performance result for the pair of shoes studied is the sum of weighted test
results, in % of maximum overall result possible. The weights were also predefined
depending on the relevance of the individual test for the overall performance:
Test
Sole/Upper adhesion (tear resistance)
Sole abrasion resistance
Sole flex resistance
Tear strength resistance
Lining abrasion resistance
Weight/“Test coefficient“
25
10
5
5
5
Result for a pair of shoes in % = [(points sole/upper adhesion × 25) + (points sole
abrasion × 10) + (points sole flex resistance × 5) + (points tear strength resistance × 5) +
(points lining abrasion resistance × 5)] / [(25+10+5+5+5) × 7,5]
4. The final result is then related back to the Unit of Analysis to define the reference flow. For
this purpose, the lifetimes for each shoe category considered were predefined. An
79
example for the relation between performance results and reference flow for a running
shoe is given in the following table, with an estimated minimum lifetime of ¼ year and
maximum lifetime of 2 years:
Performance result
0-40%
40-50%
50-60%
60-70%
70-80%
80-100%
Reference flow for the functional unit
2 pairs of shoes
1,5 pair of shoes
1,25 pairs of shoes
1 pair of shoes
0,75 pairs of shoes
0,5 pair of shoes
Example calculation: Testing casual shoe for upper/sole adhesion:
80
12.12. Annex XII - PCR references
The following PCR documents were referenced while creating the PEFCR document:
81
No.
1
Author /
Organisation
Type
"PCR"
ADEME-Afnor
Date
1
2010
No.
Type
2
PCR
Country
France
Author /
Organisation
Internation EPD
System
Date
2
2013
No.
Type
3
Policy
Country
3
2009
Author /
Organisation
EU Commission
Country
EU
Grenelle: Methodology for
the environmental impacts
assessment of shoes
Functional unit
Remarks
No actual PCR, but first methodology
approach overall for footwear
shoes
Manufacturing stage
1. Energy resources and minerals extraction;
The wearing of a pair of
cultivation
shoes in good condition
2. Manufacture of materials and leather
with appropriate use for one
3. Pre-assembly of upper/sole
year
4. Lasting
Name
PCR for Leather footwear
(CPC 2933)
2013:15, Version 1.0
Functional unit
a pair of leather based
footwear
EU-27
Date
Name
Footwear with uppers of leather other than
sports footwear, footwear incorporating a
protective metal toe-cap and miscellaneous
special footwear
Manufacturing stage
yes
Name
EU Ecolabel
Functional unit
One pair of shoes
All Articles of clothing designed to protect or
cover the foot, with a fixed (*)) outer sole
which comes into contact with the ground.
Footwear shall not contain any electric or
electronic components.
Manufacturing stage
yes, indirectly
Link
http://www.boutique.afnor.org/norme/bp-x30323-1/principes-generaux-pour-l-affichageenvironnemental-des-produits-de-grandeconsommation-partie-1-methodologie-devaluation-d/article/674175/fa170306
Use stage
EoL stage
no
yes
Remarks
Link
Most current PCR, with strong focus on
leather parts
http://www.environdec.com/en/PCR/Detail/?P
cr=8495#.UvTmfrSRKw0
Use stage
EoL stage
optional, if included: average maintenance in
the declared technical use duration
1. Recycling Scenario: only environmental
impact from waste treatment not being used
by subsequent user lies with the generator.
2. Common Dismissal: landfills, energy
recovery
3. Uncontrolled dismissal: worst case should
be included
Remarks
Link
No PCR, structured completely different as
there are 10 criteria mainly for limiting use of
toxic substances on which basis the Ecolabel
is awarded
http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=
CELEX:32009D0563:EN:NOT
Use stage
EoL stage
no
only via user instructions on packaging on
disposal
82
No.
4
Type
PCR
Guidance
Author /
Organisation
4
2013
No.
Type
5
PCR (Draft)
Country
2014
No.
Type
6
PCR Basic
Module
Author /
Organisation
Internation EPD
System
Country
6
2013
No.
Type
Apparel and Footwear
Manufacturing stage
Name
PCR for Safety footwear footwear incorporating
protective metal toe-cap
(CPC 2951)
Functional unit
a pair of safety footwear;
(reference flow: weight per
shoe pair)
EU-27
Author /
Organisation
Internation EPD
System
Date
Functional unit
Remarks
One article of apparel or set
of footwear, with quality
parameters to be
determined for the
Production of intermediates and footwear
individual product
categories by the PCR
Committee
Global
Date
5
SAC Product Category
Rule Guidance on Apparel
and Footwear
SAC
Date
Name
Country
EU-27
Author /
Organisation
general
Name
Use stage
yes, it includes: wearing, washing, drying,
repairing.
