Next Article in Journal
Passive Ventilation for Indoor Comfort: A Comparison of Results from Monitoring and Simulation for a Historical Building in a Temperate Climate
Previous Article in Journal
The Sustainable Child Development Index (SCDI) for Countries
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 10
Issue 5
10.3390/su10051562
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Assessing the Ability of the Cradle to Cradle Certified™ Products Program to Reliably Determine the Environmental Performance of Products

by
Vanessa Bach
*,
Nikolay Minkov
and
Matthias Finkbeiner
Chair of Sustainable Engineering, Technische Universität Berlin, Straße des 17. Juni 135, 10623 Berlin, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2018, 10(5), 1562; https://doi.org/10.3390/su10051562
Submission received: 12 March 2018 / Revised: 9 May 2018 / Accepted: 9 May 2018 / Published: 14 May 2018
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Concepts and tools supporting the design of environmentally friendly products (including materials, goods or services) have increased over the last years. The Cradle to Cradle Certified™ Products Program (C2CP) is one of these approaches. In this work, the ability of C2CP to reliably determine the environmental performance of products was analyzed through the application of a criteria-based assessment scheme. Additionally, to compare C2CP with three other already established tools (life cycle assessment, product environmental footprint and material flow analysis), the same criteria-based scheme was applied. Results show that C2CP is not scientifically reliable enough to assure that certified products actually have a good environmental performance. The most relevant shortcoming of C2CP relates to its limited assessment scope, due to the fact that neither the entire life cycle of the product nor all relevant environmental impacts are covered. Based on already established tools and their practical implementation recommendations for increasing the reliability of C2CP are provided.

1. Introduction

Environmental issues have become more and more important in recent years, which led to consumers as well as producers paying more attention to the products they purchase. As a result, companies now have a greater incentive to design more environmentally friendly products (intermediate as well as final) and market them to consumers and other businesses has been increasing over the last years. For both producers and consumers, this comes along with the challenge to determine the environmental performance of materials/products in a scientifically reliable way.
In recent years, several methods and approaches have been specifically developed to support companies—in varying degrees of detail—to assess their products’ environmental performance [1]. Examples include carbon [2] and water footprinting [3], life cycle assessment (LCA) [4] or more recently the product environmental footprint (PEF) approach of the European Commission (EC) [5,6]. Many of these methods are accepted by a broad set of international stakeholders as documented by the respective international standards [7,8]
In addition to such tools and methods which are primarily used to conduct environmental assessments, in the last few years, there has been a surge in approaches and tools intended to serve other purposes such as eco-design (e.g., European Ecodesign Directive [9]), eco-efficiency strategies [10,11] and environmental labels and declarations [12,13,14,15]. Additionally, other tools such as environmental ABC analysis, Environmental Failure Mode and Effects Analysis [16] have also found their way into the practices of companies. They do not represent environmental assessment methods per se, but either use some of the existing assessment approaches discussed above or they contain their own environmental assessment schemes. These environmental assessment schemes often contain a set of predefined quantitative and qualitative environmental criteria, which have to be fulfilled for a product to be classified as environmentally friendly.
The ability of these implicit assessment schemes to reliably determine environmental performance of products—especially the comprehensiveness and relevance of the criteria they define—is crucial to guarantee that the product actually performs well with regard to environmental impacts and benefits. While there is ample literature on some of these emerging methods (e.g., eco-design, type I and type III ecolabels), other methods such as the Cradle to Cradle Certified™ Product Program [17] (in the following referred to as Cradle-to-Cradle Program (C2CP)) have so far not been put under sufficient scientific examination. Existing literature on the C2CP (e.g., [18,19,20,21]; see also Section 2) provides basic insight into some of its weaknesses and drawbacks, but have a rather narrow scope (e.g., Bakker et al. [18] analyzed strength and weaknesses of C2CP with regard to applicability for student design projects). However, its underlying environmental assessment criteria as well as the scientific reliability of its awarding criteria have not yet been comprehensively analyzed reliably.
Thus, the goal of this paper is to analyze the ability of the C2CP to reliably determine the environmental performance of products and to assure that certified products are actually beneficial for the environment, as is the intention of C2CP. A systematic and broad criteria-based assessment analysis of the C2CP is carried out and its shortcomings are identified. To better judge the assessment results, in this study, C2CP was compared against other established methods (LCA [22] and PEF [23]) and the end-of-life phase of products (Material Flow Analysis (MFA) [24]) (Section 2), which are evaluated using the same criteria-based assessment scheme.
LCA and PEF are selected for the comparison because their goal is to assess environmental impacts of products/materials. MFA on the other hand is chosen because the method quantifies resource flows and stocks of (primary and secondary) materials or substances and therefore focuses next to other life cycle stages, predominantly on the end-of-life (EoL) of materials. In Section 2, all analyzed methods (C2CP, LCA, PEF and MFA) are first introduced. A short overview of existing literature on the C2CP is also presented, summarizing available critiques of the method. In Section 3, the applied criteria-based assessment approach is described in detail. Identified shortcomings of the C2CP as well as recommendations on how to address these shortcomings are explained and discussed in detail (Section 4). Finally, conclusions are drawn (Section 5). This work is a continuation of the work by Minkov et al. [25], which also analyzed C2CP, but only in terms of its robustness as a communication tool.

2. Background

In this section, the Cradle to Cradle® design approach as well as the C2CP are introduced in more detail, alongside LCA, PEF and MFA. Cradle to Cradle® is a registered trademark that is owned and licensed by McDonough Braungart Design Chemistry, LLC (MBDC).
The Cradle to Cradle® design approach envisions a future of absolute environmental sustainability based on the following three principles [17]:
  • Waste equals food: All materials and emissions (if not specified otherwise) are seen as beneficial for the environment or the technosphere (i.e., the biological or the technical cycle, respectively). Products shall be designed in a way that they pose no danger to human health and can be recycled continuously. By complying to this principle, no waste is generated, and all outputs are inputs for (an)other system(s). Based on these cycles, closed-looped systems can be defined and established.
  • Strengthen renewable energy: Using renewable energy is defined as being of crucial importance to effective design. Their use should be increased as much as possible.
  • Celebrate diversity: The key to innovation is to design products that are technically diverse (i.e., avoiding “one-size-fits-all designs”).
The C2CP was introduced in 2005 and is managed by the private Cradle to Cradle Products Innovation Institute since 2010 [17]. It provides rules to certify materials, sub-assemblies and finished products. However, certain products such as food, beverages, pharmaceuticals or fuels as well as buildings (but not building and construction related materials) are excluded. As stated by Kausch et al. (2016) [26], these products are excluded because they do not fit the scope of the C2CP. They further state that the evaluation criteria need to be revised to include additional products such as buildings. Currently, almost 500 products have been certified, with the majority being in the “Building Supply and Materials” sector [25,27].
For a product to be certified, it has to fulfill the requirements of five “quality categories”: material health, material reutilization, renewable energy and carbon management, water stewardship and social fairness. To each of these five quality categories, an achievement level is assigned, “basic” being the lowest and “platinum” being the highest. The lowest achieved level, assigned to one of the five quality categories, defines the overall achievement level of the product.
In the last few years, several publications evaluated the suitability of C2CP for measuring the environmental impacts of products. An overview of these publications is shown in Table 1. They were identified using the search engines Google scholar (https://scholar.google.com/) and Web of Science (https://webofknowledge.com/) searching for terms such as “cradle to cradle” and “C2C”. Furthermore, the reference lists of the selected publications were examined with regard to additional publications not identified at the first round of online search. Lastly, the C2CP website (www.C2CPcertified.org/) was searched for published reports and program’s guidance documents by the Cradle to Cradle Products Innovation Institute. Next, all publications were screened for further analysis with regard to their content and publications addressing the ability of C2CP to measure environmental impacts (see Table 1).
Following, the shortcomings identified in the above-mentioned studies (see Table 1) are briefly listed. Several methodological shortcomings undermine the ability of the C2CP to deliver reliable assessments of the environmental performance of products. The most common ones are:
  • Biological nutrients are always considered as beneficial independent of their occurrence. However, too much emissions, e.g., sulfur dioxide emissions, within the ecosystem can lead to environmental pollution, e.g., acidification [20,29,31,32].
  • Quality loss of recycled products and materials, which often occurs during recycling is not considered in the awarding criteria. However, the reuse ability of products/materials depends on their quality [18,21,33].
  • Energy efficiency (referring to using as little energy as possible) is not considered in C2CP, because the long-term goal is to only use renewable energy, which is assumed to have no emissions. However, to reduce environmental impacts, the absolute as well as relative (per product unit) energy consumed has to be considered. Furthermore, even renewable energy cannot be produced without discharging any emissions [18,20,29,31,33].
  • Further, C2CP does not consider the scarcity of bio-based resources, however, e.g., productive land to grow biomass is limited [20,29].
  • C2CP does not consider all relevant substances/emissions over the entire life cycle of the analyzed product [28], e.g., acidifying and eutrophying emissions (impacting the quality of water bodies and soils) as well as particulate matter emissions (impacting human health) are not taken into account. The awarding criteria of C2CP are not product-specific, but generic and equal for all products [25].
  • C2CP does not cover the complete life cycle of a product at all certification levels, which can lead to burden shifting between life cycle phases [25,28,29,30].
These identified shortcomings are described in detail and illustrated by examples (where possible) in Section 4.
The LCA method assesses and addresses potential environmental impacts associated with a product or service throughout its life cycle. It is a worldwide accepted standard, harmonized in the ISO standards 14040 [4] and 14044 [22]. LCA help identify options to improve the environmental performance of products or processes over their full life cycle, providing information for decision-makers in industry, governmental and non-government organizations as well as information for marketing/reporting purposes, e.g., implementing an ecolabeling schemes [22,34]. Currently, several labels are based on LCA, e.g., EU Ecolabel of the European union [35] or Germany’s Blue Angel [36].
The PEF method—a life cycle-based multi-criteria measure of the environmental performance of products and services—was published in 2013 by the EC [23]. PEF is largely based on LCA principles, but provides further specifications for selected aspects (e.g., end-of-life modeling or determining the relevance of impact assessment categories). The PEF method therefore decreases the flexibility provided by the ISO standards regarding methodological choices [23,37]. PEF has been tested in practice in a 3.5-year pilot phase, which was completed in April 2018. At this point, several goals and applications of the PEF method are possible, including in-house product improvement, business-to-business or business-to-consumer green claims (with or without comparisons or comparative assertions) of products within one product category. However, the establishment of a label to enhance comparative assertions of products is pushed by the EC as several parallel studies with regard to communicating PEF results via label are carried out [6,38,39].
MFA is based on the Austrian standard ÖNORM S 2096 (Material flow analysis—Application in waste management) [40] but was picked up and implemented by several stakeholders around the world (e.g., [41,42,43,44,45]). MFA is a method to analyze quantitative flows and stocks of materials including extraction, manufacturing, consumption, recycling and disposal [46]. Thus, the methods can help quantify flows and stocks of materials or substances in a defined system. It is often used to study material or product flows across different industrial sectors or within ecosystems and therefore it can support the analysis of policy strategies such as the circular economy and end-of-life aspects. Beside its use in policy, MFA has become a widely used tool in other fields as well, e.g., environmental management, product design, and life cycle assessment [24,46].

3. Methodological Approach

In this section, the criteria-based assessment scheme to determine the shortcoming of C2CP as well as possible solutions for improvement is presented. C2CP is analyzed through its Cradle to Cradle CertifiedTM Product Standard v3.1 [17] (hereinafter referred to as Product Standard) applying a criteria-based assessment scheme to systematically determine further shortcomings in addition to the ones highlighted by the literature overview. Shortcomings are identified with regard to the overall principles of C2CP as well as with regard to the awarding criteria of four out of five quality categories (social fairness is not included, because this analysis focuses on environmental performance only). Shortcomings are described in detail and (where possible) demonstrated in an example together with the shortcomings determined. Further, the criteria-based assessment scheme is applied to other methods with focus on environmental aspects (LCA [22] and PEF [5]) or on the end-of-life phase of products (MFA [24]). Based on the methodological frameworks and practical implementations of these existing methods, recommendations on how to improve C2CP are provided for all identified shortcomings.
The criteria-based assessment scheme is developed by carrying out six steps:
(1)
Definition of the goal of the assessment scheme: the goal of the assessment scheme is to determine the reliability of mainly the C2CP method [17], but also that of the LCA [4,22], PEF [5] and MFA [24] methods.
(2)
Identification of existing assessment schemes for methods addressing environmental impacts: the following assessment schemes exist for evaluating methods determining environmental impacts: Reimann et al. [47]; European Commission-Joint Research Centre [48]; Lehmann et al. [39]; and Forin et al. [49].
(3)
Analysis whether existing criteria of the above schemes (Step 2) can contribute to the goal of the herein applied assessment scheme: Not all of the criteria can be used to fit the goal of the assessment scheme (Step 1); e.g., availability of characterization factors in LCA software tools is included in the schemes used by the European Commission-Joint Research Centre [48], Lehmann et al. [39] and Forin et al. [49] but is not relevant to the goal of this assessment. Several criteria can be directly used in the herein developed assessment scheme, e.g., stakeholder acceptance as addressed by Reimann et al. [47], European Commission-Joint Research Centre [48], Lehmann et al. [39] and Forin et al. [49]. For further explanations regarding why certain criteria are relevant, please see information in Section S1 of the Supplementary Materials.
(4)
Determination whether certain aspects (for which criteria are needed) are missing to reach the goal of the respective assessment scheme: due to the comprehensiveness of the criteria in the identified publications, there was no need to define additional criteria.
(5)
Development of additional criteria for the identified aspects (in Step 4): Not necessary, because missing aspects could not be identified.
(6)
Compilation of existing and newly developed criteria into a criteria-based assessment scheme: Criteria identified in (Step 3) are compiled to an overall assessment scheme (see Table 1).
The criteria-based assessment scheme consists of five criteria: stakeholder acceptance, documentation and review, environmental relevance, scientific soundness and applicability (see Table 2). The criteria are explained in more detail in the Supplementary Materials (Section S1).
With two exceptions all sub-criteria can be evaluated with yes, partly and no. Yes, means that all requirements of the criterion are fulfilled. No means that none of the requirements are fulfilled and partly means that only some of the requirements are fulfilled. The criterion effort to collect data (sub-criterion 5b) cannot be answered with yes, partly or not. Thus, possible answers for this criterion are low, medium and high. For the criterion authoritative body endorses the method (sub-criterion of criterion 1), the answer is specified into one, several and multiple, because the number of authoritative bodies endorsing the method differs.

4. Results and Discussion

In this section, the results of the criteria-based analysis are presented as they appear in Table 1 (Section 4.1–Section 4.5), followed by an overview of the results and recommendations (Section 4.6 and Table 3). Identified shortcomings and benefits of C2CP as well as recommendations on how to improve C2CP are explained in more detail and illustrated by examples. The criteria-based assessment scheme has also been applied to LCA, PEF and MFA and compared to the C2CP.

4.1. Stakeholder Acceptance

Within criterion 1 stakeholder acceptance, three sub-criteria are analyzed. With regard to the first sub-criterion a, being used in policy, proponents of C2CP argue that the circular economy concept is based on or was inspired by the C2CP [50,51]. However, the EU Action Plan for the Circular Economy [52] does not refer to C2CP as one of its underlying principles. Thus, as no clear policy use can currently be identified for C2CP, the sub-criterion is answered with a no. However, as C2CP pursues a long-term vision of a desirable sustainable future, where all products will be designed in a way that they cause no harm to the environment or human health, its overall framework is advantageous for policy (where long-term strategies are implemented). LCA, on the other hand, is used in policy as it represents the basis for several ecolabels such as the EU flower [35] and therefore, in the case of LCA, this sub-criterion is answered with a yes. With regard to the PEF, it is currently not used in policy and the sub-criterion is therefore answered with no. However, the use of PEF in policy is stated as the main goal of the PEF project [38] leading to the assumption that this evaluation is likely to change soon. The MFA method supports the resource efficiency approach of the EU [53]. The sub-criterion is therefore answered with partly.
The sub-criterion authoritative body supports the method (sub-criterion 1b of criterion stakeholder acceptance) is answered with one for C2CP, because since January 2017, the US Environmental Protection Agency uses C2CP in their public procurement recommendations for seven construction product categories in the building and construction sector [54]. For the LCA method, which is supported by the EU [35], ISO [14] and UNEP [55], this sub-criterion is evaluated with multiple. PEF is reinforced by the EU [5]. Thus, the sub-criterion is answered with one. For MFA, which is supported by UNEP [56], the criterion is answered with one as well.
Next, the sub-criterion stakeholder participation during method development (sub-criterion 1c of criterion stakeholder acceptance) is analyzed. According to the C2CP policy for revision [57], when revising the Product Standard, two public comment periods are foreseen, during which external stakeholders can provide inputs [57]. However, at the time of writing this paper, public stakeholder consultation had not yet started for the current revision of the C2C method, which began in June 2014 and is expected to finish by the end of 2018 [25]. Nevertheless, as listed on their homepage, five advisory groups with experts selected by C2CP have been formed to provide expert guidance in the update. Based on this information it seems that a versatile group of stakeholders is included, but it is unclear how other external stakeholders can take part. Thus, the sub-criterion is answered with partly. As the LCA method is standardized by ISO, diverse stakeholder groups from science, policy, companies and the non-governmental sector contributed to method development. If changes are to be made to the standards, a committee of experts is established, which decides over all changes of the norm. Additionally, a public stakeholder consultation is carried out, where everyone can comment on the standard’s draft. Thus, this sub-criterion is answered with yes for LCA. In the case of PEF, some documents, e.g., PEF guide and Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules (PEFCR) guidance, are accessible through an Internet platform, which is open for comments to all stakeholders [58]. However, the majority of the documents (e.g., Technical Advisory Board issue papers, trainings and webinars as well as position papers and replies) are not provided for all stakeholders. Thus, this sub-criterion is answered with partly. The basic principle of the MFA method are not updated, but several stakeholders use and thereby improve the method (e.g., [45,59,60]). Consequently, the sub-criterion is answered with partly as well.

4.2. Documentation and Review

For criterion 2 documentation and review the sub-criterion a method is documented is answered with yes for all analyzed methods. C2CP is documented in the Product Standard [17], and several books addressing C2CP have been published (e.g., [61,62]). The ISO 14040/44 standards [4,22] are the two main documents establishing standardized requirements for the LCA method. Additionally, several books (e.g., [63,64]) and journal articles (e.g., [65,66]) discuss the method and its specifics. Given that the PEF method was developed only recently, next to the method documentation [5] and PEFCR guidance [38], so far only few publications are available discussing its applicability (e.g., [37,39,67]). However, with the end of the pilot phase and the publication of the final PEFCRs in the near future, more information will be available soon. MFA is documented by the Austrian standard ÖNORM S 2096 [40] and was picked up and is implemented by several stakeholders around the world for which multiple publications exist (e.g., [41,42,43,44,45]).
Sub-criterion 2b, uncertainties are addressed (of criterion documentation and review), has to be answered with no for C2CP, because only other scientists (e.g., [19,20,25,31]) address uncertainties of C2CP, but not the Product Standard or the authors of the method. For the LCA and MFA methods, the sub-criterion is answered with yes. Uncertainties of these methods as well as of case studies using the methods are addressed in multiple ways. For example, according to the ISO 14040/44 LCA studies are required to carry out a sensitivity analysis, an uncertainty analysis as well as a gravity analysis. Moreover, gaps and limitation of LCA are addressed within several publications (e.g., [37,68,69]). Similarly, uncertainties of MFA have frequently been discussed in literature (e.g., [59,60,70]). With regard to the PEF method, as it is based on LCA, it inherited some of the identified uncertainties and limitations. However, unlike LCA, the PEF method itself does not stipulate carrying out an uncertainty analysis or a gravity analysis in case studies. Further, uncertainties related to the PEF method alone, e.g., uncertainties in its suggested circular footprint formula or weighting scheme, are not addressed in the respective documents [38]. A few publications address some of these challenges (e.g., [6,37,71]), but not sufficiently to understand all possible limitations and consequences. Therefore, the sub-criterion is answered with partly.

4.3. Environmental Relevance

Criterion 3 environmental relevance of the assessment scheme consists of three sub-criteria. Sub-criterion a, broad coverage of substance, is analyzed first. C2CP requires that all chemicals above 1000 ppm within one product be determined and analyzed with regard to their toxicity [57]. Further, it has to be determined if volatile organic compound emissions with Chronic Reference Exposure Levels are emitted from products, which affect the indoor environment. The last group of substances considered are greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Other substances/emissions (e.g., phosphorus or ammonium emissions in water leading to eutrophication; sulfur oxide emissions into air leading to acidification; abd particulates leading to fine dust pollution) are not considered. Thus, the sub-criterion is answered with partly.
All other substances/emissions not covered by C2CP are seen as beneficial for the ecosystem [32,33]. The C2CP concept assumes that the more nutrients are introduced into a system, the higher the benefits for this system are [17,20]. This might be true for the technosphere, where technical nutrients can be stored and used at the desired time. However, when too much nutrients are introduced into the ecosphere, negative impacts can arise. Acidification and eutrophication are classical examples of nutrient overloads in the environment [20,29,32]. This assumption is also in contradiction with the currently ongoing planetary boundary discussion, where the introduction of additional nutrients (e.g., atmospheric aerosols, nitrogen and phosphorus) is seen as a challenge for the ecosystem [72,73]. Similarly, when alien species (which are also classified as a biological nutrient) are introduced into the environment, they can become invasive species harming the local environment [74]. Biological nutrients are defined by the Product Standard [17] as nutrients, which are usable for living organisms. However, by this definition and considering the logic of C2CP, polyethylene terephthalate (PET) could also be considered a biological nutrient and therefore beneficial for the environment, as scientists just recently discovered that the bacterium Ideonella sakaiensis is able to degrade PET [75]. However, reality shows that the opposite is true: PET and other plastics are currently a severe threat for the ecosystem and measures to avoid littering of plastic (including PET) and polluting the ocean are high on the political agenda [76,77,78].
LCA and PEF comply with the requirements of ISO 14040/44, which state that all relevant substances over the product’s life cycle must be considered in the analysis, because “comprehensiveness” this is one of the underlying principles of LCA. Thus, the sub-criterion is answered with yes for both methods. The MFA method determines the material flows of abiotic and biotic resources and raw materials (metals, fossils, agricultural products, etc.) only. Consequently, it does not account for all relevant substances from an environmental perspective. However, given that the goal of the method is to track resource/raw material flows throughout the economy, it does cover all relevant resources. Thus, the sub-criterion is answered with partly.
The next sub-criterion refers to the consideration of relevant environmental impacts (sub-criterion 3b of criterion environmental relevance). For C2CP, several relevant impacts are not accounted for and thus trade-offs that occur between impacts cannot be identified. This can be demonstrated with the use of bio-based materials which is promoted by C2CP. When compared with, e.g., fossil-based materials, bio-plastics perform better with regard to some impact categories such as climate change, acidification and resource depletion. However, the consideration of, e.g., land use aspects including soil degradation, is crucial when assessing bio-based materials [79,80,81]. However, it is not considered in C2CP. When such missing aspects are included in the analysis, the comparison of bio-based and fossil-based materials/products is not that straight forward anymore [82,83,84]. This trade-off is further demonstrated in the example of biomass production (see Figure 1).
Within the ecosphere, biomass is produced when plants grow. After a certain lifetime, the plants die and decompose. During their decomposition the soil is often enriched by mineralization, humification, atmospheric nitrogen fixation, etc. [85,86]. Thus, the nutrients originally collected in the biomass are returned to the environment and are further available for use. If these plants are extracted, transferred to the technosphere and used, e.g., for energy production through gasification of biomass, only few of these nutrients can be returned to the biological cycle by digestates as fertilizer for agricultural production. As a result, most of the nutrients collected in the biomass are inevitably lost to the ecosystem. As biomass is a limited resource (due to limited land availability and soil quality), its use in the technosphere leads to additional scarcity of nutrients for soil quality as well as challenges regarding land availability. Concluding, the example illustrates the relevancy of including land use aspects in the C2CP awarding criteria to adequately address this important environmental aspect.
The second principle of C2CP also contributes to the neglect of relevant impact categories. The use of renewable energy is defined as the most significant factor for effective design while energy efficiency aspects (referring to overall amount of energy used by a company or process as well as the relative amount of energy used per product unit) are not taken into account [17,18,21,29]. Thus, the absolute as well as relative (per product unit) amount of energy consumed is not accounted for, because it is assumed that, when using renewable energy sources, other parameters (e.g., the actual energy consumption) are no longer relevant for determining environmental impacts. However, at a point in time when all energy is produced from renewable sources (thus, endorsement of renewable energy resources is no longer required), increased energy efficiency would be one of the leading parameters to decrease emissions, especially considering that the use of renewable energy sources is also associated with harmful emissions, e.g., metal extraction for producing solar panels [87]. Thus, not considering energy efficiency next to the energy source might lead to more absolute energy use as well as energy use per product unit [21,29,33].
Alongside of not considering energy efficiency aspects, C2CP allows for off-setting of all GHG emissions through off-setting schemes [17]. The reliability of offsetting schemes has been questioned repeatedly (e.g., [88,89,90]). Shortcomings are related to the way off-setting measures are established, e.g., GHG emission reduction can be achieved by relatively random projects in developing countries aiming at a contribution to sustainable development rather than to the reduction of GHG emissions. Further, different offsetting schemes vary significantly in price, reflecting the diverse off-setting approaches applied by the providers. In general, instead of supporting the offsetting of emissions, other solutions focused to optimize production processes to reduce GHG emissions should be promoted. Thus, due to the above described shortcomings and impediments within the C2C framework to cover all relevant environmental impacts, the answer to the respective sub-criterion for the C2CP is no.
According to the ISO 14040/14044 standards LCA practitioners are required to include all relevant impacts to fulfill the LCA principles (comprehensiveness and environmental focus). Thus, sub-criterion 3b relevant environmental impacts are addressed (of criterion environmental relevance) is answered with yes for LCA. The PEF method, however, considers environmental impacts to be only relevant when they contribute to a certain extent to the overall impact assessment result after normalization and weighting [38]. Thus, it cannot be guaranteed that in the end all relevant impacts will be considered [6] and the sub-criterion is answered with as partly. The MFA method, which is not established to determine environmental impacts, cannot fulfill this requirement and the sub-criterion is answered with no.
Next, the consideration of the entire life cycle (sub-criterion 3c of criterion environmental relevance) is analyzed. C2CP does not cover the complete life cycle of a product at all certification levels [21,28,29]. This is shown in Figure 2, where an overview of the considered life cycle stages within LCA-based methods (this includes LCA as well as PEF), cradle-to-gate approach, gate-to-gate approach and C2CP is provided (differentiation is made between C2CP quality categories and certification levels). It can be seen that, even at the highest certification level (Platinum), the use phase as well as extraction phase and accompanying impacts are not considered. Kausch et al. (2016) [26] argued that only life cycle stages are included for which primary data can be obtained. While collecting primary data over the full life cycle can be challenging [28,38,91], environmental hotspots can lie anywhere along the supply chain, emphasizing the importance of including all life cycle stages for an accurate environmental assessment. For example, extraction of raw materials often arises as the life cycle stage with the highest impact (e.g., [92,93,94]). Thus, instead of excluding certain life cycle stages, the awarding criteria should be defined for all life cycle stages and recommendations for data collection should be provided.
It can be seen that, only for the category “Renewable energy and carbon management” at Platinum level, emissions from cradle-to-gate are taken into account. However, so far only one out of more than 500 products was actually able to achieve Platinum level [20]. By not considering the life cycle of products, trade-offs between different life cycle stages cannot be identified [21,25,29,95]. For example, the environmental product declaration of a synthetic dispersion paint [96] shows that the environmental impacts of the first supply chain stage (raw materials) are higher than the impacts occurring in the manufacturing of the paints (i.e., at the gate). Thus, if the company changes the composition of the paint, e.g., by using different pigments, to achieve lower impacts in the manufacturing stage, whether these new pigments have a higher impact during their production would not be considered.
Aside from its shortcoming to include all life cycle stages, the end-of-life phase and the use of secondary materials is not adequately addressed in C2CP. Certain materials can be recycled many times (e.g., steel, aluminum and glass) whereas other cannot be recycled at all (e.g., plastics when they are not fully separated) or only a few times (e.g., paper). However, according to C2CP, a material is defined as recyclable when it can be recycled once [17]. Thus, the benefit of multiple recyclability is not properly accounted for [28,29]. Besides, it is often the case that some products and/or materials have lower quality after recycling compared to their previous function (also known as downcycling). According to the C2CP philosophy, downcycling should be prevented ([17], see pages 1 and 99), whereas in the awarding criteria of the certification program quality aspects are not addressed ([17], see Section 4). The C2CP philosophy thus contradicts the awarding criteria. An example for the need of such quality aspects when accounting for recycling is the use of bottles made of plastic, bio-plastic or glass. Due to the difficulties to remove organic waste off of plastic bottles, they are often recycled to lower quality pellets which can no longer be used for food or beverages. In contrast, glass bottles can virtually be recycled and reused endlessly without any quality losses [97,98].
Finally, incineration of renewable sourced materials is considered as recycling in C2CP [17]. Thus, material recycling is set equal to incineration, even though in the case of material recycling the raw material is recovered, whereas it is “lost” when it is incinerated. This is contradictory to the Waste Framework Directive of the European Union [99], which ranks material recycling higher than energetic utilization. Given all the above shortcomings, the sub-criterion is given the answer no for C2CP.
As stipulated by ISO 14040/44 standards, both LCA and PEF fulfill the requirement of sub-criterion 3c (entire life cycle is considered) and can therefore be assigned yes as answer. MFA tracks resources throughout the economy, starting with the extraction of raw materials over the recycling and use of secondary materials. Thus, the entire life cycle of the considered material is considered (sub-criterion is answered with yes).

4.4. Scientific Soundness

Next, criterion 4, scientific soundness, is analyzed, which consists of three sub-criteria. Sub-criterion 4a refers to a scientific review, which the method has undergone. Two publications in peer reviewed journals are found that summarize the C2CP concept and the awarding criteria of the product standard [100,101], which only address certain aspects of the product standard. Further, as already addressed in sub-criterion stakeholder participation (sub-criterion 1c of criterion stakeholder acceptance), even though it is foreseen that external stakeholders can provide inputs during the revision of the method [57], for the current revision of the method, public stakeholder consultations were not yet conducted [25]. Thus, it cannot be determined if a comprehensive scientific review took/takes place and the sub-criterion is answered with partly.
The LCA method has undergone several scientific reviews during its implementation by the scientists involved in its preparation as well as during the public consultations on ISO level. A similar concept has been applied for establishing the PEF method. However, compared to LCA the final methodological decisions for PEF are not based on vote, but on the decision of the EC [6,38]. However, the sub-criterion is answered with yes for both methods. The establishment of the MFA method is less organized as several different groups use it simultaneously, determining their own set of rules. Some basic rules are outlined in the ÖNORM S 2096 (Material flow analysis—Application in waste management) [40], which has undergone scientific review. Thus, the criterion is determined as partly.
The next sub-criterion method is object of scientific work (sub-criterion 4b of criterion scientific soundness) is answered with partly for C2CP, because it is mostly analyzed by other scientists and only few publications by the method developers are available. The overall amount of publications is rather low and recommendations on how the standard can be improved are rare. Further, existing recommendations by other scientists (e.g., [19,20,21,31]) analyzing C2CP, e.g., to include energy efficiency have not been included in C2CP so far. For LCA, several publications are published every year, e.g., alone in the year 2013, 1978 papers were published [102] and therefore the sub-criterion is answered with yes. For PEF some publications address challenges and benefits of the method (e.g., [37,39,67,71,103]). Thus, the sub-criterion is determined as partly. The MFA method meets the sub-criterion and is answered with yes, because several different scientists apply the method and publish their results (e.g., [41,42,43,44,45]).
C2CP allows for reproducibility (sub-criterion 4c of criterion scientific soundness) of results (more specific: the same certification level will be reached, independent of who is carrying out the study) and therefore the sub-criterion is answered with yes. The awarding criteria defined in the product standard, are transparent and evaluation based on them can be carried out by other users. As transparency is one of the LCA principles, every LCA and PEF study should be reproducible. This also applies to MFA, where underlying data and model principles are communicated with the results. Thus, for all methods this sub-criterion is answered with yes.

4.5. Applicability

Criterion 5 addresses the applicability of the method and considers three sub-criteria. Sub-criterion 5a refers to the method being globally valid, meaning the method can be applied for products/materials and companies around the world without adaptation. This is the case for C2CP, because all defined awarding criteria are valid independent of the location. Thus, the sub-criterion is answered with yes. LCA as such does not prohibit the use of regional impact assessment methods. Thus, the sub-criterion is answered with partly. Same applies for PEF, where several of the predefined methods are based on regional (European) impact pathways. Depending on which of the categories are relevant, the results are globally valid or only for a specific region. MFA can be applied worldwide. Thus, the sub-criterion is answered with yes. However, depending on the scope of the study, regional economies can also be analyzed.
Next, the effort to collect data (sub-criterion 5b of criterion applicability) is determined. It is analyzed as high for C2CP, because every material bigger than 1000 ppm has to be accounted for. However, how much effort this actually is highly depends on the complexity of the product. For products consisting of only few materials, the data collection effort is low, whereas it will increase with the amount of materials to be taken into account. The effort to collect data is determined as high for LCA and PEF studies as well. For MFA case studies the effort depends on the regional scope and applied level of detail of the study, but can also be high. Therefore, this sub-criterion is answered with yes for all four methods.
For C2CP, there are no tools available (sub-criterion 5c of criterion applicability) on the corresponding website to support the method applicability available for external stakeholders. Thus, the sub-criterion is answered with no. However, it cannot be precluded that tools do not exist. The assessment body assigned to the company carrying out the conformity assessment often has a lot of experience with C2CP. Therefore, internal tools might exist. These are not available for a company, which just wants to apply C2CP internally or unofficially. For LCA and PEF several software tools and databases exist, which support the modeling (e.g., GaBi [104], ecoinvent [105], OpenLCA [106], Simapro [107], etc.). TU Wien provides a freeware that helps to perform material flow analysis according to the Austrian standard ÖNorm S 2096 called STAN (short for subSTance flow ANalysis) [108]. Thus, the sub-criterion is answered with yes for all three methods.

