Le impronte ambientali della CE ai blocchi di partenza: gli studi-pilota in corso e le

prospettive di policy

Michele Galatola

Product Team Leader

Eco-innovation and circular economy European Commission - DG Environment

1

2

79

74

71

69

64

62

62

50

50

41

32

14

19

22

23

26

32

25

34

13

37

32

5

6

6

1

8

6

9

13

35

21

33

1

1

1

1

2

1

7

1

3

3

1

1

3

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Manufacturing cost savings

Employee engagement and productivity

Trust and brand enhancement

Meeting retailer requirements

Logistics and supply chain cost savings

Meeting consumer demands

Packaging cost savings

Product material cost savings

Future regulatory risk mitigation

Supply chain risk reduction

Increased sales

Achieved, with ongoing efforts Not yet achieved, work in progress

Not yet achieved, but work will be done in the future Achieved, but not important/no longer working on

Not achieved, not seeking this/not important

Which business benefits have you achieved and are important to achieve from your company's product sustainability program?

Source: The path to product sustainability – A Pure Strategies Report (2014)

3

Behaviours are changing

Source: When Social Responsibility Lead to Growth (Report from Boston Consulting Group, 2014)

• In U.S., products labelled organic, natural, ecological &

Fairtrade no longer niche

• Growing at 9% last 3 years across US Home, Personal

Care & Foods retail

= 70% of total growth

= 15% of all sales

Historically, a trend observed in US will show itself in Europe within 5 years

4

What is this?

a) A chair

b) A element of modern furniture intended to host, for a more or less

prolonged period of time, a noble part of the human body

c) A yellow paper lying on a chair

CHAIR

5

Proliferation

• Environmental labels

• Reporting schemes

• Certification schemes

Internal Market

• National “tailor-made” legislations

Competitiveness

• Increase of costs due to multiple

requirements and restricted access to

markets

• Unfair competition/misleading claims

Consumers

• Mistrust in company driven green

marketing

Issues at stake

6

What’s the purpose?

Same calculation rules for everybody

Same/similar reporting requirements for companies

What does it mean to be “green”? – or better, when a product can be considered greener than another (including uncertainty)

7

What’s the problem?

Same calculation rules for everybody

Same/similar reporting requirements for companies

What does it mean to be “green”? – or better, when a product can be considered greener than another

8

The EF Pilot phase at a glance

Rules

Verification

Communication

Level playing field

Technical implementability

How to (vehicles)

Tools for SMEs

Horizontal Working Groups

International dimension

Batteries and accumulators

Decorative paints

Hot & cold water pipe systems

Liquid household detergents

IT equipment

Metal sheets

Non-leather shoes

Photovoltaic electricity generation

Stationery

Intermediate paper products

T-shirts

Uninterrupted power supplies

1st wave of pilots 2nd wave of pilots

Retailer sector

Copper sector

Leather

Thermal insulation

Beer

Coffee

Fish

Dairy products

Feed

Meat

Pet food

Olive oil

Pasta

Wine

Packed water

10

120 applications: 22.5% were selected = 27 pilots

Number of pilot meetings: 1081

Stakeholders (27 pilots):

777 individual stakeholders (2048 participations)

Public Administrations: AT, BE, FR, IT, PL, PT, CAN, CH, CL, JP, NZ, TN

The EU market is behind the pilots:

73% of pilots have the majority of

industry in the lead

Many are watching

74,197 unique visitors to the SMGP sites since kick-off

They have viewed it 249,090 times

Our webcommenting tool had 20,956 views

Average nr of new stakeholders registering/day: 5

+ PEF is THE news in the

scientific community: we

get invited to all major

international events

288 leading stakeholders in 27 pilots

All 1&2 wave participants in the world

Average stakeholders/pilot: 76

Share of non-EU stakeholders: 12%

Sectoral

associations:

18.3%

SMEs: 10,9%

Pilot numbers

Timelines

11/13

M03 1st physical consultation

End of pilots End of pilots

Kick-off 1st wave

1st draft PEFCR ready M10

Approval of scope and representative product by SC Start screening studies

M05

2nd draft of PEFCR ready M13

12/16

06/14 Kick-off 2nd wave

M09 Send screening for quick check to EC & Helpdesk

Virtual consultation M11

Approval of 2nd draft PEFCR by SC M14

Start of supporting studies M15

2nd consultation (physical and virtual) M19

External review M22

Final PEFCR ready M25

Approval of final PEFCR by SC M26

Release of final PEFCR M27

C

C Consultation

C

C

Review R

R

R

D Decision

D

D

D

12

Quiz

Which one of the three is THE green?

