Sustainable Apparel Coalition Product Category Rule Guidance 2013

 Sustainable Apparel Coalition Product Category Rule Guidance 2013 FINAL DRAFT: March 2013 Rita Schenck Institute for Environmental Research and Education Foreword Life Cycle Analysis. Product Category Rules. Environmental Product Declarations. I had to learn a new vocabulary when this work began and also had to learn about a broad number of impact areas. Some were familiar; climate change, energy use, water scarcity, land use, toxicity, waste percentage, acid rain, stratospheric ozone depletion, respiratory effects, soil loss, land use change and voluntary product take-­‐back programs. And some were not so familiar; eutrophication, abiotic resource depletion, and photochemical smog. It was a steep learning curve. What is a business to do upon learning that your business impacts all of these things but don’t have any idea of how to begin? I quickly learned it was too much to tackle as one brand but the solution the Sustainable Apparel Coalition employs is an effective model to help with these challenges. It is one of collaboration. By bringing together all parts of the global supply chain, academia, governmental agencies and non-­‐governmental organizations, to work towards the common goal of lowering the environmental impacts of the global apparel and footwear businesses everyone has had the opportunity to be represented in the process of developing this guidance document. This document will guide the process of developing Product Category Rules and Environmental Product Declarations for the global apparel and footwear industries. The goal of this working group deemed ‘Metrics’ has been to bring quantitative measurements into the Higg Index. Because we all agreed on a common goal of lowering the environmental impacts of the global apparel and footwear businesses very early, the working group has had remarkable cohesion and consensus with the many decisions needing to be made. This hasn’t happened without passionate opinions and conversations being shared but with a focus on the goal it has been a pragmatic yet aspirational process to produce this document. I give the sincerest thanks to our full Metrics Working Group for such great constant participation, always working with the utmost respect for all of your colleagues. But I especially thank Rita Schenck, the author of this document and wise guider of the process, and Amy Horton, the facilitator extraordinaire of this process, for holding this Metrics Working Group together and moving forward with all the opinions to be incorporated and scheduling challenges that a global, diverse working group constantly brings to the table. We never would have survived without the two of you! Jill Dumain Director of Environmental Strategy, Patagonia Inc., Metrics Working Group Chair ii Executive Summary The Sustainable Apparel Coalition (SAC) is an industry-­‐wide group of over 80 leading apparel and footwear brands, retailers, suppliers, nonprofits, and NGOs working to reduce the environmental and social impacts of apparel and footwear products around the world. A primary work focus of the Sustainable Apparel Coalition is the Higg Index that measures the environmental performance of apparel products. To provide members with better resources to support measurement, the SAC has developed an industry-­‐wide approach to measuring and reporting the life cycle environmental impacts of apparel and footwear. This guidance was developed through a consensus process by the SAC’s Metrics Working Group, and conforms to international standards (the ISO 14040 and 14020 series). It is intended to guide the creation of more specific Product Category Rules (PCRs). These PCRs are in turn intended to support increased value chain transparency through Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs). To the greatest extent possible, the method harmonizes with other EPD programs globally. The program reporting includes data on the following impact areas: Required: • Climate change • Eutrophication • Energy use, including renewable • Water Scarcity • Land use • Toxicity • Abiotic resource depletion • Waste Percentage Permitted/Encouraged: • Acid rain • Stratospheric ozone depletion • Photochemical smog • Respiratory effects • Soil loss • Land use change • Voluntary product take-­‐back programs It is anticipated that the life cycle measurements developed here shall be integrated into future versions of the SAC’s Higg Index, and in 2013 a detailed plan shall be developed to support this (the date of integration is yet to be determined). iii Contents Foreword ............................................................................................................................................ ii Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................... iii 1 Introduction and Background .................................................................................................... 7 1.1 2 3 Goal and Scope ........................................................................................................................ 10 2.1 Objective ............................................................................................................................ 11 2.2 Audience ............................................................................................................................ 11 2.3 Interested Party Input ........................................................................................................ 11 2.4 Harmonization with Other Programs ................................................................................. 12 2.5 Identification of Product Categories .................................................................................. 12 2.6 Confidentiality of Data ....................................................................................................... 13 2.7 Normative References ....................................................................................................... 14 2.8 Period of Validity of this Guidance .................................................................................... 14 2.9 PCRs and EPDs ................................................................................................................... 14 Procedures for the Development of PCRs ................................................................................ 14 3.1 4 Roles and Tasks of the Stakeholders .................................................................................. 14 3.1.1 Composition and Role of the PCR Committee ............................................................ 14 3.1.2 Composition, Competence and Role of the PCR Review Panel .................................. 15 3.1.3 Role of Interested Parties ........................................................................................... 16 3.1.4 Role of the Program Operator .................................................................................... 16 3.1.5 Role of the SAC ........................................................................................................... 17 3.2 Transparency and Outreach ............................................................................................... 17 3.3 EPD Verifier Competence and Role .................................................................................... 18 Scoping the Life Cycle Assessment Study ................................................................................. 18 4.1 Basis of the Guidance ........................................................................................................... 8 Functional Units and Declared Units .................................................................................. 19 iv 4.1.1 Standard sizes ............................................................................................................. 19 4.1.2 Example: The French Shoe PCR (Appendix A of AFNOR BP X 30-­‐323-­‐1) ..................... 21 4.2 System Boundary ............................................................................................................... 22 4.3 Rules for the Inclusion of Inputs and Outputs ................................................................... 24 4.4 Description of Data: Unit Processes and Information Modules ......................................... 25 4.5 Technosphere Data and Information ................................................................................. 27 4.6 Life Cycle Inventory Calculation Procedures ...................................................................... 28 4.6.1 Consumptive Water Use: ............................................................................................ 29 4.6.2 Waste Management ................................................................................................... 29 4.6.3 Chemical Use Data Collection ..................................................................................... 29 4.6.4 Transportation ............................................................................................................ 30 4.6.5 Electric Power Grids .................................................................................................... 31 4.7 4.7.1 Primary Data Quality Requirements ........................................................................... 32 4.7.2 Secondary and Tertiary Data Requirements ............................................................... 32 4.8 5 Data Quality ....................................................................................................................... 31 Allocation Rules ................................................................................................................. 33 Life Cycle Impact Assessment .................................................................................................. 34 5.1 Selection Method for Predetermined Parameters ............................................................ 34 5.2 Required Indicators ............................................................................................................ 36 5.3 Substances to be Declared on the EPD .............................................................................. 39 5.4 Optional Reporting ............................................................................................................. 39 5.5 Additional Environmental Information .............................................................................. 42 5.6 Requirements for Additional Data ..................................................................................... 42 5.6.1 Waste Percentage ....................................................................................................... 42 5.6.2 Take Back Program ..................................................................................................... 43 6 PCR Format (Full Example) ....................................................................................................... 44 7 Requirements for the Environmental Product Declaration ..................................................... 46 7.1 Publishing and Maintaining the EPD .................................................................................. 47 v 7.2 8 EPDs ................................................................................................................................... 47 EPD Format (Example): ............................................................................................................ 48 Environmental Product Declaration: Bob’s Full Frontal T-­‐Shirt ....................................................... 48 9 Data Collection Sheets Examples ............................................................................................. 50 9.1 General Facility Data .......................................................................................................... 50 9.2 Example of Fabric Production ............................................................................................ 51 10 Definitions ................................................................................................................................ 52 11 Appendix A: Conflicts of Interest ............................................................................................. 55 12 Appendix B: Modularity ........................................................................................................... 56 13 Appendix C Details of Harmonization Assessment .................................................................. 57 14 Appendix D: Data Source Examples ......................................................................................... 62 14.1 Industry average data ..................................................................................................... 62 14.2 Electric Grids ................................................................................................................... 62 14.3 Transportation Models ................................................................................................... 62 14.4 Waste Statistics .............................................................................................................. 62 14.4.1 Transport Statistics .................................................................................................. 62 15 References ............................................................................................................................... 