To PEF or not to PEF?
The Product Environmental Footprint method and what to know about it.
Happy Thursday and welcome to a new issue of The Crisps. Let’s find out what the Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) method is and what the PEF is criticized for.
If you haven’t subscribed already, now is the time to make sure The Crisps are landing in your inbox.
Consumers around the world look at the environmental impact of fashion as an indicator for their purchasing decision. A million-dollar machine was built around it by agencies, start-ups and more claiming to have found THE ultimate calculation method to define the exact environmental footprint of a product. But all of these initiatives use different methods for their calculations. And guess what happens? The same product can have different results depending on the method used. Confusing, right?
That’s what the European Commission thought as well and decided to develop a standardized method: the Product Environmental Footprint (PEF). Haven’t heard of it yet? Don’t worry, we’ve got a quick intro for you:
The PEF is a method that aims at measuring the environmental impact of a product throughout its entire life cycle–from raw material production to end of life. It was developed by United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and adopted by the European Commission. The goal: to support environmental labeling in a standardized way and help consumers make informed purchasing decisions based on the environmental impact of a product. The PEF focuses on a specific set of indicators such as GHG emissions, water and land use as well as resource depletion.
The Product Environmental Footprint has so far been the focus method in the development of the Green Claims Directive. In the proposal that was published in March, the method is not defined to be mandatory. Maybe that has something to do with the criticism the PEF is facing:
It’s not covering all essential environmental aspects of a product’s life cycle: Which is true. For example, the PEF currently doesn’t include microplastic release a.o.1
It’s too efficiency-oriented: The current design of the PEF is not entirely suitable as a basis for mapping a “just production and consumption system“ as it does not take circularity or sufficiency into account.
It’s too expensive and complex for small teams to handle: Definitely a yes. Just for comparison, a life cycle assessment based on the PEF for one product is estimated at 4.000 to 8.000€.
It may not always provide an accurate representation of the impact of a product: This is because PEF relies on modeling and assumptions, and the accuracy of the results can depend on the quality of the data used and the assumptions made in the assessment.
An example: As the PEF does not include microplastics and companies can’t include their own emissions data (as fixed values have to be used for each product group), a product made of organic cotton could get a worse rating than a product made of polyester.2
Top 3 myths that are wrong about the PEF:
🔹 PEF is a mandatory labeling scheme in the EU: It’s not. The use of PEF is voluntary, and companies can choose whether or not to undertake a PEF assessment for their products. However, the European Union has developed a voluntary environmental labeling scheme called the EU Ecolabel, which uses PEF as one of its reference methods for assessing environmental impact.
🔹 PEF only considers GHG emissions: Nope, while the carbon footprint is one of the environmental impact categories considered in PEF, it is not the only one. PEF also considers other environmental impact categories, such as water use, land use, and resource depletion. Although most companies concentrate on GHG emissions within their PEF calculations as they are stuck in the so-called “carbon tunnel”3.
🔹 PEF is the same as LCA: This is a common misconception. They differ in methodology. PEF is a type of LCA that uses a standardized set of indicators to assess the environmental impact of products within a specific product category.
Notes on how to communicate information on the environmental performance of products and the PEF under the Green Claims Directive proposal:
The EU Commission does NOT oblige companies to use the Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) method to substantiate claims.
The EU Commission does NOT prescribe a specific approach or label for use, but recommends that companies follow the laid out principles when they are deciding on different options in terms of the content, format and channels of communication of PEF.
Microenterprises (fewer than 10 employees and less than €2 million turnover) are exempt from the obligations of the Green Claims Directive proposal, unless they themselves wish to use the rules. The Commission has planned to support companies by making available funding to provide data to support solid claims and develop calculation tools for SMEs.4
Want to dive deeper?
In our pro issue next week, we talk to Tone Skårdal Tobiasson. She is a journalist, editor and author of several books, has a BA in journalism and sociology from Stanford University and worked as editor of several fashion publications for close to two decades. Tone has strong and substantiated opinions on ecological impact areas of textile production.
All the best,
Tanita & Lavinia
Klepp, I. G., Laitala, K., Løvbak Berg, L., Tobiasson, T. S., Måge, J., & Hvass, K. K. (2023). CRITICAL REVIEW OF PRODUCT ENVIRONMENTAL FOOTPRINT (PEF): WHY PEF CURRENTLY FAVORS SYNTHETIC TEXTILES (PLASTICS) AND THEREFORE ALSO FAST FASHION.
Klepp, I. G., Laitala, K., Løvbak Berg, L., Tobiasson, T. S., Måge, J., & Hvass, K. K. (2023). CRITICAL REVIEW OF PRODUCT ENVIRONMENTAL FOOTPRINT (PEF): WHY PEF CURRENTLY FAVORS SYNTHETIC TEXTILES (PLASTICS) AND THEREFORE ALSO FAST FASHION.
Dr Jan Konietzko from COGNIZANT first coined the term “carbon tunnel”. This means that companies and individual persons are only thinking about carbon emissions (which are widely confused with GHG emissions) when it comes to climate change. Is that bad? It might be. Because it does cause companies or people to miss out on other aspects that should be tackled in fighting climate change and that make up the wider concept of sustainability. Explanation retrieved from Dr Jan Konietzko (2022) Moving beyond carbon tunnel vision with a sustainability data strategy https://digitally.cognizant.com/moving-beyond-carbon-tunnel-vision-with-a-sustainability-data-strategy-codex7121, (accessed 12.04.2023)
European Commission, Directorate-General for Environment, (2023) Proposal for a Directive on green claims. https://environment.ec.europa.eu/publications/proposal-directive-green-claims_en, (accessed 22.03.2023).