This slides deck includes the materials used in the webinar we hosted on the screening study for the Environmental Footprint pilot phase. We gave this webinar on behalf of the Environmental Footprint team from the European Commission.

1. Webinar: Screening Study
In context of EF pilot phase of European Commission DG-ENV
2 April 2015

2. Pilot phase is work in progress
• One of the pilot’s objectives is to set up and validate the process of the
development of Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules –
PEFCRs and Organizational Environmental Footprint Sector Rules –
OEFSRs, including the development of performance benchmarks
• Lessons learned will be documented and taken into account for further
improvement of the PEF/OEF guide
• This webinar aims to support you in performing the screening study and
writing the screening report, but is also a platform for discussing
bottlenecks and lessons learned
2

3. Outline of webinar
• Position of screening study in pilot phase
• Why a screening study?
• Content of screening (highlights)
• Most important items of non-compliance
• What happens after the screening study is ready
3

4. Development process of PEFCR/OEFSR
Final PEFCR/OEFSR
Confirmation of benchmark(s) and determination
of performance classes (if appropriate)
PEFCR/OEFSR supporting studies
Second draft PEFCR/OEFSR
1st virtual consultation
First draft PEFCR/OEFSR
PEF/OEF screening
Define product/organization “model” based on
representative product/organization
Define PEF/OEF product category
Focus of this webinar
is the screening study
4

5. Starting point: Scope and representative product
• Document on scope and representative product includes:
– Description of the scope
– Description of the representative product(s)
– Description of the model for the PEF screening studies
5

6. Why a screening study?
• The objective of the screening study is to pre-identify the
following key information:
– Most relevant life cycle stages;
– Most relevant processes;
– Most relevant elementary flows for each impact category;
– Preliminary indication about the most relevant PEF impact categories
– Data quality needs and classification in primary/site-specific, semi-
specific and generic dataset;
– Preliminary indication about the definition of the benchmark for the
product
6

7. Content of screening study
1. Introduction
2. Goal of study
4. Compiling and recording life cycle inventory analysis
5. Calculating PEF impact assessment results
7. Conclusions
Sources
Annex I
Annex II - Confidential
3. Scope of the screening
Source: PEF Guidance V4.0
6. Interpretation
7
Executive summary

8. SCREENING STUDY CONTENT
8

9. Content of screening study
1. Introduction
2. Goal of study
4. Compiling and recording life cycle inventory analysis
5. Calculating PEF impact assessment results
7. Conclusions
Sources
Annex I
Annex II - Confidential
3. Scope of the screening
Source: PEF Guidance V4.0
6. Interpretation
9
Parts can be taken from
Scope and Representative
Product document
Executive summary

10. Goal and scope of the screening study
• Goal. A link to the main limitations should be added,
compared to what is reported in the Scope document.
• Scope. All assumptions and value judgments, treatment of
multi-functionality, information about the data used and gaps
shall be included, additionally to what reported in the Scope
document.
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

11. Compiling and recording life cycle inventory analysis
• Description and documentation of all unit process data
• Data collection procedures
• Methodological assumptions used in the screening
• Life cycle inventory results
Source: PEF Guidance V4.0 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

12. Primary data
• The bill of materials (BOM) data shall clearly identify the
complete list of specific ingredients used to make the product.
Example (fictitious):
12
Bill of materials of hazelnut spread (400 g) Mass (g)
Cane sugar 188
Sun flower oil 93
Hazelnuts 52
Low fat cocoa powder 30
Skim milk powder 20
Soy bean oil 15
Vanilla powder 2
Not sufficient to
mention
vegetable oil
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

13. Primary data
13
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Climate change Land use
Characterisedresults(%)
Method: ILCD 2011 Midpoint+ V1.05
Refined coconut oil, at plant/ID
Economic
Refined palm kernel oil, at plant/ID
Economic
Refined palm oil, at plant/NL
Economic
Refined rapeseed oil, from crushing
(solvent), at plant/US Economic
Refined soybean oil, from crushing
(solvent), at plant/NL Economic
Different vegetable oils
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