63 vi 1 Introduction and Background The Sustainable Apparel Coalition (SAC) (www.apparelcoalition.org) is an industry-­‐wide group of over 75 leading apparel and footwear brands, retailers, suppliers, non-­‐profits, and NGOs working to reduce the environmental and social impacts of apparel and footwear products around the world. SAC members represent more than a third of the global market share for apparel and footwear, based on revenue. The SAC was founded by a group of global sustainability leaders who recognize that addressing our industry’s current social and environmental challenges are both a business imperative and an opportunity. SAC members recognize that they share many of the same value chains, often even having their products manufactured in the same factories. The SAC seeks to inspire industry collaboration that leads to better environmental and social performance along the entire value chain. A major focus of the SAC is to create and implement an assessment framework, called the Higg Index, to measure the environmental and social performance of apparel and footwear products. SAC’s index work started with the development of largely qualitative “indicator” questions designed to assess the environmental performance of products and organizations without the need for collecting actual data on performance (“leading indicators). SAC used several existing efforts as a foundation: the Outdoor Industry Association’s Eco Index, Nike’s Apparel Environmental Design Tool, and the Global Social Compliance Program’s Environmental Facilities Assessment. The SAC spent over a year adding to and improving these indicators through member working groups, pilot testing (also open to the public), and pilot feedback review. These indicators are organized into sections that correspond with the product’s lifecycle as well as the specific environmental impacts from facilities. They reference management programs and practices put in place for environmental measures and are assumed to predict the desired environmental outcomes. The Higg Index 1.0 was released in July 2012 and specifically addresses environmental impacts for apparel products. In this version, indicator questions are organized into three different modules to address the three primary influencing factors on the sustainability of an apparel product: the Brand Module, Product Module, and Facilities Module. The Brand and Product Modules are organized into sections of questions that correspond to the lifecycle of a product (e.g., materials, transportation, packaging, end of life). The Facilities Module is organized by environmental impact 7 area (e.g., water use, energy use, hazardous waste). The Higg Index 1.0 scores the responses to each question, weights each section of questions, and calculates a weighted average score out of 100 points for each module (Brand, Product, Facilities). Future releases of the Higg Index will expand in scope to include social and labor indicators, footwear products and life cycle-­‐based metrics. Since 2011, the Metrics Working Group of the SAC has been working on using the science of life cycle assessment (LCA) to develop life cycle-­‐based metrics for the Higg Index and Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs). EPDs are product environmental claims that disclose the environmental performance of a product over its life cycle, and provide quantitative metrics covering the diversity of environmental impacts, such as the carbon footprint, eutrophication and water use. The impact categories were chosen to represent the issues of environmental significance for apparel and footwear products, with the goal of complementing management system indicators with life cycle numerical measures of environmental performance. The Metrics Working Group realized that the development of Product Category Rules (PCRs) for each product in the apparel and footwear value chain could be a time consuming and expensive part of developing EPDs and this represented a bottleneck to the transparency and outcome-­‐
oriented goals of the SAC. Consequently, the group commissioned the Institute for Environmental Research and Education (IERE) and Amy Horton, an independent project management consultant, for the development of this guidance. Over a one-­‐year period, the Metrics Working Group met in person and in web meetings to discuss and decide on the requirements of the PCR. The working group’s consensus-­‐based decisions are embodied in this document. The SAC intends to develop globally applicable PCRs for apparel and footwear based on this guidance. The first versions of PCRs and EPDs shall be piloted in 2013, and this guidance revised as an outcome of the pilot. SAC has selected IERE’s Earthsure program as their EPD Program Operator. 1.1 Basis of the Guidance There is currently no standard for preparing sector guidance for PCRs, although there are several examples of such guidance available globally. The guidance sits between the program operator instructions and the PCR itself and therefore includes elements from both. This guidance was supported through the contributions of many subject-­‐matter experts, as well as on international standardization efforts. Of particular use were: 8 • ISO standards on eco-­‐labeling and life cycle assessment, particularly ISO 14020, 14025, 14040, 14044 and 14067 (draft) • The E-­‐valuate program of Levi Strauss & Co. • The EPD program of the French EPD program of MEDDE-­‐ADEME-­‐AFNOR (BPX 30-­‐323) • The program of the International EPD System • The British Standards Institution PAS 2050 Carbon Footprint Standard • The French PCR for men’s shoes (AFNOR BP X 30-­‐323-­‐1) • The European Commission’s Product Environmental Footprint Guide (final draft) The Metrics Working Group consulted the following sources of information on the life cycle of apparel and footwear: •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Utrecht University’s LCA of manmade cellulose fibersi Utrecht University’s analysis of open loop recycling of PETii Textile Institute’s Handbook of Sustainable Textile Productioniii Mila-­‐i-­‐Canal et al.’s Application of LCA to Footwear. iv University of Rennes’ Life Cycle Assessment of Hemp Fiberv Woolridge et al.’s LCA of reuse/recycle of waste textilesvi Rivela et al.’s LCA of Tanneries in developing countriesvii European Commission’s LCA of PVCviii The Metrics Working Group also relied on the very substantial expertise embodied in the members of the group (as of March, 2013):
Karin Ekberg, Adidas Sandra Brandt, Adidas Philip Meister, Adidas Alexis Olans, Adidas Punit Lalbhai, Arvind Mills Helen Sahi, Avery Dennison Brad McClanahan, Clariant Hans-­‐Werner Schneider, Clariant Guru Khalsa, Columbia Sportswear Michele Wallace, Cotton Incorporated Janet Reed, Cotton Incorporated Sina Gerlach, C&A Bob Buck, DuPont Michelle Harvey, Environmental Defense Fund Graham Storrie, Esprit Henrik Lampa, H&M Erik Karlsson, H&M Tommy Thompson, Hanes Brands Stuart Hill, Huntsman Julio Carrillo, Huntsman Antonio Alvarez, Inditex Natalia Capelan, Inditex Maite Valino, Inditex Christian Schuster, Lenzing Marina Crnoja, Lenzing Peter Barsch, Lenzing Colleen Kohlsaat, Levi Strauss & Co. Paula Bautil, Levi Strauss & Co. 9 Desirae Early, Levi Strauss & Co. Laura Rainier, Li&Fung USA Rhett Godfrey, Loomstate Scott Mackinlay Hahn, Loomstate Greg Scott, Mountain Equipment Co-­‐op Linda Greer, Natural Resources Defense Council Jamie Bainbridge, Nau Elaine Delgado, New Balance Matt Dunbar, New Balance Chris Wawrousek, New Balance Greg Chambers, Nike Inc. Beth Jensen, Outdoor Industry Association David Pircher, Oeko-­‐Tex Sam Moore, Oeko-­‐Tex Jill Dumain, Patagonia Jayanti Mishra, Pratibha Bowie Miles, Puma Thomas Paech, Puma Kevin Myette, REI Matt Thurston, REI Kurtis Kipka, Target Charline Ducas, Textile Exchange Betsy Blaisdell, Timberland Martha Carper, University of Delaware Krishna Manda, Utrecht University Martin Patel, Utrecht University Frank Opendacker, VF Corporation Bernhard Kiehl, WL Gore Stewart Sheppard, WL Gore Liz Cook, World Resources Institute
We are also indebted to the assistance and review of Tom Gloria, Industrial Ecology Consultants. The Metrics Working Group is chaired by Jill Dumain, Director of Environmental Strategy at Patagonia, and supported by SAC staff members Ines Sousa, Amy Horton and Julie Holst. This document has been reviewed by Mark Goedkoop, Vee Subramanian (PRé Consultants), and by Koichi Shobatake (TCO2 Co. Ltd.). Their comments have greatly improved the readability and consistency of the document and we are indebted to them for their aid. 2 Goal and Scope This document provides detailed normative guidance for the creation of apparel and footwear industry Product Category Rules on a global basis. Its goal is to streamline the development of PCRs in such a way that the industry could move forward quickly while still retaining the transparency and technical rigor needed to achieve EPDs. Here we define apparel and footwear as: Articles worn to protect and/or adorn the human body This guidance specifically excludes jewelry, handbags and similar accessories, but includes hats, gloves and scarves. 10 2.1 Objective This guidance is intended to increase the comparability and decrease the cost of PCRs and EPDs across the apparel and footwear value chain. To achieve these objectives, this guidance provides consensus by members of the SAC on the management of PCR development, on the value judgments necessary for apparel and footwear LCA studies, and on the disclosure of those results in EPDs, so that the EPDs are truly comparable. 2.2 Audience The audience for this document is members of the SAC, the entire apparel and footwear value chain and interested parties such as governmental and non-­‐governmental bodies. Currently the majority of EPDs are designed for business-­‐to-­‐business communication, and SAC’s vision is first focused on this audience, but with a clear intent to move the business-­‐to-­‐consumer declarations. The PCRs developed under this guidance shall support either business-­‐to-­‐business EPDs or business-­‐to-­‐consumer EPDs. These different audiences shall necessitate different system boundaries and validation requirements. Perhaps the most important use of the EPD is within the companies creating them, helping them to understand the source of their environmental footprint, and therefore what they should do to reduce that footprint—the ultimate goal of any EPD program. A likely user of the EPD is the designer who chooses among materials and processes when designing an article of apparel or footwear. Large purchasers such as governmental bodies or a large retailer can use the EPD to help choose among sources of apparel and footwear, thus supporting their green purchasing goals. Non-­‐governmental organizations (NGOs) can look to the EPD to support the transparency of company’s value chain. Consumers can use the EPD to assist in decision-­‐making when choosing apparel and footwear. The EPD can help consumers understand their own impacts relative to the apparel and footwear they purchase. 2.3 Interested Party Input SAC includes several interested parties, notably members of the apparel and footwear value chain, the US EPA, the National Resource Defense Council, the Environmental Defense Fund and others. During the course of the development of the guidance, university professors, NGOs and consultants have been invited to attend key meetings and provide their input. This document was shared first internally with all SAC members, and then to the general public through social media, and all comments have been addressed. 11 2.4 Harmonization with Other Programs The Metrics Working Group in their decision-­‐making evaluated each decision in relationship to the International EPD program, the French EPD program of MEDDE-­‐ADEME-­‐AFNOR (BPX 30-­‐323), Levi-­‐Strauss and Company’s E-­‐valuate Program, the Draft ISO 14067, and the European Commission Product Environmental Footprint Guide Final Draft. It was not possible to achieve harmonization with all the programs, either because of practical barriers or because the different programs themselves are not harmonized. SAC is in close communication with the sources of these programs. Key variances from these programs include: • The requirement of the French EPD program of MEDDE-­‐ADEME-­‐AFNOR (BPX 30-­‐323) to use only background data from the French database. Because the SAC has global membership, it is not possible to have the data from every country appear in the French database. However, SAC members concerned with the upcoming EPD program in France will be able to use this database when it is operational providing they use the ILCD factors for electric grids. • The requirement of the International EPD program to have results known ± 5%. Apparel and footwear LCI data is known to vary over an order of magnitude for a given unit process. • SAC has chosen a 95% cutoff rule for including energy and mass in contrast with the 99% rule of the International EPD system, as a matter of practicality. No single flow representing more than 1% of the mass or energy may be ignored. • SAC’s impact categories are a subset of those identified by the EC Product Environmental Footprint Guidance (PEF). They reflect the impacts important to the apparel and footwear value chains rather than the more general impacts of the PEF. • The SAC’s impact models are not identical with those of the PEF, because the SAC membership is global and the PEF guidance focuses on EU-­‐specific impact models. More details can be found below. Details of the analysis can be found in Section 11. 2.5 Identification of Product Categories The EPD program shall use the UNSPSC codes to identify product categories. This system was chosen over other options for several reasons: • It is a system that was specifically designed for facilitating purchases, and purchase of products with lower environmental impacts is the goal of EPDs. • It is managed by GS1, the source of bar codes, and GS1 is in process of harmonizing bar codes with this system. 12 • It is an automated system, and automation is essential in bringing down the costs of EPDs. • The system is readily expandable allowing the SAC to add codes if they are needed. • It is a large system, with nearly 50,000 codes, better permitting detailed coverage of the economy. Use of the UNSPSC code does not preclude the addition of other code systems, such as the CPC code system (the United Nations Central Product Classification)ix.In the UNSPSC Codes, below the Segment is the Family. There are four families that relate to SAC: 53100000
53110000
53140000
11160000
Clothing
Footwear
Sewing supplies and accessories
Fabrics and leather materials