Distribution of cleaning scenarios in the
market regions shall be identified; EU table
provided
Remarks
PCR is under development, entering phase
CPC 2951 - Footwear incorporating metal toe
of open stakeholder consultation (2014-02cap
11); to be published in 06/2014
Manufacturing stage
Production of specific technical materials for
footwear sector, of main footwear-specific
components, of finished footwear
Name
PCR Basic Module leather
and leather products;
footwear;
Version 2.0
Functional unit
It is not a PCR, only the guidance to set up a
PCR; PCRs are differentiated in "style" PCR
and "performance" PCR
applicable to all leather and leather
products/footwear with CPC 29xxx
Link
http://iere.org/wpcontent/uploads/2013/08/SAC-PCRGuidance-Final-2013.pdf
EoL stage
yes, if primary data not available, national
average data provided by relevant national
body shall be used
Link
http://environdec.com/en/PCR/Detail/?Pcr=92
24#.UvpB5rQ8Hgk
Use stage
EoL stage
optional, if included: average maintenance in
the declared technical use duration
1. Recycling Scenario: only environmental
impact from waste treatment not being used
by subsequent user lies with the generator.
2. Common Dismissal: landfills, energy
recovery
3. Uncontrolled dismissal: worst case should
be included
EoL of packaging shall be defined if relevant.
Remarks
Link
It is not an actual PCR, but the Basic Module
for all consequent PCRs with a CPC code of
29xx
http://iere.org/wpcontent/uploads/2013/08/SAC-PCRGuidance-Final-2013.pdf
Manufacturing stage
Use stage
EoL stage
general
general
general
Remarks
Link
83
7
PCR
Date
7
2013
No.
Type
8
PCR
Everest Textile Co.,
Ltd.
Country
Taiwan
Author /
Organisation
Super Textile Corp.
Representatives
(Taiwan
manufacturers)
Functional unit
Synthetic fibers are artificial fibers made from
petroleum chemicals through chemical
synthesis. Functional fabrics are produced
from these fabrics through the addition of
functional additives which give the fabrics
desirable functions, such as antibacterial,
water adsorbing, fast-drying, breathable,
waterproof, UV resistant, or water repellent.
Manufacturing stage
one (1) yard or kilogram of
product, with its content
indicated (content specified
in PCR)
Manufacturing of products and generation of
process waste; transportation of main,
secondary, auxiliary and packaging materials
to product manufacturing plant
PCR Synthetic Fiber Functional Fabrics
Name
PCR Artificial Fiber Textiles
Artificial fibers denote a type of fiber
produced through chemical and/or
mechanical processing of natural or synthetic
polymer materials.
Manufacturing stage
Date
Country
Functional unit
Type
Author /
Organisation
Name
This PCR includes a number of synthetic
fibers that can be found in footwear
production as well. Furthermore, it looks at
"functional fabrics" produced from synthetic
fibers, which gives the fabric functions such
as water adsorbing, breathable, waterproof.
http://pcrlibrary.edf.org.tw/data/taiwan/EDF20131122_
EPD_PCR_Textiles_Synthetic%20Fiber%20%20Functional%20Fabrics_11222013.pdf
Use stage
EoL stage
no
no
Remarks
Link
This PCR is mainly focused on the textile
application of artifical fibers. However, it does
include a number of fibers that can also be
found in footwear production (e.g. Nylon 6.6,
Polyester, PP, PU)
Use stage
http://pcrlibrary.edf.org.tw/data/taiwan/EDF201201_E
PDPCR_Textiles_Artificial%20fiber%20textile.pd
f
EoL stage
Remarks
Link
8
No.
9
PCR
Date
RadiciGroup and
QUOTA SETTE S.r.l.
Country
CPC 355, specifically:
CPC 3551 (Synthetic filament tow and staple
fibres, not carded or combed),
CPC 3552 (Synthetic filament yarn (except
sewing thread and multiple or cabled yarn),
not put up for retail sale) and
Man-made fibres - synthetic
This PCR might cover synthetic fibres that
CPC 3553 (Synthetic monofilament and strip)
(CPC 355); Version 1.01
are used in the production of footwear.
Functional unit
Manufacturing stage
Use stage
http://www.environdec.com/en/PCR/Detail/?P
cr=8654#.UxhziIWRKw0
EoL stage
84
9
2013
No.
Type
10
PCR
Global
Author /
Organisation
Aquafil & Life Cycle
Engineering
Universal Fibers &
EarthShift
Date
10
2014
1 kg of fibres; one product
unit including packaging
(actual water content
measured in the company's
production environment has
to be included due to
different hydrophilic nature
of fibres)
Country
Global
Transportation of all input materials to the
production plant; Storage and handling of
materials; Melt, wet, dry and/or gel spinning;
any post spinning process ; Dyeing and
finishing; Each other relevant process (with
special attention to the core post-spinning
processes); Storage and packaging of final
product;
Fibres processing optional
optional
Name
Textile yarn and thread of
natural fibres, man-made
filaments or staple fibres
(CPC 263 & 264), Version
1.01
Functional unit
1 kg of yarn
optional
PE Notes
CPC 263 including CPC 2631 - 2638;
CPC 264 including CPC 2641 - 2646
This PCR might overlap with some
http://www.environdec.com/en/PCR/Detail/?P
yarns/fibres that are used in the production of
cr=8443#.UxhzuIWRKw0
footwear.
Manufacturing stage
mechanical spinning of natural fibres; any
post spinning process of yarn of natural
fibres; spinning of man-made fibres; any post
spinning process of yarn of man-made
filaments; any post spinning process of yarn
of man-made staple fibers; multiplying,
folding and cabling of yarns; Quality control;
External and internal transportation of raw
materials and energy wares to the core
Link
Use stage
voluntary
EoL stage
voluntary: Recycling or handling of packaging
waste/materials after use
85
86