14. Data quality requirements for screening step
• A minimum “fair” quality data rating is required for data
contributing to at least 90% of the impact estimated for each
EF impact category
• Assessed via a qualitative expert judgement
Source: PEF Guidance V4.0 14
For detailed guidance for assessing the data quality in the PEF screening
step, please consult a former webinar held on 18 July 2014 particularly
on this topic .
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

15. Additional aspects of data quality
• Pilots to try to achieve during the PEF screening:
– Documentation compliant with ILCD format
– Nomenclature compliant with ILCD nomenclature
• In later stages of the process, PEF compliance will become
mandatory.
Source: PEF Guidance V4.0
Difficulties observed in fulfilling the ILCD requirements set by the PEF guide
on nomenclature, data set format, and documentation. Particularly the use
of non-compliant ILCD flows is often a source of mistakes in the LCIA
results due to the mismatch between flows and characterization factors.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

16. Guidance for data quality in PEF screening
• For secondary data used during the screening study, please use the
following order for selection:
– ILCD compliant data;
– data where export/import facilities are available towards ILCD;
– other data.
• If you collect primary data for the screening, we strongly recommend you
to align it with ILCD documentation and nomenclature.
• Also, you are recommended to conduct sensitivity analysis of the data
sources used.
– Within the same database. For example, for road transport use of different 1)
emission standards (EURO 1 to 6), 2) load factors, and 3) diesel sources.
– Between different databases. For example, between ELCD, ecoinvent and GaBi.
16Source: Adapted from the FAQ in the wiki
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

17. End of life modelling
• For multi-functionality of products in recycling or energy
recovery situations, the default end of life formula described
in Annex V in the PEF guide shall be applied:
– to the final product
– to other waste processes occurring throughout the entire life cycle
• Also check the dataset used for modelling credits of material
recycling.
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

18. Example of other waste processes occurring throughout the
entire life cycle: Production phase of a cardboard box with recycling of left
overs after cutting the boxboard
End of life modelling
18
cuttingboxboardpaper fiber
waste paper
folding
The production of R2/2 of
virgin paper pulp is
avoided.
The recycling activities of
R2/2 are included.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

19. End of life modelling
• Quantis uploaded in the wiki a document compiling default
data to model end of life.
• It includes:
– Fraction of recycled packaging waste at EoL (R2), per material and per
country
– Fraction of non-recycled municipal solid wastes that are incinerated
(R3 of 1-R2) or landfilled (1-R3 of 1-R2)
– Other end-of life fates, e.g. Eaten food: no further "end-of-life"
considered
– Incineration and direct fuel substitution default data
– Default data for wastewater
– EoL logistics
19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

20. Calculating PEF impact assessment results
• Data and indicator results prior to normalisation
• Normalised results
• Weighted results
Source: PEF Guidance V4.0 20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Can be reported in a confidential annex

21. Deviation from default impact assessment methods
• To be reported as “Additional environmental information”
• Assessments in addition to the default impact assessment
methods can include:
– Alternative characterization factors
– Alternative normalization factors
– Alternative weighting factors
– Alternative impact assessment methods
– Additional environmental impact categories
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

22. Biodiversity
• To be reported in “Additional environmental information”
• Default impact assessment methods do not express impact on biodiversity
• Proposed solution discussed in last TAB meeting:
1. It is mandatory to report the percentage of material (mass) that comes from
production systems that are certified under credible certification systems. Provided
that this is >5% of total flow.
2. It is mandatory to report the share of supply for which the company has no
traceability up to the source of origin.
22
Tea blend
China
Corporation
Y in China
Farm Z in
Sri-Lanka
50%
30%
20%
Unknown
source
UTZ
UTZ
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

23. Interpretation
• Environmental hotspots
• Most relevant elementary flows
• Most relevant processes and life cycle stages
• Most relevant impact categories
Source: PEF Guidance V4.023
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

24. Environmental hotspots
24
Relevant
Impact
category
Relevant
life cycle
stage
Relevant
process
Relevant
elementary
flow
Relevant for decision-making in
data requirements
Hotspots: Relevant for internal decision-making
at company level, e.g. design for environment
Relevant for external
communication

25. Relevance
25
Item At what level does relevance need to
be identified?
Threshold
Most relevant
impact categories
In the final results, starting from
normalized and weighted results but
deviations possible if justified
No threshold. Decision left to TS but subject to
stakeholder consultation and TAB opinion
Most relevant
life cycle stages
For each impact category, before
normalization and weighting. Not
relevant for data needs identification
All life cycle stages contributing cumulatively
more than 80% to any impact category
Most relevant
processes
For each impact category, before
normalization and weighting. Essential
for data needs identification
All processes contributing cumulatively more
than 80% to any impact category
Most relevant
elementary flows
For each impact category, before
normalization and weighting. Essential
for data needs identification
Option 1: All elementary flows contributing
cumulatively more than 80% to any impact
category and in any case all those contributing
more than 5% individually calculated at overall
life cycle level
Option 2: All elementary flows contributing
cumulatively more than 80% to any impact
category and in any case all those contributing
more than 5% individually calculated at process
level (and only for the most relevant processes)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Pilot TS shall choose option 1 or 2
for development of PEFCR
Relevantfordecision-makingindata
requirements
Relevantforexternal
communication

26. Hotspot analysis
26
At what level does relevance need to be
identified?
Threshold
Hotspots For each impact category, before
normalization and weighting
Option A: life cycle stages, processes or
elementary flows cumulatively contributing at
least 50% to any impact category, or
Option B: top two life cycle stages, processes
and at least two elementary flows (minimum 6
hotspots). Additional hotspots may be
identified by the TS
Pilot TS shall choose option A
or B for development of
PEFCR
Hotspots: Relevant for internal decision-making at company level, e.g. design for
environment

27. Environmental hotspots – Example of tomatoes
27
Raw material
acquisition and
pre-processing
Production
of main
product
Use EoL
Cultivation
of tomatoes
Fertiliser
Pesticides
Seeds
Consumption EoL
Heat
(greenhouse)
Storage
Irrigation
Storage and
distribution
Distribution
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

28. Most relevant impact categories
28
Impact category Unit Contribution (%)
Climate change kg CO2 eq 3.3
Ozone depletion kg CFC-11 eq 0.0
Human toxicity, cancer effects CTUh 28.3
Human toxicity, non-cancer effects CTUh 10.1
Particulate matter kg PM2.5 eq 5.7
Ionizing radiation HH Kbq U235 eq 1.1
Photochemical ozone formation kg NMVOC eq 1.8
Acidification molc H+ eq 4.0
Terrestrial eutrophication molc N eq 1.0
Freshwater eutrophication kg P eq 7.0
Marine eutrophication kg N eq 1.5
Freshwater ecotoxicity CTUe 33.7
Land use kg deficit 0.1
Water resource depletion m3 water eq 0.1
Mineral, fossil & ren resource depletion kg Sb eq 2.3
62%
Most relevant impact categories based on normalized and weighted results
Impact categories selected by TS, justification needed (e.g. characterized results + expert judgement)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

29. Most relevant life cycle stages – Climate change
29
Life cycle stage Contribution (%)
Raw material acquisition and pre-processing 10.2
Production of main product 84.0
Storage and distribution 3.5
Use 0
Transport 1.3
EOL 1.0
Relevant life cycle stage based on characterized results (minimum 80% contribution)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

30. Most relevant processes – Climate change
Unit process Contribution (%)
Fertiliser 8.0
Pesticides 1.0
Seeds 0.5
Irrigation 2.5
Electricity 7.0
Tomato production 0.8
Heat 78.0
Truck 1.9
Composting -0.2
Incineration 0.5
30
Relevant process based on characterized results (minimum 80% contribution)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

31. Most relevant elementary flows – Climate change
31
Relevant elementary flows based on characterized results (minimum 80%
contribution per impact category and elementary flows that contribute >5%
individually.)
CO2 CH4 N2O Total
Fertiliser 2.8% 0.2% 5.0% 8.0%
Heat 70% 8.0% 0% 78%
Electricity 5.8% 1.0% 0.2% 7.0%
Irrigation 2.2% 0.1% 0.1% 2.4%
Other 4.0% 0.2% 0.4% 4.6%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Option 1: 80% at overall life cycle level

32. Most relevant elementary flows – Climate change
32
Relevant elementary flows based on characterized results (minimum 80%
contribution per relevant process per impact category and elementary flows
that contribute >5% individually.)
CO2 CH4 N2O Total
Fertiliser 35% 3.0% 62% 100%
Heat 90% 10% 0% 100%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Option 2: 80% of each relevant process

33. Hotspots in life cycle of tomatoes – Climate change
33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Hotspots
Life cycle stages Production of main product
Processes Heat
Elementary flows Option 1:
CO2 related to process “heat”
OR:
Option 2:
• CO2 related to process “heat”
• N2O related to process “fertilizer”
Option A: Hotspots based on 50% of cumulative contribution

34. Hotspots in life cycle of tomatoes – Climate change
34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Hotspots
Life cycle stages • Production of main product
• Raw material acquisition and pre-processing
Processes • Heat
• Fertiliser
Elementary flows Option 1:
• CO2 related to process “heat”
• CH4 related to process “heat”
OR:
Option 2:
• CO2 related to process “heat”
• N2O related to process “fertilizer”
Option B: Hotspots based on top two representatives

35. Sensitivity analysis with min-max values
• The screening report could include a sensitivity analysis
applying minimum and maximum (min-max) values for key
parameters of the representative product.
• Purpose of such analysis is to check whether other hotspots
appear when min-max values are applied.
• Examples of min-max values:
– Amount of fertilizers used to cultivate cocoa
– Energy used in the production process of ready-made soup
– Number of days a soft drink is stored in the refrigerator
– Composition of ingredients, e.g. sugar percentage in a candy bar
– Recycling rate
35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

36. Most important items of non-compliance
• Missing reporting elements, e.g. executive summary, life cycle inventory
results, presentation of the results per life cycle stages.
• Deviations from the recommended impact category methods and models,
especially for land transformation and water depletion.
• Difficulties in fulfilling the ILCD requirements on nomenclature, data set
format, and documentation. Use of non-compliant ILCD flows is a source
of mistakes in LCIA results, due to mismatch between flows and
characterization factors.
• Insufficient interpretation of the results, e.g. missing or unclear
identification of key impact categories, processes, stages.
• Limited sensitivity analysis
36

37. What happens after the screening is ready?
37
1) TS sends the screening to DG ENV (screening report and model).
2) Within 4 working weeks DG ENV sends back 2 review reports, one for
the screening report and another one for the model. Each review
report includes a list of non-compliances. There are 4 degrees of non-
compliance (Very High, High, Medium, and Low). Each one entails a
different reaction from the TS with a different timing.
3) The TS sends the corrective actions to DG ENV. The corrective actions
should be described by the TS in the Screening Review Report (SRR) or
Model Review Report (MRR) next to the corresponding remark. In
case of VH model non-compliances, then the TS shall also send a
revised version of the model and other supporting evidence as
appropriate.

38. What happens after the screening is ready?
38
4) The reviewer performs the 2nd check and documents the findings in a
new version of the SRR/MRR.
5) DG ENV inform the TS on the feedback and discusses with the TS any
further actions.
6) Any further interactions between the reviewer and the TS during the
2nd check shall include DG ENV in the loop. Such interactions shall be
limited to the scope of the review and only for clarification purposes.
The official feedback shall be always provided in the report according
to 4) and 5).

39. 39

40. Contact details
Marisa Vieira | vieira@pre-sustainability.com
Annemarie Kerkhof | a.kerkhof@ecofys.com
Ellen Brilhuis-Meijer | brilhuis@pre-sustainability.com
40