There are dozens of UNSPSC codes at lower levels for these segments, any of which could be the subject of a PCR. Some apparel and clothing products are primarily style products, the purchase driver primarily to adorn the body. In the extreme case, some garments are intended to be used only once. Other garments are intended for long life performance – years or even decades. To address these different purchase and use patterns, PCRs shall be designated as either style or performance products, and separate PCRs shall be developed for them. This means that each UNSPSC code could have two current PCRs but no more than two. 2.6 Confidentiality of Data The SAC intends to compile a database of life cycle inventory data across the apparel and footwear value chain. This data collection shall eventually integrate with the Higg Index annual reporting cycle. To date, SAC has not put in place their management system for retaining confidentiality of data, however one important use of the data is to provide average unit process data for the background unit processes in apparel and footwear EPDs. That could be done either by averaging three or more examples of a unit process, such as cotton growing, or by permitting customers confidential access to the LCI data of their vendors. The EPDs derived under this guidance shall not disclose company confidential data. Instead they shall disclose the environmental performance in terms of carbon footprint, water use, land use and other environmental issues. These disclosure categories and models may be changed and 13 improved via SAC management action, but it is not possible to reverse engineer the management actions of a particular garment from the environmental impact results. 2.7 Normative References This document conforms to ISO 14020-­‐2000, 14025-­‐2006, 14040-­‐2006, 14044-­‐2006. 2.8 Period of Validity of this Guidance This guidance shall be tested through a pilot project (anticipated to last for approximately one year), and based on the results of that pilot shall be modified. Once it is modified, it will be valid for three years. 2.9 PCRs and EPDs This guidance and PCRs developed from it may be modified earlier in the event of a significant change such as: International treaties Relevant national laws Changes in ISO standards relevant to EPDs Significant advances in the science of LCA Development of use-­‐phase models based on data relevant to the location of the market(s) of a product • Other significant changes as SAC and/or Earthsure may determine •
•
•
•
•
3 Procedures for the Development of PCRs 3.1 Roles and Tasks of the Stakeholders The PCR process is dependent on the opportunity for stakeholders or interested parties to participate in developing these specifications on how to measure the environmental performance of products. These decisions shall be relevant and appropriate to the technical requirements of the industry stakeholders, but they also shall be transparent in allowing others outside the industry to make comments and to have those comments addressed. These opportunities to participate in the process occur at many levels. 3.1.1 Composition and Role of the PCR Committee The PCR Committee shall be composed of SAC members, primarily industry experts. At least two ENGOs, two government representatives and two academics shall be invited to attend, choosing first from SAC members. SAC and Earthsure shall confer on whether outside parties shall be invited. As the program operator Earthsure has the primary responsibility for assuring diverse 14 representation on the committee. There are no limits to the size of the committee, but as a practical matter the committee is usually between five and twelve individuals. Members of the committee shall disclose any conflicts of interest per the Earthsure program and the form in Appendix A. The PCR committee shall: 1. Identify the product category, including the applicable UNSPSC Codes (and others as desired). 2. Identify whether the PCR is for Style or for Performance products. 3. Develop a flow chart of the life cycle of the product. The flow chart should closely resemble 4. Develop unit process descriptions, default partitioning models and data collection spreadsheets, if they do not already exist. 5. Develop the use phase model for the product, including the expected cleaning and any maintenance required. 6. For performance products, identify the test methods for measuring the system function 7. For performance products, develop a method to calculate the number of functional units per apparel and footwear article or per set of apparel and footwear (e.g. pair of stockings) 8. Place this information into the appropriate fields in the PCR form, as shown on Section 8 PCR Format. 9. Respond to the comments collected during review panel review and public comment. 3.1.2 Composition, Competence and Role of the PCR Review Panel The PCR Review Panel shall be an independent panel of at least three individuals that includes at least one LCA professional, at least one technical expert for the industry, and at least one interested party, who may also be an expert, but who may represent government, NGOs or members of the public. None of the review panel shall have participated as members of the PCR committee. The industry expert shall have at least five years’ experience in the field or a higher degree in the relevant field, e.g. a master’s degree in textiles. The LCA Professional shall be a life cycle assessment certified professional (LCACP) or the equivalent (certified in another ISO 17024 program for LCA professionals). The interested party may be an expert, or may represent a non-­‐
technical addition to the review team. The Program Operator shall require documentary evidence of the competence of industry reviewers and shall verify the LCACP currency online. 15 In accordance with the ISO 14025 standard, the PCR Review Panel shall review whether the PCR is in conformity with (in order of priority): 1. ISO 14025, 2. This PCR guidance, and 3. The Earthsure General Program Instructions. The review panel also reviews whether the PCR accurately reflects the current state of practice in the life cycle of the products covered by the PCR, and provides written comments to the EPD Program Operator as to any non-­‐conformances. 3.1.3 Role of Interested Parties Interested parties include individuals and organizations working in the value chain covered by the PCR, governmental bodies, standardization organizations, consumer NGOs, and environmental NGOs. Interested parties play a role at several points in this process. • They may be invited to join the PCR committee. • The PCR Review Panel shall include interested parties, and • Interested parties shall be invited to comment on each PCR during the one-­‐month open comment period. The scope of their comments shall not be restricted, but it is expected that they provide comments relevant to the credibility and transparency of the PCR and any EPDs to be developed from it. 3.1.4 Role of the Program Operator The Program Operator (Earthsure) shall: 1. Work with SAC to invite interested parties (if needed beyond SAC membership) 2. Retain all documents of outreach and disclosure of conflict of interest (see Appendix A) 3. Search for PCRs in other EPD programs 4. Facilitate the meetings of the PCR Committee and creation of the PCR Draft 5. Post draft PCRs and publicize them 6. Assist in managing the review panel, and assuring their competence 7. Facilitate the review of comments 8. Post the final PCR on the web 9. Post any EPDs derived from the PCR on the web 10. Assure that PCRs are kept current 11. Maintain the EPD program for best possible outcomes considering the changing environment related to EPDs 12. Keeps SAC informed about changes in the EPD world 16 13. Publish the EPDs on the Earthsure website. 3.1.5 Role of the SAC The SAC shall: 1. Notify the Program Operator whenever a new or revised PCR is needed 2. Collaborate in outreach for PCR Committee members 3. Notify SAC members about the existence of draft and final PCRs 4. Fund the development and maintenance of PCRs Table 1 below shows the steps and stakeholders in the development of the PCR. Table 1. PCR Development and Maintenance Process Action/Decision Need for PCR Identified Program Operator Contacted PCR Committee Formed PCR Decisions Made Who Takes Action SAC Draft PCR Published to Public Comment Review Panel Program Operator SAC Program Operator & SAC PCR Committee Team of 3 experts Comments Addressed PCR Committee Final PCR Published PCR Operator PCR Revised Initiated by Program Operator or SAC How Action Occurs SAC member identifies a need for new or revised PCR Phone or email Open invitations and direct invitation 1-­‐3 web meetings, facilitated by Program Operator 1 month posting and social media During public comment Web meeting Web posting & social media SAC PCR review committee, usually 3 years after publication 3.2 Transparency and Outreach When a PCR is to be developed, the SAC and Earthsure shall jointly seek participation in its development, both within the SAC, and outside of it, primarily through Internet and social media 17 outlets. As a minimum, invitations to participate in the PCR development shall be sent to at least two NGOs, two academics, a standards body and two governmental bodies, looking first to SAC membership. Records of the invitations shall be retained by Earthsure. The PCR Committee shall have at least three industry experts. None of the committee members shall have a conflict of interest in terms of personal or professional reliance on the economic performance of any other member/organization of the committee. Once the PCR is drafted, Earthsure shall post the PCR on the Internet and solicit public comment for at least one month. Every comment from an identifiable source (i.e. not anonymous) shall be addressed by the PCR Committee. 3.3 EPD Verifier Competence and Role All EPDs shall be reviewed by an LCA Certified Professional or the equivalent. If the EPD is a business to consumer (B to C) EPD, the EPD shall be verified by a third party. If the EPD is business to business EPD (B to B), the EPD may be verified by an internal verifier. In either case, the individual shall not have been involved in performing any of the calculations or data gathering for the EPD. The verifier shall check and report upon the EPD’s: • Conformance with the PCR; • Conformance with the ISO 14040 series of standards; • Conformance with Earthsure’s general program instructions for the Type III environmental declaration; • Conformance with this PCR guidance. The reviewer shall also check and report on • Whether data evaluation includes coverage, precision, completeness, representativeness, consistency, reproducibility, sources and uncertainty; • The plausibility, quality and accuracy of the LCA-­‐based data; • The quality and accuracy of additional environmental information; • The quality and accuracy of the supporting information. 4 Scoping the Life Cycle Assessment Study In order to produce an EPD, one must first perform an LCA study in accordance with a PCR. The study produces a third-­‐party report, as described in ISO 14044. The third-­‐party life cycle report 18 supporting the EPD shall conform to the requirements of ISO 14044, and shall be made available on request, with LCI data suitably edited to shield confidential business information. The subsequent text lays out how the LCA study should be done for apparel and footwear and footwear EPDs. It shall be incorporated by reference in all SAC PCRs. 4.1 Functional Units and Declared Units The function of apparel and footwear is to protect and adorn the human body. But in order to have comparable analyses among products for the same PCR, there shall be a reproducible measure of the quality of the product. The SAC has selected a functional unit of: One article of apparel or set of footwear, with quality parameters to be determined for the individual product categories by the PCR Committee. Normally, a functional unit has three parts to it: One measurement of amount, one of quality and one of time. SAC has already decided on the amount: One article or one set (i.e., one pair of shoes, one pair of gloves, etc.). What is left is to settle on quality and time. These are interrelated concepts. For example, if it is decided that that amount of time is one year of wear, there shall be a way to verify that the garment or footwear lasts during the number of wearings and any cleaning for a year. Better quality articles likely last more than one year. If they can be shown to last for two years, then the impacts for making and disposing of the article would be divided in two when calculating the impact per functional unit. 4.1.1 Standard sizes The sizes of products used to calculate the EPD shall conform to the following table: Table 2 Standard Sizes Product T-­‐shirt (men’s) T-­‐shirt (women’s) Jacket (men’s) Jacket (women’s) Trousers (men’s) Trousers (women’s) EU Size Medium (91) Medium (38) 52 38 81 38 UK size US Size Medium (36) Medium (36) Medium (10) Medium (8) 42 42 10 8 32 10 8 Separate EPDs are not needed for product lines that only vary based on color or on detailing that amounts to less than 1% of the finished weight of the product. 19 The process for the developing the functional unit is: 1) Decide if the primary function of the product is to adorn the body. If so there shall be no assumption of the lifetime of the article; the EPD shall disclose the cradle to gate and the end of life impacts of the product and, separately, the impacts of one cleaning cycle. The PCR is a “style” PCR. The functional unit is the article or set (e.g. stockings). 2) If the primary function of the product is protection, and the article is expected to last through many wearings, the article is a “performance” article and the functional unit shall be one garment (or set) that protects a portion of the body (selected by the PCR committee, e.g. upper body) for one year. The EPD discloses the impacts of the use phase including all wearings and cleanings. The PCR is a “performance” PCR. Style and Performance functional units are different and therefore they require different rules. A product category, e.g. trousers, may have both a style and a performance PCR, but each individual product (i.e. each SKU) shall be covered by only one PCR. The producer shall select which PCR to use. 3) For both style and performance PCRs, develop a use phase for the product. Identify the distribution of cleaning scenarios in the regions in which the garment is sold. A preliminary table for the EU is shown here.x Table 3 EU Clothes Washing Data Parameter Use of Washer Energy for washer Water for washer Detergent use Use of Tumble Dryer Electricity for Dryer Use of iron Electricity for iron Unit Percent kWh/kg clothing L/kg clothing Grams/kg Percent kWh/kg clothing Percent kWh/kg clothing 1
Assumed that the garment weighs 200 grams and each garment takes 5 minutes to iron. 20 Amount 100 0.057 2.8 41 25 0.59 100 0.671 4) If the PCR is a performance PCR, the PCR Committee shall decide how the lifetime of a given product is determined, e.g. through a warranty, through wear testing or some other method. 5) Determine the number of cleanings per year 6) If wear tests are selected, the committee shall: a. Specify wear tests b. Develop a scoring algorithm to convert the test results to years of wear. The wear test process used in the French PCR for shoes is shown in the example below. It illustrates how to develop a lifetime measurement for performance apparel and footwear. 4.1.2 Example: The French Shoe PCR (Appendix A of AFNOR BP X 30-­‐323-­‐1) The French shoe PCR sets the shoe size to be tested as men’s size 42. It requires that several wear and adhesion tests be performed using ISO standards, which then are scored, as shown below and in Table 4. It provides a weighting scheme for converting the test results to a wear score for the shoes. Results for the pair of shoes in % = [(upper-­‐sole resistance X 25) + (elastomer sole abrasion X 10) + (sole resistance to bending X 5) + (upper tearing X 5) + (lining abrasion resistance X 1)] / 460 Based on this scoring, the number of pairs of shoes needed to meet the functional unit is calculated as below. Table 4 Conversion of Tests to Functional Units 0 — 40 % 40 % — 60 % 60 % — 80 % 80 % — 100 % 2 pairs of shoes 1 pair of shoes 0.5 pairs of shoes 0.25 pairs of shoes 21 Table 5 Durability tests per AFNOR Shoe PCR (AFNOR BP X30-­‐323-­‐
Table 6 Durability testing 1, Appendix A (Appendix A of AFNOR BP X 30-­‐323-­‐1)” in the title of Table 2 4.2 System Boundary For each PCR, the PCR Committee shall develop a flow chart substantially similar to the one shown in Figure 1 or Figure 2 below. The flow chart shall show: •
•
•
•
The system boundary Specifically excluded unit processes Whether the unit process technosphere data is required to be primary data Whether any of the information modules shall have EPDs as well. 22 Figure 1 Apparel Flow Chart Each PCR flowchart shall show the unit processes relevant to that product, and shall color code the the processes with required primary data unit processes shown in green. Each LCA study shall also show the color-­‐coded flowchart, which will show at least the primary data unit processes than those shown in the PCR, but which may have more primary data that shown in the PCR. 23 Figure 2 Footwear Flow Chart 4.3 Rules for the Inclusion of Inputs and Outputs Ideally, all inputs and outputs should be included in the assessment. However, sometimes the data is not available from published resources, substitute data is not available and he cost of collecting the primary data is cost prohibitive. In that case, at least 95% of the technosphere mass and energy inputs into the product system shall be accounted for. No single flow representing more than 1% of the mass or energy may be ignored. All the known toxic chemical flows shall be accounted for. At a minimum, the chemicals in the following lists of substances should be considered: 1. EU Substances of Very High Concern • European Chemicals Agency Candidate List: http://echa.europa.eu/web/guest/candidate-­‐list-­‐table Legal notice: http://echa.europa.eu/web/guest/legal-notice; 2. US EPA Toxics Release Inventory Chemical List • EPCRA Section 313 Chemical List – RY2011: http://www.epa.gov/tri/trichemicals/index.htm 24 3. American Apparel and Footwear Association Restricted Substances List:
https://www.wewear.org/industry-­‐resources/restricted-­‐substances-­‐list/ 4. California Prop 65
• State of California, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment: http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/prop65_list/Newlist.html Specifically excluded from the system boundary are: • The transport of employees to/from work • The manufacture of capital equipment (including facilities) to make the product • Direct personnel impacts such as space heating and cooling, sanitary waters and the like. These impacts are expected to be small, and where they are not separately metered, they shall be included in the analysis, but there presence noted in the third party report. • Transport of customers to the retail location. This latter is excluded because there is no reliable data on how this unit process occurs, and a priori there is not any reason to think that the system for delivery of a product between retail and the customer is different from one product to another. Also excluded is the recycling of materials discarded from the apparel or footwear system, because these are accounted for in the next product life cycle. This exclusion is discussed in Section 4.8 Allocation Rules. No primary data in the system can be more than two years old, and data quality shall conform to the requirements set out in Section 4.7. Data Quality. 4.4 Description of Data: Unit Processes and Information Modules The unit process is the smallest part of the product life cycle at which life cycle inventory data are available. Life cycle inventories consist of two kinds of data: Technosphere data, such as energy and materials use and solid waste disposal, and ecosphere data, which estimate the use of resources taken from nature and emissions to nature (see Figure 3 Ecosphere and Technosphere Flows). Technosphere data (or intermediate flow data are associated with financial transactions. Ecosphere data (or elementary flows) are sometimes taken from direct measurements, such as wastewater treatment plant measurements and stack tests, but more often are taken from emission factors that are published by some authoritative source, for example, a governmental body. 25 All of these estimates are expressed relative to the functional unit of the product being evaluated. Linked together, the normalized technosphere data and the ecosphere data comprise the life cycle inventory. With few exceptions, the life cycle inventory is calculated using LCA software. Figure 3 Ecosphere and Technosphere Flows An Information Module is the data for a single unit process or for a group of unit processes, which may be used as information to calculate an EPD for a downstream product, as shown in Appendix B. Modularity. It may also be used to provide a business-­‐to-­‐business EPD. Information modules for SAC shall represent the gate-­‐to-­‐gate life cycle inventory for a location, and that inventory shall be the unit process. The life cycle inventory of each unit process shall be calculated on a gate-­‐to-­‐gate basis. Sometimes a single location may contain more than one unit process. For example it may include both spinning and a weaving unit processes. Where available, specific technosphere process data shall be provided for each unit process. Often data on technosphere flows is not available at the unit process level. For example the use of electricity or the production of waste in a facility may not be separately metered or measured at each process. If specific measured process data is not available, the inventory results shall be 26 calculated based on the annual mass of product from the different unit processes. In the example above, the energy and water use and emissions shall be allocated based on the relative annual mass production of the spun yarn and the woven cloth. For example, in the case of an Information Module/unit process for manufacturing zippers, which provides the life cycle inventory data for the unit processes needed to turn the raw materials into the zipper. The Information Module shall not provide information on upstream or downstream unit processes. The Information Module shall not have a functional unit, but shall have a reference flow (used to calculate the LCI of the garment or the footwear) or a declared unit (used to provide a B to B EPD). In this case, the reference flow is the mass of the product, but the declared unit may be a single zipper or a convenient number of zippers. If an EPD for zippers is created, the declared unit shall be determined by the zipper PCR committee. The Unit Process shall be equivalent to the information module. Each PCR shall include a description of each information module where primary data collection is required. Where there is already an information module description from a previous PCR, that description shall be used. Where there is no previously existing information module description, a new one shall be developed. 4.5 Technosphere Data and Information All organizations seeking an EPD shall at a minimum provide technosphere information on the unit processes under their operational control. At a minimum, that means: •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Location where each unit process occurs Name and contact information of person providing data A bill of materials for the product, noting all materials and whether they are recycled. Amount of product/materials/components that are purchased for each unit process Transportation distance and mode to get to the location of the unit process Transportation distance and mode for the finished product to the distributor or retail location Amount of water used at each unit process Amount of chemicals used by each unit process, by chemical class Amount of land occupied by the agricultural and forest unit processes Amount of electricity used for each unit process Amount of other energy carriers used by the unit process Amount of waste disposed of, both hazardous and non-­‐hazardous for each unit process 27 • Amount of wastewater produced and its treatment type (if any) for each unit process • Amount of waste recycled. All of these data may be obtained relative to a reference flow or it may be provided for the entire facility/location, along with the mass of product produced. Other data that is desired, but not required: •
•
•
•
•
•
The same technosphere data for upstream and downstream processes Distance of facility to disposal site for solid waste. Known disposal types (landfill/incineration) Electric grid composition Water discharge amount and quality (e.g. from discharge permit reports) Any stack tests Example data collection sheets can be found in Section 9. Data Collection Sheets. Ecosphere data may be provided by using existing government emissions factors or data from a recognized non-­‐governmental source such as Ecoinventxi, or calculations based on physical data such as mass balance or chemical reaction stoichiometry. For example, natural gas is mostly composed of methane, with small amounts of other hydrocarbons and other gases. The chemical equation for combusting methane is: CH4 + 2O2 →CO2 + 2H2O A unit process inventory would include the ecosphere flows of oxygen, water and carbon dioxide. During combustion, other chemical reactions occur as well, producing oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide, particulate matter and other substances. Estimates of these emissions must be derived from other sources than the simple reaction of methane with oxygen. These sources are typically drawn from published research, government publications and other sources, and then made available in public and commercial LCI databases. When using these databases, care must be taken because there are many inventory flows that are not balanced for mass. 4.6 Life Cycle Inventory Calculation Procedures The SAC intends to collect unit process data from all its members, ultimately in conjunction with the data collection for the Higg index. To the greatest extent available, primary life cycle technosphere inventory data shall be derived from monthly technosphere data and calculated as 28 the mean and standard deviation of the technosphere flow with a test for the normal distribution of the data. For example, if a facility contains only one unit process, electrical consumption for each month divided by the mass of production for that month shall provide the primary life cycle technosphere data. Some unit processes can only be calculated over a season or a year, for example crop production. In this case the primary technosphere data shall be the seasonal or annual figures. When multiple equivalent sources provide data for the same unit process, e.g. several sources of cotton, the annual average data shall be calculated from each source and the weighted averages of the several sources with the standard error of the mean shall be provided. Each unit process shall undergo mass balances. The total inputs and outputs of the unit processes shall agree within five percent. The total water inputs and outputs shall agree within two percent. The carbon shall balance within two percent. 4.6.1 Consumptive Water Use: Only consumptive water use (where water is assumed to leave the watershed) is calculated in the inventory. Water used for evaporative cooling systems is released as a vapor into the air. Water used for irrigation is assumed to also be released as vapor to the air through the process of evapotranspiration. Water consumed by animals may be evaporated or released into another watershed. All of these processes are examples of consumptive water use. Water used for once-­‐