None of them

All of them

13

Do we need EPDs?

Impact EPD Brand A EPD Brand B Average product

GHG 550 421 243

Water 295444 165 160162

Acidification 825 1400 867

VOC 180 90 18

POP 1950 1625 1070

Particulate matter 3800 2100 2071

Eutrophication (water) 1500 915 1746

14

Current challenges

Horizontal consistency

“Cow model” working group

Screening reports

End-of-Life formula (Workshop 6th October in Brussels)*

Significance threshold

Identification of independent reviewers

Secondary datasets

* More info and background material at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/smgp/product_footprint.htm

15

LCI Data availability

Do we need data before being able/authorised to set up a policy ?

We need a policy to drive data production?

OR

16

Secondary datasets: cui

prodest?

Challenge 1: We need high quality secondary datasets

Problem 1: Most databases do not rate the quality of their datasets

Solution 1: EF quality rating system

Challenge 2: Secondary data shall be the same if comparison is an objective

Problem 2: Datasets shall be available for free to the final user

Solution 2: PEFCRs/OEFSRs will provide unique secondary datasets to be used

Challenge 3: Datasets shall be as disaggregated as possible

Problem 3: This is not always the case (e.g. ELCD, PlasticsEurope, etc)

Solution 3: work in progress

17

Future challenges

Timing of the meetings

Reconciliation with other initiatives

Consistency among pilots

International dialogue

18

Can LCA allow for product

differentiation?

Environmental impacts

Water

Resources

Climate

Verified by …

E

NO PEFCR (2012) WITH PEFCR (fictitious example; possible if PEFCR available)

Performance level B Performance level C

vs. vs.

Performance level A

Is it possible?

Is it always possible?

Is it desirable/useful?

Do YOU want it?

19

Stage 2: verification

Scope: Test different approaches for verification systems (embedded impacts,

traceability)

Features: Balance between reliability, cost of verification and

feasibility of verification

No additional cost to industry - Independent Auditors

(Ernst & Young) paid by EC funds

Several verification options tested with future policy

applications in mind

Challenges: Due to limited budget availability only about 40% of the

total number of studies/reports will be subject to audits

20

Stage 3: communication

Scope: Provide useful information to help business and consumer choices

Features: Each pilot will test 3-4 alternative communication vehicles

(B2B and B2C)

The Commission line is that we do not want to enter into

the discussion of "how" to provide the information (the

vehicle) but we concentrate on the content, the "what"

The 3rd stage will be based on "real cases" communication

tests, involving retailers and consumers/stakeholders from

different MSs

Innovative communication channels will be tested thanks

to the collaboration with GS1 (barcode developers)

21

Evaluation of pilots 2017

What policy applications is the OEF fit for?

E.g. of potential links: • As an initiative complementing non-financial reporting

• Basis for incentives

• Reputational: league tables, industry awards, etc. • Incentives based on performance improvement (e.g. easier access to

public fund-based financing/ state aid, reduced charges) • Administrative (favourable conditions for well-performing or

improving companies)

• As a measurement tool in EMAS

Policy links

EMAS-OEF

EMAS

•Identify significant direct and indirect impacts

•KPIs

•SRDs

• Identify important impacts

• Sectoral indicators

• Best management practice

OEF

• Measure life cycle (= direct and indirect) impacts

•14 life cycle impact categories

•OEFSR

• Identify important impact categories

• Identify important life cycle stages

• Define quantitative benchmark (if possible)

• Specify calculation rules (data quality, scenarios, other tailored choices)

22

23

An alternative theoretical approach

Product group: XYZ

Attribute: Single attributes or weighted average

Environmental

performance of

products

Number of

products

ref <90%ref* >100%ref

GPP

Information freely accessible

* Plus additional requirements non captured by LCA

2nd phase

24

Policy discussion

Future

policies

Peer review of the pilot phase and of alternative methods tested under similar conditions (2017)

Internal evaluation of the pilots 2017

For any further information

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/smgp/

https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/wikis/display/EUENVFP/

env-environmental-footprint@ec.europa.eu

25

@EU_EnvFootprint Follow us on Twitter: