The Organisation Environmental Footprint (OEF) initiative of the European Commission and the Nordic Swan Ecolabel both aim at more sustainable consumption and production. We compared the two schemes in relation to their environmental information concerning the retail sector. The Swan aims to push stores to perform better and to help customers make environmental choices, whereas the OEF aims to create a common Life Cycle Assessment based methodology to assess impacts related to a retailer’s product portfolio. Overall, the OEF is considered a broader approach still under development, while the Swan is well-known in the Nordics. Their scopes, relevant impact categories and life cycle stages differed. However, climate change, resource use and biodiversity impacts were significant in both schemes. Possible synergies concern criteria setting, measurement and communication.
The purpose of this report is to compare the Nordic Swan Ecolabel and the Product Environmental Footprint with a focus on environmental information. The report compares the methods used by the Nordic Swan Ecolabel and the PEF to identify the product-group-specific relevant environmental aspects. The analysis is based on the currently valid Swan Criteria and pilot phase final PEF Category Rules (PEFCRs). The report concludes that there are methodological differences in the way product comparisons are made. The report proposes recommendations for both schemes in terms of co-operation and required further work, related to the differences in methodological approaches, to avoid very different results in what will be considered as an environmentally sound product.
Reliable information is needed to drive the market towards ecologically sound products. Product Environmental Footprint has many properties that are new to the Life Cycle Assessment tradition, increasing the consistency, accuracy and comparability of the results. It is important to start the organization of the PEF scheme, and invest in efforts to rapidly increase the number of product and service groups and actual product-specific PEF reports involved in the PEF scheme. Possibilities for common information basis and coordination between environmental information sources for the various product policy instruments and the PEF should be explored. Cooperation between type 1 eco-labels like the Nordic Swan and the forthcoming PEF scheme(s) is important.
Use of ecodesign tools and expectations for Product Environmental FootprintThe report examines the implementation of ecodesign and green innovations inNordic textile and IT companies. The findings of this report are: 1) The respondents are fairly mature in terms of how they integratedenvironmental sustainability into their operations. Companies are mainlydriven by general willingness but deterred by cost increases. 2) Companies remain focused on technical innovations, whereas functionalinnovations are lagging behind. 3) Ecodesign tools and research and development activities are highly relevantfor promoting innovations. 4) The main tools used are Type I Ecolabels, Life Cycle Assessment and CarbonFootprint. 5) Few respondents are familiar with PEF, but many are interested in it. PEF is predominantly seen as a way to evaluate the accuracy of environmentalproduct claims.
The transition to Circular Economy necessitates right incentives for choosing products and services with lower environmental impacts, in the form of price signals and sufficient environmental information. An ecolabel indicates that the product is, environmentally speaking, among the best products available on the market and thus has the role to steer stepwise developments towards sustainability. The Swan criteria promote quality products with requirements on durability and the use of secondary raw materials. To further align the criteria with Circular Economy, future criteria development might focus more on aspects including upgradability, reparability, multi-functionality, component reuse and innovative forms of consumption and production. This report was prepared as part of a Nordic project, and the results could be useful in the development of the Nordic Ecolabel in the future.
The purpose of this report is to compare the Nordic Swan Ecolabel and the Product Environmental Footprint with a focus on environmental information. The report compares the methods used by the Nordic Swan Ecolabel and the PEF to identify the product-group-specific relevant environmental aspects. The analysis is based on the currently valid Swan Criteria and pilot phase final PEF Category Rules (PEFCRs). The report concludes that there are methodological differences in the way product comparisons are made. The report proposes recommendations for both schemes in terms of co-operation and required further work, related to the differences in methodological approaches, to avoid very different results in what will be considered as an environmentally sound product.
The transition to Circular Economy necessitates right incentives for choosing products and services with lower environmental impacts, in the form of price signals and sufficient environmental information. An ecolabel indicates that the product is, environmentally speaking, among the best products available on the market and thus has the role to steer stepwise developments towards sustainability. The Swan criteria promote quality products with requirements on durability and the use of secondary raw materials. To further align the criteria with Circular Economy, future criteria development might focus more on aspects including upgradability, reparability, multi-functionality, component reuse and innovative forms of consumption and production. This report was prepared as part of a Nordic project, and the results could be useful in the development of the Nordic Ecolabel in the future.
The Organisation Environmental Footprint (OEF) initiative of the European Commission and the Nordic Swan Ecolabel both aim at more sustainable consumption and production. We compared the two schemes in relation to their environmental information concerning the retail sector. The Swan aims to push stores to perform better and to help customers make environmental choices, whereas the OEF aims to create a common Life Cycle Assessment based methodology to assess impacts related to a retailer’s product portfolio. Overall, the OEF is considered a broader approach still under development, while the Swan is well-known in the Nordics. Their scopes, relevant impact categories and life cycle stages differed. However, climate change, resource use and biodiversity impacts were significant in both schemes. Possible synergies concern criteria setting, measurement and communication.
Use of ecodesign tools and expectations for Product Environmental FootprintThe report examines the implementation of ecodesign and green innovations inNordic textile and IT companies. The findings of this report are: 1) The respondents are fairly mature in terms of how they integratedenvironmental sustainability into their operations. Companies are mainlydriven by general willingness but deterred by cost increases. 2) Companies remain focused on technical innovations, whereas functionalinnovations are lagging behind. 3) Ecodesign tools and research and development activities are highly relevantfor promoting innovations. 4) The main tools used are Type I Ecolabels, Life Cycle Assessment and CarbonFootprint. 5) Few respondents are familiar with PEF, but many are interested in it. PEF is predominantly seen as a way to evaluate the accuracy of environmentalproduct claims.
The transition to Circular Economy necessitates right incentives for choosing products and services with lower environmental impacts, in the form of price signals and sufficient environmental information. An ecolabel indicates that the product is, environmentally speaking, among the best products available on the market and thus has the role to steer stepwise developments towards sustainability. The Swan criteria promote quality products with requirements on durability and the use of secondary raw materials. To further align the criteria with Circular Economy, future criteria development might focus more on aspects including upgradability, reparability, multi-functionality, component reuse and innovative forms of consumption and production. This report was prepared as part of a Nordic project, and the results could be useful in the development of the Nordic Ecolabel in the future.
Reliable information is needed to drive the market towards ecologically sound products. Product Environmental Footprint has many properties that are new to the Life Cycle Assessment tradition, increasing the consistency, accuracy and comparability of the results. It is important to start the organization of the PEF scheme, and invest in efforts to rapidly increase the number of product and service groups and actual product-specific PEF reports involved in the PEF scheme. Possibilities for common information basis and coordination between environmental information sources for the various product policy instruments and the PEF should be explored. Cooperation between type 1 eco-labels like the Nordic Swan and the forthcoming PEF scheme(s) is important.
This will help us customize your experience to showcase the most relevant content to your age group
Please select from below
Login
Not registered?
Sign up
Already registered?
Success – Your message will goes here
We'd love to hear from you!
Thank you for visiting our website. Would you like to provide feedback on how we could improve your experience?
This site does not use any third party cookies with one exception — it uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and to analyze traffic.Learn More.