through cooling or for turning power turbines is not consumptive water use. 4.6.2 Waste Management Where primary data exists on the disposal methods for waste streams, that data shall be used for calculating the life cycle inventory of the waste unit processes. Where no primary data is available, the national average data provided by the relevant national body collecting this data shall be used. 4.6.3 Chemical Use Data Collection A simplified data sheet for all primary unit processes shall be developed as part of the data collection workbook that serves as a companion document to this PCR guidance. In this simplified data sheet, the primary data gathered at most facilities is of the chemical class (e.g. detergents) and amount (this is the required minimum data set). Information about the upstream manufacture of those chemical classes shall then be derived from public or commercial life cycle inventory (LCI) datasets. 29 Each unit process description in the PCR shall have a default scenario for partitioning the emissions of chemicals from the facility. The model shall include destruction of the chemical and emissions to air, water, waste and product. The partition shall be in full percent units and shall total to 100%. Example1 Detergents Detergent is almost always partitioned into water—and our simple partitioning estimate would put 99% of the detergent in the wastewater and 1% in solid waste. Example 2 Dyes Dyes nearly all partitioned into the fabric, with some into the wastewater and the remainder into the solid waste. Our simple partitioning estimate would place 90% of the dye in the fabric, 9 percent in the water and 1 percent in the solid waste These examples are for illustration only. Each of these default scenarios shall be developed as part of the data collection sheets and in discussion with the PCR committee. Where facilities have site-­‐specific data (e.g., the amount of dye in the wastewater) they shall use that data in lieu of the default scenarios for reporting their emissions. During the pilot project, facilities may share Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs) and the amount of each product used in lieu of the chemical class data. If available that information shall be used for a more accurate estimate of the impacts of the unit processes at that facility. 4.6.4 Transportation Where primary data on fuel consumption and transport method are known, these shall be the basis of the analysis. Where these are not known, the models embedded in the relevant national or regional databases shall be used. Where these do not exist, the following assumptions shall be made: 1. Rail: all transportation is one-­‐way, and the rail energy expenditure is assumed to be derived from diesel fuel. 2. Where there is no data, road freight is assumed to be in heavy trucks, with a fuel efficiency of 2.3 km/liter (5.5 miles per gallon), and the haul-­‐back empty 50% of the time. This is equivalent to having the trucks 75% loaded at all times, and the distance traveled doubled. 3. Ocean Freight is assumed to be one-­‐way, using container vessels running on bunker fuel (3% sulfur content). 30 4. Where primary data is not available, distance between locations shall be calculated based on automated distance calculators such as Map Quest and Google Maps. 4.6.5 Electric Power Grids Where primary data is available for the electrical power grid for a given unit process, it shall be used to model the electricity source. If data is not available at that level, the next highest aggregation of electrical grid data shall be used, with a preference of: Local>regional>national>multi-­‐national Examples of data sources can be found in Appendix D. Carbon offsets or Renewable Energy Credits or Certificates shall not be used in the calculated life cycle inventory. These refer to credits purchased for processes not under the control of the purchaser and are a form of system boundary expansion. For example, a coal fired power plant might buy carbon credits that support the planting of forests, or might buy Renewable Energy Credits that support the installation of renewable energy at distributed locations. Renewable energy includes solar, wind, hydropower, geothermal and biofuel energy sources. On-­‐site renewable energy from solar cells or other renewable energy source shall only be included in the inventory if they are not grid-­‐linked. This avoids the problem of double-­‐counting of renewable energy, and conforms to the guidance of the French EPD program of MEDDE-­‐ADEME-­‐
AFNOR (BPX 30-­‐323). 4.7 Data Quality The quality of an EPD is dependent upon the quality of the data that goes into the analysis. One gathers actual operating data for foreground unit processes. These are the processes under direct operational control of the EPD owner. The owner shall attempt to gather actual operating data from the immediate upstream and the immediate downstream unit processes. These are called primary data, for they represent data provided by the organization that did the measurement. Often, primary data is only available for the foreground unit processes. For background unit processes, which are not under the control of the EPD owner, secondary data can be used. Secondary data is data that has been aggregated by a trusted party such as a government or industry association. that aggregates the primary data from multiple sources. The SAC plans to collect and aggregate unit process data throughout the apparel and footwear industry. 31 When neither primary nor secondary data is available, tertiary data may be used. This is data that is aggregated from many sources, and is typical of data found in life cycle inventory databases. Primary and secondary data is mixed and further manipulated to provide this kind of data. Tertiary data is typically used to calculate background unit processes such as electric grids and transportation systems. Whether data is primary or not, and whether it is foreground or background data, care shall be taken to provide information that represents the real situation as much as possible. In general, in order of preference, data should be: Primary > SAC aggregated > peer reviewed average data > government data and statistics > third-­‐party databases At the moment, there is no SAC data available, but this shall change as the EPD program progresses. 4.7.1 Primary Data Quality Requirements Primary foreground data shall represent the annual average of production for a product. It shall be no more than 24 months old at the time of publication of the EPD, and it shall represent the actual geography and technology or technology mix used to product the product. At least 95% of the mass and energy flow shall be accounted for. 4.7.2 Secondary and Tertiary Data Requirements These data are used in the absence of primary data. • Age: They shall be no more than 10 years old, unless a competent individual can confirm that the process has not significantly changed in the interim. • Geography: Ideally, they shall represent the actual geography of the location and if such data is not available, they should represent either another OECD country or another non-­‐
OECD country as the case may be. The electric grid shall be modified to represent the grid in the actual location of the process. • Technology: They should represent the technology mix known to be used, or if this is not known, or no data is available to represent the technology mix, a sensitivity analysis shall be performed. • Precision: LCIA results shall be represented with one or two significant figures, in SI (metric) units per functional unit. • Completeness: At least 95% of the mass and energy flow shall be accounted for. No flow representing over 1% of the mass or energy flow may be excluded. 32 4.8 Allocation Rules Environmental Product Declarations are best supported by strict sustainability accounting, which means that a cutoff rule is employed for recycled content and recycled material. All the impacts of recycling are allocated to the unit process that uses the recycled material, starting at the point at which the recycling decision is made. Decision-­‐makers only influence this part of the life cycle at two points: when choosing virgin versus recycled materials, and when choosing to recycle versus dispose of materials for which they have no further use. Tracking the data this way counts all emissions and resources, and does not double-­‐count any of them. When unit processes have more than one physical product, the impacts of making the products are allocated on a mass basis, except in the case where there are co-­‐products that have high mass and low economic value, as noted below. Where mass data is not available (e.g. where only units of production are known) a sensitivity analysis shall be performed using the mass of the largest and the smallest units to evaluate the range of impacts. Energy producing unit processes shall be allocated based on the energy produced. System boundary expansion shall not be used to calculate life cycle inventories, because it relies on estimates of decisions over which the decision-­‐maker has no control. Consequential LCA results are derived from system boundary expansion, and therefore consequential data shall not be used in the analysis. Where only consequential data is available for a unit process, all negative emissions shall be set to zero, and the use of this data shall be noted in the third party report. Biological production presents a special case for allocation, and it may be necessary to allocate based on economic value. For all animal products, manure shall be treated as a waste. If it is used as a fertilizer, the impact of transport and composting is embedded into the impact of the subsequent crop. If it is managed as a waste, the impacts of waste management are allocated to the production of the animal. All crop wastes shall be treated in the same manner as manure: their recycling/composting impacts belong to the subsequent crop. To determine whether economic allocation is appropriate for a product (biological or otherwise): • Calculate the percentage of the value of each co-­‐product (as averaged over three years using global price indices). • Estimate the percentage of the masses of each of the co-­‐products. • When the ratio economic value %/weight % for the apparel used co-­‐product is 10 or more, use economic allocation for those products. 33 Economic allocation means that the impacts of the crop are allocated over the total co-­‐products based on their three-­‐year average market values. Regardless of the allocation method uses (mass or economic) the total inputs and the total outputs of the un-­‐allocated unit process shall equal the total inputs and the total outputs of the allocated unit processes. 5 Life Cycle Impact Assessment Impact assessment is the portion of the life cycle study that converts inventory results into impact indicator results, through the use of characterization factors. The SAC has chosen life cycle Indicators to be covered by their EPDs. Some of them are required while others are optional. 5.1 Selection Method for Predetermined Parameters The predetermined parameters in this guidance were developed in a structured fashion to achieve consensus of the SAC Metrics Working Group. The process included: • Comparison of existing SAC metrics to standard LCA impact categories; • Review of life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) approaches used by the SAC members and published in LCA studies related to apparel and footwear; • Creation of educational webinars on key environmental impacts, how they occur in nature, the anthropogenic sources as they relate to footwear and apparel, and existing LCIA methodologies; • In person and web-­‐based meetings to discuss and achieve consensus on impact categories, impact methods, and inventory parameters In general, the SAC Metrics Working Group thought process followed the model shown in Figure 4. Going from left to right, in the rectangular boxes, we see what happens in nature. Emissions and resource use from human activities lead to dispersion or depletion of substances in the environment, and chemical and biological reactions, which eventually lead to damage to humans, ecosystems and the built environment. The work of environmental scientists (shown in red, again from left to right) measure and model these reactions, developing fate and transport models, epidemiological models, biogeochemical models and the like. These define the environmental mechanisms for human actions. The work of life cycle scientists (shown in the oval boxes) is to make use of the work of environmental scientists to calculate indicators of anthropogenic impacts. Sometimes there are no adequate models to describe the environmental mechanism in numerical terms. In that case, impacts are measured as inventory indicators, simply aggregating the emissions of single 34 emissions or resource uses. More often there are models that can be used to calculate mid-­‐point indicators. These indicators represent a point along the environmental mechanism where there is adequate science to support reliable numerical indicators. An example of this is the global warming potentials for climate change impacts. It is also possible to derive endpoint indicators that are estimated at the point of damage, most often called damage categories such as: human health, ecosystem health and resources. In order to achieve endpoint indicators, some kind of weighting scheme is based on value judgments and shall be developed through political or policy decisions. Thus, endpoint indicators are not natural science-­‐based. For example, ecosystem damages calculations may weight and aggregate climate change, eutrophication and other impact categories in order to calculate an ecosystem score. The closer one gets to the endpoints of an environmental mechanism the more environmentally relevant the indicator is. However, environmental relevance is balanced by accuracy. The SAC Metrics Working Group has chosen not to pursue endpoint indicators. The global nature of the SAC means that the value judgments would be too different and consensus was not achievable. Impact indicator models were also chosen to be as free of regional differences as possible, and in this sense they are less environmentally relevant. 