"Building the Single Market for Green Products" by Michele Galatola, Product Team Leader, DG Environment, European Commission. Presentation made at the Construction conference organised by Cerame-Unie on 26 November as part of the Ceramic Days 2013.

1. Building the Single
Market for Green
Products
Michele Galatola
Product Team Leader
Eco-innovation and circular economy
European Commission - DG Environment

2. WHY?
• More than 400 environmental
labels in the world
• Only for GHGs, 80 leading
reporting methods and initiatives
• Issues:
• What is green?
• How do I prove that my
product or company is green?
• If I choose one approach, will
it be accepted by everyone?
• Do I have to prove I'm green
in different ways to different
clients?
• Will consumers and business
partners understand my
claim?
• Does green mean more
expensive?
=Confusion, mistrust
Free-riders win
Costs
2

3. To improve the availability of clear, reliable and comparable information on the
environmental performance of products and organisations
Objective
How
SMGP
Communication:
Building the Single
Market for Green
Products
Commission
Recommendation
PEF
OEF
3-year
Pilot phase
Communication
principles
3-year
pilot phase
International
dialogue
UCPD
Guidance
3

4. 4
Standardised
sectorial approaches
PEF/OEF methods should now ideally be “tailored” around the different sectors
and then further elaborated into specific category and sectorial rules.
• ICT methods to calculate the carbon and energy footprint
• CEN 15804 for construction products
• ENVIFOOD Protocol for food & drinks
• FP7 RTD projects (cars, fuel cells, building sector)
Ok, so we are on the right track!! ... Or NOT ??
If each sector starts to introduce their own
basic requirements we are back to square zero

5.  Engagement of key stakeholders,
including from outside EU
 Focus on simplification and
applicability
Pilot objectives/ features:
1. Test the process for the
development of PEFCRs and
OEFSRs
2. Test different approaches for
verification systems (embedded
impacts, traceability)
3. Communication vehicles
Simplification / challenges:
 Few simple and clear rules for
specific products and sectors
 Focusing on the most relevant
environmental impacts and life
cycle stages
 Find a good balance between
reliability, cost of verification and
feasibility of verification
 Provide useful information to help
business and consumer choices
 Multi-stakeholder process,
representative participation, need
for international co-operation
 Simplification enabling easier use
by SMEs

6. 6
Pilot proposals
Table 1: Distribution of pilot application (PEF= Product Environmental Footprint; OEF=
Organisation Environmental Footprint)
PEF – as
Technical
Secretariat
PEF – no
Technical
Secretariat
OEF – as
Technical
Secretariat
OEF – no
Technical
Secretariat
TOTAL
Number of
proposals
35 35 3 17 90

7. 7
Pilot proposals

8. 8
Pilot proposals

9. 9
PEF vs 15804 ??

10. 10
PEF vs 15804

11. 11
Different methods
for different scopes
EN 15804:2012
• Provides core product category rules for all construction products and services. It
provides a structure to ensure that all EPD are derived, verified and presented in a
harmonised way.
• It is organised in modules covering different life cycle stages. Some modules are
mandatory, others are optional. The indicators declared in the individual information
modules of a product life cycle shall not be added up in any combination of the individual
information modules into a total or sub-total of the life cycle stages.
• Declarations based on 15804 are not comparative assertions.
Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules (PEFCRs)
• Provide specific rules to calculate the environmental footprint for a certain product group,
including benchmark and, if appropriate, performance grades.
• Each PEFCR focuses on the most relevant life cycle stages, processes and impact
categories for the product group in scope.
• A declaration compliant with a PEFCR can be used to make comparisons and comparative
assertions.

12. 12The road to alignment
Short-term (asap)
• EN 15804 should use "best available practice" LCIA methods
• EN 15804 should introduce clear data quality requirements (at least
ILCD entry level)
• Make Module D obligatory (maybe with the option to be reported
separately)

13. 13The road to alignment
Medium-term (3-4 years)
• Use quantified thresholds for data quality
• Harmonise the end-of-life recycling formula
• Harmonise the requirements on cut-off
• EN 15804 should introduce requirements for reviewer qualifications
Long-term (5-7 years)
• Harmonise approach on normalisation and weighting
• Agree on the feasibility of introducing benchmarks

14. 14
Quiz
Which one of the three is THE green?
None of them
All of them

15. 15
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?

16. 16Do 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

17. Less PRODUCT SUSTAINABILITY More
Numbersofproductsinthemarket
Interventions:
• Support
innovation
Interventions:
•Pricing and trading
•Voluntary initiatives
•Producer responsibility
•Business support
•Procurement
•Labelling
•Public information
Interventions:
•Minimum
standards
PRODUCT INTERVENTIONS – Overall approach
Cut out the
least
sustainable
products
Encourage
development
of new, more
sustainable
products
Drive the existing market towards greater
sustainability
Ecodesign
GPP
Product-related
approach in EU
17

18. 18
An alternative
theoretical approach
(ISO Type IV?)
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

19. 2nd phase 19
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

20. Thank you for your attention
michele.galatola@ec.europa.eu
20
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/smgp/product_footprint.htm