Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Title:||Environmental product declarations entering the building sector: critical reflections based on 5 to 10 years experience in different European countries|
|Authors:||PASSER Alexander; LASVAUX Sebastien; ALLACKER KAREN JOSEE; DE LATHAUWER Dieter; SPIRINCKX Carolin; WITTSTOCK Bastian; KELLENBERGER Daniel; GSCHÖSSER Florian; WALL Johannes; WALLBAUM Holger|
|Citation:||INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT vol. 20 no. 9 p. 1199–1212|
|Type:||Articles in periodicals and books|
|Abstract:||Growing awareness of the environmental performance of construction products and buildings brings about the need for a suitable method to assess their environmental performance (Haapio and Viitaniemi 2008; Nemry et al 2010; Braune and Wittstock 2011; Wallhagen and Glaumann 2011; Passer et al 2012; Earls 2013; Wallhagen et al 2013) and to provide proper assistance for applying this information for further use in rising initiatives in the field of building certification, which rely more and more on life cycle assessment (LCA). This LCA-based information may be in the form of environmental product declarations (EPD), product carbon footprints (PCF) or product environmental footprints (PEF), based on reliable and verifiable information. All of these use LCA to quantify and report one or more environmental impact categories and may also provide additional information (Allacker 2012). Authors who assessed consistency across different key aspects of the published PCRs, EPDs and other schemes (with different requirements) state a lack of consistency (Subramanian et al 2012), or show substantial variations within two versions of an EPD (Ingwersen and Stevenson 2012; Modahl et al 2012). Whereas Subramanian et al. indicate the disparities between PCRs ranging from broad differences in scope, system boundaries and impacts addressed (e.g. multi-impact vs. carbon footprint only) to specific differences of technical elements (Subramanian et al 2012). Other authors state an urgent need for credible and verifiable information (Ingwersen and Stevenson 2012) caused by a growing demand for EPDs and related requirements laid down in PCRs.|
|JRC Directorate:||Sustainable Resources|
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Items in repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.