35 Figure 4 Relationship of Environmental Science and Life Cycle Indicators The selection of impact categories and models was based on these criteria: • Scalability—was there data available to do the calculation wherever the unit processes occurred? What was the cost of the data gathering? • Status of LCIA Science—was the model the best available? Was there consensus? What are current limitations and methodological issues? • Desired outcomes—did the model support key drivers in the Higg index? Did it provide business value? • Global applicability—was the model applicable across the globe? 5.2 Required Indicators Climate Change is the result of the anthropogenic addition of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases are released primarily from combustion and enteric fermentation. These gases trap heat in the atmosphere, leading to a wide diversity of effects, including sea level rise and acidification, extreme weather events such as hurricanes and tornadoes and droughts 36 and floods, and ultimately effects such as crop failure and increased incidence of disease leading to human mortality and losses of species and ecosystems. The majority of greenhouse gases are derived from combustion, and all products include combustion in their value chains, even if only for the purpose of transportation. Biogenic carbon shall not be tracked separately from other forms of carbon. Instead, CO2 is calculated as an ecosystem flow into the plant during growth, and the carbon is emitted wherever that happens downstream of the biological uptake step. The midpoint indicator of Climate Change is the CO2 equivalents as a measure of infrared radiative forcing. CO2 is the most common and important greenhouse gas in terms of fraction of the greenhouse effect. The lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere is very variable, but a weighted average is near 100 years, and thus the 100-­‐year time horizon is selected. The characterization factors are derived from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) most recent 100-­‐year horizon global warming potentialsxii. In addition to CO2, N2O, and CH4 are major drivers of Climate Change. Minor drivers of Climate Change include many refrigerants and some industrial chemicals. All of them shall be accounted for in estimating the Climate Change impact. All gases included in the IPCC most recent technical report shall be included. Eutrophication is the overgrowth of biomass caused by the anthropogenic release of nutrients, particularly fixed nitrogen and phosphorus. Eutrophied water bodies show early effects in terms of species distribution and toxic algal blooms, and ultimately as algae decompose eutrophication causes oxygen depletion leading to fish kills. Large portions of the World’s near shore and freshwater bodies are subject to eutrophication seasonally. The most important causes of excess nutrient releases are agriculture, human and animal wastes, and combustion processes. All agricultural products can contribute to potential eutrophication. In the 1930’s A.C. Redfieldxiii discovered that the ratio of carbon to nitrogen to phosphorus uptake into marine ecosystems was constant (C:N:P = 106:16:1, on an atom basis) and subsequently this ratio was confirmed to be the same in freshwater systems.xiv The ratio is applicable to ecosystem-­‐
level measurements, but not for the behavior of individual species. The Redfield ratio is the basis of all eutrophication life cycle impact models. We report the phosphorus mass equivalents of carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus compounds released, using the Redfield Ratio. Energy Use is a key measure of eco-­‐efficiency as well as fossil fuel depletion. Energy is used in almost every unit process. SAC shall report: • Total non-­‐feedstock energy consumed (MJ) • Renewable to total non-­‐feedstock energy consumed (%) 37 Both are important metrics to track and encourage performance improvement opportunities and promote renewables. Non-­‐feedstock energy consumption is excluded because it is a measure of material use, not energy use. Water Depletion is an important component of all living things and water is used in agriculture and in manufacturing and cleaning processes related to apparel and footwear. The human extraction of freshwater means that every continent has rivers that no longer reach the ocean (e.g. the Yellow River, the Colorado River, the Murray River) and aquifers that are much depleted. SAC shall use the method of Pfister et al.XVI for water scarcity. Land Occupation is an important impact of all agriculture, and forest products. Apparel and footwear often includes natural fibers and animal products such as leather. Land that is not used for producing food or fiber can presumably be used for wildlife and native ecosystems. In addition, there is ever-­‐increasing evidence of the economic value of the ecosystem services offered by native ecosystems, primarily forests. Unfortunately, there are no good global models available for life cycle impacts of land occupation, so the SAC simply reports the impact in units of land occupation as m2-­‐years land occupied. Only the land occupation for crops, livestock and wood/fiber production shall be reported, because the other sources of land occupation (transport, manufacture, storage and use) are anticipated not to be significant sources of land occupation in the apparel and footwear value chains. Companies may also gather and report the location of the land occupation in the event that better models of land occupation can be developed. Abiotic Resource Depletion is a measure of mineral, metal and fossil fuel resources used to produce a product. They are measured using the CML (2010)xv method for minerals, ultimate reserve. They have units of mass of antimony equivalents. Human and Ecotoxicity represent direct effects of releases of toxic materials on organisms. It is anticipated that toxic materials will be emitted during the production and application of pesticides and fertilizers and during the transportation of components, packaging and products, and during the production and consumption of fossil fuels. The SAC Metrics Working Group decided that it was critically important to consider toxicity in EPDs, but did not find that available toxicity impact assessment models provided the needed level of accuracy to compare products. The working group will continue to keep current with toxicity models in order to provide a better estimate of this critical environmental impact. 38 It was recognized that many facilities would not have the detailed data about the chemicals used, nor would they have the capacity to calculate their emissions. It is in the interest of SAC to assist all members of the value chain to develop this knowledge and capacity, and working toward more complete data and better models to support impact assessment represents a longer-­‐term goal. The approach to be used in the pilot program is a hazard-­‐based transparency approach. 5.3 Substances to be Declared on the EPD Once the life cycle inventory for a product is developed, its emissions shall be checked against the four lists below and any substances appearing shall be noted in the substances to be declared section of the EPD. 1. EU Substances of Very High Concern • European Chemicals Agency Candidate List: http://echa.europa.eu/web/guest/candidate-­‐list-­‐table Legal notice: http://echa.europa.eu/web/guest/legal-notice; 2. US EPA Toxics Release Inventory Chemical List • EPCRA Section 313 Chemical List – RY2011: http://www.epa.gov/tri/trichemicals/index.htm 3. American Apparel and Footwear Association Restricted Substances List:
https://www.wewear.org/industry-­‐resources/restricted-­‐substances-­‐list/ 4. California Prop 65
• State of California, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment: http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/prop65_list/Newlist.html Example 1: During its life cycle, this product emits small amounts of formaldehyde, and chromium trioxide, but none of the other substances listed in the EU substance of high concern list, the US EPCRA 313 list, the American Apparel and Footwear Associations Restricted Substances list or the California Proposition 65 list. Example 2: During its life cycle this product emits none of the substances listed in the EU substance of high concern list, the US EPCRA 313 list, the American Apparel and Footwear Associations Restricted Substances list or the California Proposition 65 list. After the pilot, the working group shall decide how to move forward. 5.4 Optional Reporting The issues described below represent the environmental issues thought to be less critical because the actions taken to reduce them may already be taken to reduce other issues, for example, 39 reducing fossil fuels might reduce Climate Change as well as reduce Acid Rain. Alternatively, the site-­‐specific models that are desired are either not fully developed or require more data than is currently practicable. They are still important information, and may be required in future versions of this document. In the meantime, these impacts may be reported in a separate section of the EPD, titled “additional information”. Acidification causes the destruction of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems through the wet and dry deposition of strong acids and ammonia. The acidification of soils mobilizes the aluminum in the soils and this has direct toxic effects on fish and other species, as well as an indirect effect through inhibition of uptake of potassium by plants, leading to loss of forest ecosystems. Acidification also affects the built environment, causing the slow dissolution of buildings. The indicator of acidification is calculated as the stoichiometric gram equivalents of hydrogen ion for emissions of oxides of sulfur and nitrogen, ammonia, HCL, HF, H2SO4, H3PO4 whether these are to atmosphere or direct to water bodies. It is clear that the emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere have led to decreased pH in precipitation worldwide. Currently, rain in equilibrium with the atmosphere is considered to be pH 5.5. As recently as 1985, that pH was 6.2, an increase of five times in acid content. This increased acid precipitation is leading to ocean acidification, and the loss of organisms having calcium carbonate shells. Until better estimates of the relationship between CO2 emissions and marine acid deposition are developed, the acidification due to these emissions is not calculated. Stratospheric Ozone Depletion is the decrease in the layer of ozone (O3) in the stratosphere. Although this layer is very thin, it offers substantial protection of the Earth from UV radiation. Halogenated chemicals react in the atmosphere to decrease the ozone, producing ordinary oxygen (O2), which does not screen out UV light. These chemicals are primarily refrigerants and flame retardants, although there are other uses for ozone depleting chemicals, e.g. as solvents and as pesticides. The loss of the ozone layer leads to increasing cases of cataracts and skin cancer as well as to damage of crops. The SAC impact model is based on the equivalents of CFC-­‐11 per the Montreal Protocol. This international treaty has been successful in halting the degradation of the ozone layer, and there are signs that the damage is reversing. Photochemical Smog is produced when oxides of nitrogen and volatile organic substances are present in the lower atmosphere in the presence of sunlight. Ozone is formed, and this form of oxygen causes many direct effects, reducing crop yields, causing asthma and other respiratory 40 effects in humans and animals. The production of ozone has been shown to be more related to the existence of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) than to the release of volatile organic substances. All combustion processes in a product’s life cycle are potential sources of photochemical smog. SAC’s default impact model for smog is the most recent U.S. EPA TRACI method, currently TRACI 2.1xvi, expressed in mass of ozone equivalents. Respiratory Effects: Particulate Matter causes severe respiratory problems, leading to at least one million deaths annually and potentially as many as six million deaths annually on a global basis, primarily in Asia. Particulate matter is caused by the emissions of oxides of sulfur, carbon, ammonia and other inorganic substances, primarily from combustion processes. It is measured in units of PM10 equivalents, using the US EPA TRACI model. Soil Losses are an important issue for agriculture. Without adequate soil neither crops nor native terrestrial ecosystems could exist. The dust bowl storms of the 1920s and 1930s made that clear to the US federal government, which supports soil conservation programs across the country. We calculate soil loss using the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation, which calculates soil removal caused by human activity and facilitated by winds. It estimates the total mass of soil removed from a field over a crop cycle. Land Use Change creates ecological effects including climate change effects especially when forests are converted to other land use such as agriculture. Apparel and footwear manufacturers are encouraged to track the science of this topic and report this information when possible. Typically it is reported in m2. PAS 2050 requires land use change reporting for 20 years previous to the current crop year. The tables below summarize the Life Cycle Indicators and the models used to calculate them. 41 Table 7 Required Life Cycle Indicators Life Cycle Indicator Climate Change Eutrophication Energy Use Water Scarcity Land Occupation Human & Ecotoxicity Units of Indicator kg CO2 equivalents grams P-­‐equivalents Total: MJ; % renewable L Water equivalents m2-­‐yr land occupied existence of emissions Waste Abiotic Resource Depletion Percent grams Antimony Equivalent Model Source IPCC, 2007 Redfield Inventory Pfister et. al.xvii Inventory EU-­‐SVHC, SARA 313, AAFA, CA-­‐Prop 65 SAC CML Table 8 Optional Life Cycle Indicators Life Cycle Indicator Units of Indicator Acidification Stratospheric Ozone Depletion Photochemical Smog Respiratory Effects Soil Losses Land Use Change grams H+ equivalents Stoichiometry grams CFC-­‐11 equivalents Montreal Protocolxviii mass ozone equivalent grams PM-­‐10 equivalent kg of soil loss m2 Model Source TRACI 2.1xix TRACI 2.1 RUSLE Inventory 5.5 Additional Environmental Information In addition to the indicators shown above, EPDs shall disclose the percent by mass of waste produced during the life cycle as a ratio to the mass of the product. If the company has a functioning take back program, it may be disclosed as well. A take back program shows the organization’s commitment to material conservation through design for disassembly. 5.6 Requirements for Additional Data 5.6.1 Waste Percentage Wastes shall be calculated on a unit process (gate to gate) basis, and divided by the reference flow of the product. Only solid wastes are included. Discarded materials that are recycled are not part of this calculation, because they leave the system boundary. Agricultural wastes and mining 42 wastes (including petroleum extraction wastes) shall not be included. Primary data shall be calculated on an annual production basis, using the same annual time period for the impact calculations. For example, if the unit process is a dyeing process, one shall measure and calculate the mass of inputs and the mass of outputs as below: Undyed fabric + dyes + ancillary chemicals + packaging = dyed fabric + lint + spent chemicals The equation above shall balance by mass. The waste is the sum of the lint and the spent chemicals. If actual mass of wastes is not measured, the waste may be calculated as: Mass of waste = mass of inputs – mass of product sold Here we assume that all entering mass becomes either waste or product. The final results of waste are expressed in terms of percent solid waste per dyed fabric, or: 100 x mass solid waste/mass product To calculate the total percent waste for an article of apparel or footwear set, one adds together the mass for each unit process. Product % waste = ∑0n reference flowi x % waste of unit processi The unit processes include all manufacturing, packaging, transport and end of life unit processes. 5.6.2 Take Back Program In order to claim the existence of a take back program, the EPD owner shall demonstrate actual take back of the product in question for at least the 12 months preceding the publication of the EPD. The program shall be available over at least 50% of the expected markets for the product. The company shall be able to document: • The markets into which the product is sold • That the take back program is voluntary, not required by law • The existence of a take back system for at least 50% of the markets (as measured by value of sales) 43 • Examples of take back of the product over the last 12 months. 6 PCR Format (Full Example) The goal of this guidance is to simplify and reduce the cost of developing PCRs, while maintaining technical rigor. To that end this section is a standardized format. When developing PCRs, the committees need only fill in the sections of the document below marked with arrow brackets <>, then provide the PCR to a review team. Product Category Rule for <Style/Performance> <Product name> <Earthsure PCR #> 1. Product category definition and description 1.1. This PCR was developed under the Earthsure Program, in conformity with ISO 14025 and ISO 14044, the Sustainable Apparel Coalition’s PCR Guidance and the Earthsure General Program Instructions. For more information, contact earthsure@iere.org. 1.2. UNSPSC Code: <UNSPSC Code> 1.3. Optional other code 1.4. Date publication: <publication date> 1.5. Date of expiration <publication date + 3 years> 1.6. Review panel members and affiliation 1.6.1. <Reviewer 1> <Reviewer Affiliation 1> 1.6.2. <Reviewer 2> <Reviewer Affiliation 2> 1.6.3. <Reviewer 3> <Reviewer Affiliation 3> 1.7. Members of the PCR committee • <member 1> <member affiliation 1> • <member 2> <member affiliation 2> • <member n> <member affiliation n> 1.8. General Product Description. This is a <business-­‐to-­‐business/business to consumer> label, with global coverage. This PCR is the first one for <Product name> OR a PCR was developed for <Product name> by <Name of program operator> but we found it to be inadequate as a global PCR because: 44 • <Reason 1> • <Reason 2> • <Reason 3> 2. Goal and Scope Definition The EPD shall be performed in accordance with ISO 14025, ISO 14044, The SAC PCR Guidance 2013, the Earthsure Program Instructions and this PCR. 2.1. Functional Unit, <Product name> covers <body portion covered> for <style/performance> 2.2. If performance, one year while maintaining <function1> <function 2> and <function3>. Durability is measured by <warranty/testing> 2.3. If durability calculated by testing 2.3.1. <function1> is measured by <test1>; <function2> is measured by <test2>; <function 3> is measured by <test3>. 2.3.2. The function/durability score is calculated as <a> x results <test1> plus <b> x results <test2> + <c> x results <test3> 2.3.3. The functional unit is calculated as: <table or equation> 2.3.4. The number of cleanings per year shall be <manufacturer’s instructions/number> 2.4. System Boundary Figure 1 shows the system boundary for <Product name>. <Flow chart> 2.5. Description of Data All unit processes shown in green in figure 1 shall be calculated with primary data, representing the actual technosphere flows for those unit processes. All others may be based on non-­‐primary data. 2.5.1. <Unit Process 1>/information module start and end, inputs and outputs, reference plow, and data collection sheet with partition model 2.5.2. <Unit Process 2> /information module start and end, inputs and outputs, reference flow and data collection sheet with partition model 2.5.3. <Unit Process n>/information module/ start and end, inputs and outputs, reference flow and data collection sheet with partition model 2.6. Data collection Primary Data is collected using the attached data sheets. The EPD owner is responsible for seeking primary data from the upstream and downstream unit processes. In the absence of primary data secondary or tertiary data shall be used. 45 3. All Data collection and calculation are to be performed in accordance with PCR Guidance Document, 2013. 4. Glossary of terms (if needed) 5. References (if needed) 7 Requirements for the Environmental Product Declaration EPDs are owned by the company that produces the product. The company is responsible for assuring that the data represented in the EPD is accurate and in conformity with this guidance. The EPD shall include the following information: •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Identification and description of organization making the declaration. This section may include general information about the environmental philosophy and programs of the company. Description of the product Product Identification (e.g. model number) Name of the program and program operator (Earthsure) PCR identification Date of publication and period of validity (three years later) Data and information: Climate Change Eutrophication Energy Use and Percent Renewable Water Scarcity Land Occupation Abiotic Resource Depletion Additional information: waste percent (possibly take-­‐back program) Content declaration/substances to be declared Any stages not included: Transport from retail Statement that environmental declarations from different programs may not be comparable Location where more information may be obtained PCR Review conducted by___ EPD review conducted by _____ (Internal/external) Third party verifier (where used, may be the same as EPD reviewer) 46 7.1 Publishing and Maintaining the EPD The EPD shall be published on the Earthsure website, at the expense of the EPD owner. The EPD is valid for three years from the time of publication unless the EPD owner wishes to update the EPD due to changes in production or other changes are listed in Section 3.4 of this guidance. If the EPD is updated, the Program Operator shall publish the updated EPD in the same fashion as the original EPD. The Program Operator may remove expired EPDs from the website. 7.2 EPDs PCRs and EPDs developed from them, shall be valid for a period of three years from the time of publication of the relevant document. In the event of significant change, they may be reviewed and modified earlier. Examples of significant change include: Changes in the mass of a product of 10% or more Change of a production location from one to another Change of the distribution of production among sites Development of use-­‐phase models based on data relevant to the location of the market(s) of a product • Other significant changes as SAC and/or Earthsure may determine •
•
•
•
47 8 EPD Format (Example): Environmental Product Declaration: Bob’s Full Frontal T-­‐Shirt Bob
Bob’s T-­‐shirt Company is a global company specializing in t-­‐shirts made from organic cotton. It also produces other printed garments, distributed primarily in Europe and North America, and manufactured in China. Bob’s cares about the environment, and all Bob’s locations are ISO 14001 certified. This B2B environmental product declaration is for an organic cotton t-­‐shirt, with full color printing on the front, the Bob’s Full Frontal T-­‐shirt, Catalog Number abc123. All calculations are based on the adult medium size t-­‐shirt. Travel to and from retail locations are not included. The calculations follow Earthsure PCR-­‐ 53103000-­‐2013-­‐Style, developed with the Sustainable Apparel Coalition. Publication Date: June 30, 2013 Life Cycle Results for One T-­‐shirt Environmental Impact Climate Change Eutrophication Water Depletion Land Occupation Abiotic Resource Depletion Total Energy Used Renewable Energy Waste Expiry Date June 29, 2016 Production One TOTAL and End of Cleaning Life Units of Indicators kg CO2 equivalents grams P-­‐equivalents L freshwater equivalent m2-­‐yr land occupied grams Antimony Equivalent MJ Energy Percent Percent of Product weight 48 Contribution Analysis Other Information Bob’s has a take back program, started in 2010 and currently taking back 5% of the t-­‐shirts we sell. Substances to be Declared During its life cycle, this product emits small amounts of formaldehyde, and chromium trioxide, but none of the other substances listed in the EU substance of high concern list, the US EPCRA 313 list, the American Apparel and Footwear Associations Restricted Substances list or the California Proposition 65 list. Environmental product declarations prepared under the Earthsure Program may not be comparable to those created under a different program. For more information, contact earthsure@iere.org The Chair of the PCR Review Committee was Mark Goedkoop. The EPD was reviewed by , an external reviewer and third party verifier. 49 9 Data Collection Sheets Examples Data collection shall be through facility-­‐specific spreadsheet queries. Each facility shall be provided with a general information spreadsheet, and specific spreadsheets that cover each of the unit processes that are performed in the facility. In each case annual average data shall be requested in order to maintain confidentiality of company-­‐confidential information. There is redundancy in the general and specific spreadsheets so that the numbers can be checked against each other. 9.1 General Facility Data Figure 5 General Facility Data Example Sustainable Apparel Coalition Pilot, 2013
Facility and Company Overview Information Company Name
Facility Name
Facility Address 1
Facility Address 2
State/Province
Country
Zip Code
Contact name
Email
Phone #
Production Activities Performed at Facility in Question
Yarn Spinning Only
Dyeing & Weaving Only
2011 Annual Yarn Production Yarn Spinning, Dyeing & Weaving
value
unit
value
unit
value
unit
value
unit
Yarn
2011 Annual Purchased Yarn These production and purchasing figures should represent ALL production and purchasing that took place at your facility for all of your clients during 2012.
Purchased Yarn
2011 Annual Fabric Production
Fabric
Avg. Width of Fabric if Linear
2011 Annual Energy Consumption
Electricity
Heating Fuel
Fuel Oil
Natural Gas
LPG (Liquefied Petroleum Gas)
LNG (Liquefied Natural Gas)
Propane
Coal
Diesel
Gasoline
Bunker oil (#6)
Wood
Methane
Imported Steam (steam you do not produce)
Fuel source
These responses correspond to the energy and water consumption for 2012 required to produce the production figures you reported above.
2011 Annual Water Consumption: Include Process and Domestic Water (kitchen, canteen, toilet, landscape), Exclude Dormitories
Water Intake / Influent
Municipal Water Use
Surface Water Use (River, Stream, Lake, Ocean)
Ground Water Use
Rainwater Use
Reclaimed Water Use
Water Recycled Onsite
Water Outtake / Effluent
Direct Discharge (river, Stream, Lake, Ocean)
Municipal Sewage Treatment
value
unit
50 9.2 Example of Fabric Production Figure 6 Fabric Collection Datasheet Example Sustainable Apparel Coalition Pilot, 2013
Fabric Overview Information
Weight
unit
<Sample Fabric Name>
<Sample Fabric Name>
<Sample Fabric Name>
<Sample Fabric Name>
<Sample Fabric Name>
<Sample Fabric Name>
<Sample Fabric Name>
Directions:
Fabric Overview Information
Please enter the name, the weight and the 2012 annual production
of the fabric in your facility. If you report the 2012 annual production
response in linear yards or linear meters, please ensure that you
also report the average width of the fabric. Please make your best
estimate of average width of the fabric if you do not know this figure
directly.
Select fiber alignment processes used in your facility and enter their efficiency:
% Loss
Carding
Process Overview Information
Please select the type of alignment, spinning, dyeing and weaving
methods that are applied in your facility by selecting the checkboxes
to the left of the methods. Check at all that apply (multiple
selections per category are allowed). Please check all processes
performed at your facility in 2012.
Drawing, 1st pass
Combing
Drawing, 2nd pass
Select spinning type used in your facility and enter its efficiency in % fiber lost:
% Loss
You must also enter the loss amounts by weight of material for the
process in the blue box next to each selected process method. For
example, if during the alignment phase of your fabrics production
you incur a 1% loss in fiber then enter “1%” into the blue box
directly to the right.
Ring Spinning (plyed or single)
Rotor Spinning (open end)
Friction Spinning
Air Jet Spinning
Vortex Spinning
Select dyeing process used in your facility and enter its efficiency in % fiber lost:
Yarn Dyeing
% Loss
Rope Range Dyeing
Sheet Range Dyeing
Packaged Range Dyeing
Warp Dyeing (beam dyeing)
Batch Piece Dyeing
% Loss
Jet Dyeing
Jig/Beck Dyeing
Pad Batch Dyeing
Continuous Piece Dyeing
% Loss
Thermacell Dyeing
Casting Dyeing
Pigment Dyeing
Select and enter slashing efficiency in % fiber lost:
% Loss
Slashing
Select weaving process used on this fabric and enter its efficiency in % fiber lost:
% Loss
Air Jet
Projectile
Rapier
Shuttle
Water Jet
Loom Drive Type (If known)
Dobby Drive
Jacquard Drive
Cam Drive
Select knitting type used on this fabric and enter its efficiency in % fiber lost:
Flatbed
% Loss
Hand Knitting
Single bed
Double bed
Circular Knitting
% Loss
Circular (single, double, & pile)
Jacquard (single, double, & pile)
Terry (double & pile)
51 10 Definitions Background Data: data other than foreground data. Carbon Credit: a reduction in emissions of carbon dioxide or greenhouse gases made in order to compensate for or to offset an emission made elsewhere. CAS Number: chemical registration numbers provided by the Chemical Abstracts Service. Conflict of interest: a conflict of interest is a situation in which individual(s) in positions of trust have divided loyalties. CPC: Central Products Classification, United Nations Statistic Division that organizes industrial outputs at the national level. Ecosphere flow: flows directly to and from nature. Environmental relevance encompasses a qualitative assessment of the degree of linkage between category indicator result and category endpoints; for example high, moderate or low linkage. EPD: Type III Environmental Product Declaration as defined by ISO 14025. EPD Owner: organization developing an EPD in accordance with a published PCR, usually the business providing the product. EPD program operator: an organization that conducts a Type III environmental product declaration program, as defined in ISO 14025. Feedstock energy: the energy that could be retrieved by burning the raw materials in a product. Foreground data: data directly under the operational control of and measured by the owner of the EPD. This may include technosphere flows in the manufacturing phase, transport to and from the manufacturing location, and measured emissions from the facilities under operational control of the EPD owner. Immediate family member: a parent, sibling, spouse, child or stepchild, or life partner. 52 Independent manufacturing representatives: individuals representing a company whose goods are covered in the PCR in whole or in part. They shall be independent of each other, which means that they are neither substantial direct customers or vendors (greater than 5 % of purchase or sales) nor partners of any other manufacturing company being represented. Industry Expert: an individual with a higher degree in the field (Master or Ph.D.), or five years experience working in the industry in question. Information Module: the input and output data and other relevant data compiled for a module to be used as part of an environmental product declaration. LCACP: Life Cycle Assessment Certified Professional: an individual in good standing under the American Center for Life Cycle Assessment certification program, or other comparable program developed for LCA professionals under the ISO 17024 standard. Module: a portion of a product life cycle. Unit Process: the lowest level at which life cycle inventory data is available PCR Committee: group organized under a PCR operator to develop one or more PCRs in accordance with the PCR Operator’s management system. PCR: Product Category Rule, the detailed description of how a life cycle assessment should be performed for a particular functional unit, in order to obtain an environmental product declaration. A PCR also includes explicit instructions for the label itself. Primary Data: data measured by the owner of the EPD or data gathered directly from other entities in the value chain. Product: any goods or service [from ISO 14040]. Renewable Energy: Energy from solar, wind, hydropower, geothermal or biomass resources. Renewable Energy Certificate: tradable, non-­‐tangible energy commodities in the United States that represent proof that 1 megawatt-­‐hour(MWh) of electricity was generated from an eligible renewable energy resource. Typically such sources are certified to not be double counted in grid portfolios. Secondary Data: data from non-­‐primary sources, such as publications in the peer reviewed literature or grey literature such as government publications. 53 Substantial interest: Earning at least five percent of one’s annual income from a commercial interest that manufacturers or otherwise produces a product covered by a particular PCR or owning at least $100,000 in stocks or bonds of such a commercial interest. Such ownership as a part of a mutual fund does not constitute substantial interest. Substantive compliance: compliance to all applicable emissions rules and regulations. Errors in documentation are not substantive. System Function: the social benefit provided by a product or service. Toxic: containing or being poisonous, especially when capable of causing death or serious disability. Technosphere flow: flows related to economic activity. Tertiary Data: data derived from meta-­‐analyses such as life cycle databases, economic input-­‐
output data, and meta-­‐analyses in the peer-­‐reviewed literature. UNSPSC Code: the United Nations Standard Products and Services Code (UNSPSC) an open, global multi-­‐sector standard for efficient, accurate classification of products and services. 54 11 Appendix A: Conflicts of Interest The majority of the work in developing a PCR is generally done by members of the industry sector producing the product in question. They are assisted by other interested parties. In order to assure that no one party dominates the decision-­‐making, members shall disclose their interests and a record kept of them using the following form, which shall be retained by Earthsure. Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest (NAME) Product Category Rule Committee It is impossible for any PCR to be written without some conflict of interest. This form serves to disclose those conflicts. The final PCR document shall identify the committee members and their affiliations. As of (DATE), the committee includes representatives of:
(LIST ORGANIZATIONS) Committee Member Name______________________________________________ Committee Member Affiliation (employer/organization representing)_____________________________ My participation has been funded by (check one) My employer, or Myself, or One of the above organizations (name) _____________________________________ To the best of my knowledge, my organization Does not derive more than 10% of its income from any of the listed participating organizations. Derives more than 10% of its income from any of the listed participating organizations. Aside from my employer, to the best of my knowledge, (check one) Neither I nor anyone in my direct family (parents, spouse, children, step parents, step children) derive more than five percent of our income from one of the participating organizations. There is someone in my family that derives more than five percent of their income from a participating organization. Please provide details: _____________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________ Signature Date Please scan and email to ______ 55 12 Appendix B: Modularity The SAC shall develop information modules as part of PCRs, placing them into a library for re-­‐use in other PCRs. Thus, the information module for fiber production can be used as part of a PCR for yarn or thread or a shirt. These shall then be the basis of the data aggregated by SAC. The information modules shall be based on facility-­‐specific annualized data gathered across the value chain. Each facility may have more than one unit process, but the input and output data are gathered at the facility level, in a gate-­‐to-­‐gate fashion. When calculating the LCA for an EPD, the annualized unit process data shall be used, even though the product may only be manufactured for a fraction of the year. The data may represent the aggregation across several facilities or it may represent the actual location of the production for a given product. Figure 7 Kinds of Information modules 56 13 Appendix C Details of Harmonization Assessment 57 58 59 60 61 14 Appendix D: Data Source Examples The data to be used for the life cycle inventory analysis may come from many sources. The LCA practitioner shall pick the best quality for each unit process based on the quality rules in section 3.4 for the data for the particular unit process. The examples in this section are informative, not prescriptive in nature. 14.1 Industry average data The US Department of Agriculturexix collects information about the pesticide and water use and the yields for cotton grown in the United States, and World Steelxx aggregates inventory data from producers around the world. These are good sources of secondary data. 14.2 Electric Grids The French LCA database is expected to soon have estimates of the national grid for most countries globally. The ELCD database has estimates for the EU countries. In the US, the source of national grid data is the U.S. LCI Database. 14.3 Transportation Models US LCI Databasexxi, the ELCD databasexxii, The Japanese LCI Databasexxiii 14.4 Waste Statistics In the United States, the U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste. In the EU, the Environmental Data Centre on Waste provides statistics. In Australia, the Australian Bureau of Statistics provides this function 14.4.1
Transport Statistics In the In the EU, Eurostat provides freight statistics. In the US, road freight is modeled per the Energy Information Agency data, Department of Transportation and Census Bureau. Where comparable data is available in other countries, that data is used. 62 15 References i
Li Shen and Martin K. Patel LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT OF MAN-­‐MADE CELLULOSE FIBRES Lenzinger Berichte 88 (2010) 1-­‐59 ii
Li Shena, Ernst Worrell, Martin K. Patel. Open-­‐loop recycling: A LCA case study of PET bottle-­‐to-­‐fibre recycling. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 55(2010)34-­‐52 iii
Tobler-­‐Rohr, Marion I. Handbook of Sustainable Textile Production. Woodhead Publishing Series in Textiles: Number 124. (Oxford, Cambridge Philadelphia, New Delhi) iv
Lorenc, Mila Xavier Domnech, laJoan Rieradevall, Pere Fullana, Rita Puig Application of Life Cycle Assessment to Footwear. Int. J. LCA 3 (4) 203 -­‐ 208 (1998) v
Lea Turunen and Hayo Van der Werf, Life Cycle Analysis of Hemp Textile Yarn: Comparison of three hemp firbe processing scenarios and a flax scenario. vi
Anne C. Woolridge, Garth D. Ward b, Paul S. Phillips, Michael Collins, Simon Gandy Life cycle assessment for reuse/recycling of donated waste textiles compared to use of virgin material: An UK energy saving perspective. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 46 (2006) 94–103 vii
B. Rivela, M . T. Moreira , C .Bornhardt, R . MEÄndez, and G .Feijoo. Life Cycle Assessment as a Tool for the Environmental Improvement of the Tannery Industry in Developing Countries. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2004, 38, 1901-­‐1909 viii
Martin Baitz Johannes Kreißig,Eloise Byrne, Cecillia Makishi, Thilo Kupfer, Niels Frees, Niki Bey, Morten Söes, Hansen, Annegrethe Hansen, Teresa Bosch, Veronica Borghi, Jenna Watson, Mar Miranda. Life Cycle Assessment of PVC and of principal competing materials. Commissioned by the European Commission, July 2004 ix
United Nations Statistics Division Central Products Classification http://unstats.un.org/unsd/cr/registry/regcst.asp?cl=9&lg=1 x
JRC Scientific and Technical Reports (Draft, 2012) Environmental Improvement Potential of Textiles (IMPRO-­‐Textiles) xi
Ecoinvent Centre. http://www.ecoinvent.ch/ xii
Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007) Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA xiii
Redfield, A.C. 1934. On the proportions of organic derivatives in seawaterand their relation to the composition of plankton. In Daniel, RJ. {Ed.} James Johnstone Memorial Volume. University Press of Liverpool, pp. 177-­‐92. xiv
Falkowski, Paul G. 2000. Rationalizing elemental ration in unicellular algae. J. Phycol. 36, 3-­‐6. xv
Guinée, J.B.; Gorrée, M.; Heijungs, R.; Huppes, G.; Kleijn, R.; Koning, A. de; Oers, L. van; Wegener Sleeswijk, A.; Suh, S.; Udo de Haes, H.A.; Bruijn, H. de; Duin, R. van; Huijbregts, M.A.J. Handbook on life cycle assessment. Operational guide to the ISO standards. I: LCA in perspective. IIa: Guide. IIb: Operational annex. III: Scientific background. Kluwer Academic Publishers, ISBN 1-­‐4020-­‐0228-­‐9, Dordrecht, 2002, 692 pp. xvi
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ORD/NRMRL/Sustainable Technology Division Systems Analysis Branch STD Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) SOP No. S-­‐10637-­‐OP-­‐1-­‐0 (2012)Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and other Environmental Impacts (TRACI) Software Name and Version Number: TRACI version 2.1 USER’S MANUAL 63 xvii
Pfister, Stefan, Annette Kohler and Stephanie Hellweg. 2009. Assessing the environmental impacts of freshwater consumption in LCA. Environ. Sci Technol 43:4098-­‐4104. xviii
United Nations Environment Programme Secretariat for Ozone. http://ozone.unep.org/new_site/en/montreal_protocol.php xix
US Department of Agriculture National Agriculture Statistics Service. www.nass.usda.gov xx
World Steel Association. www.worldsteel.org. xxi
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, US LCI Database. www.nrel.gov/lci xxii
European Commission Joint Research Center http://lca.jrc.ec.europa.eu/lcainfohub/datasetArea.vm xxiii
JEMAI http://www.jemai.or.jp/english/ 64