4.6. Overall Results and Recommendations

Based on the presented literature review (see Section 2) as well as criteria-based assessment (see Section 3), the following shortcomings of C2CP, which undermine its reliability to determine the environmental performance of products, are identified:
  • Biological nutrients are considered as beneficial independent of their amount emitted in nature [20,29,31,32].
  • Quality loss of recycled products and materials is not considered [18,21,33].
  • Energy efficiency is not considered, because the long-term goal is to only use renewable energy, which is presumed by C2CP developers to have no emissions [18,20,29,31,33].
  • Scarcity of renewable resources is not taken into account [20,29].
  • C2CP does not cover the complete life cycle of a product at all certification levels [25,28,29,30].
  • The awarding criteria of C2CP are not product-specific, but generic and equal for all products [25].
  • Uncertainties of the method are not addressed sufficiently.
  • Biological nutrients are defined as being biodegradable [17].
  • It is not considered how many times a material can be recycled.
  • A product/material is defined as being recyclable, when it is recycled once [17].
  • Quality loses due to recycling are not reflected sufficiently by the awarding criteria.
  • For renewable sourced materials, incineration counts as recycling [17].
  • Offsetting of GHG emissions is given priority over energy efficiency measures, although the effectiveness of existing offsetting schemes is not proven beneficial.
  • Relevant environmental impacts are not considered [28].
  • Method has not undergone sufficient scientific review and debate.
When comparing all four methods—C2CP, LCA, PEF and MFA—the following recommendations can be made to improve the performance of C2CP in determining environmental impacts of products:
  • Consider all relevant emissions and therefore also revise the assumption that all nutrients introduced in the environment are beneficial.
  • Consider the entire life cycle in the awarding criteria.
  • Consider the development of product-specific awarding criteria.
  • Consider absolute as well as relative (per product unit) amount of used energy.
  • Consider how many times a material and/or a product can be recycled and their possible quality losses.
  • Incineration of renewable materials should be excluded from the awarding criteria (or has to be specified for different materials).
  • Better specify in the program’s rules the process of stakeholder consultation and the involvement of stakeholders (e.g., notification procedure, etc.) to involve more stakeholders during the update of the Product Standard.
  • Transparently communicate the uncertainties of the method and how they can be determined.
  • Debate specifics of the C2CP method in a larger circle of stakeholders via, e.g., peer-reviewed journals or other means.
  • Provide tool for application.

5. Conclusions

In summary, even though C2CP considers some relevant emissions and environmental impacts (e.g., climate change), 15 shortcomings were identified impacting the ability of the approach to reliably determine the environmental performance of products. Thus, it can be concluded that, in the current state, C2CP is not scientifically reliable enough and does not assure that certified products are actually environmentally preferable. For all identified shortcomings, recommendations are provided by consulting the LCA, PEF and MFA methods. The proposed recommendations for improvement can be integrated into C2CP and, if adopted, the reliability of C2CP would be significantly enhanced.

Supplementary Materials

Supplementary File 1

Author Contributions

V.B. developed the proposed approach and applied it to the analyzed methods. V.B. and N.M. performed the literature review. N.M. and M.F. contributed to the development of the approach, the discussion of the results and to the overall design of the study. V.B. wrote the paper and all authors proofread and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgments

The authors of the study did not receive any grants in support of the research work.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Finkbeiner, M.; Schau, E.M.; Lehmann, A.; Traverso, M. Towards Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment. Sustainability 2010, 2, 3309–3322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Finkbeiner, M. Carbon footprinting—Opportunities and threats. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2009, 14, 91–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Berger, M.; Finkbeiner, M. Water Footprinting: How to Address Water Use in Life Cycle Assessment? Sustainability 2010, 2, 919–944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. ISO 14040 International Standard—Environmental management—Life cycle assessment—Principles and framework 2006. Available online: https://www.iso.org/standard/37456.html (accessed on 10 March 2018).
  5. European Commission Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) Guide. 2012. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/pdf/footprint/PEF%20methodology%20final%20draft.pdf (accessed on 2 May 2018).
  6. Lehmann, A.; Bach, V.; Finkbeiner, M. EU Product Environmental Footprint—Mid-Term Review of the Pilot Phase. Sustainability 2016, 8, 92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Finkbeiner, M. From the 40s to the 70s—The future of LCA in the ISO 14000 family. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2013, 18, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Finkbeiner, M. The International Standards as the Constitution of Life Cycle Assessment: The ISO 14040 Series and its Offspring. In Background and Future Prospects in Life Cycle Assessment. LCA Compendium—The Complete World of Life Cycle Assessment; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2014; pp. 85–106. [Google Scholar]
  9. European Parliament. Directive 2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 Establishing a Framework for the Setting of Ecodesign Requirements for Energy-Related Products; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  10. Carvalho, H.; Govindan, K.; Azevedo, S.G.; Cruz-Machado, V. Modelling green and lean supply chains: An eco-efficiency perspective. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2017, 120, 75–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Wang, Z.; Zhao, L.; Mao, G.; Wu, B. Eco-Efficiency Trends and Decoupling Analysis of Environmental Pressures in Tianjin, China. Sustainability 2015, 7, 15407–15422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. ISO 14020 Environmental labels and declarations—General principles 2000. Available online: https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:14020:ed-2:v1:en (accessed on 10 March 2018).
  13. ISO Environmental labels and declarations—Type I environmental labelling—Principles and procedures (ISO 14024:1999) 1999. Available online: https://www.iso.org/standard/23145.html (accessed on 10 March 2018).
  14. ISO Environmental labels and declarations—Type III environmental declarations—Principles and procedures (ISO 14025:2006) 2006. Available online: https://www.iso.org/standard/38131.html (accessed on 10 March 2018).
  15. Minkov, N.; Lehmann, A.; Winter, L.; Finkbeiner, M. Characterization of environmental labels beyond the criteria of ISO 14020-series. 2017, submitted for publication. 2017; submitted for publication. [Google Scholar]
  16. Biedermann, H.; Vorbach, S. Innovation und Nachhaltigkeit: Strategisch-operatives Energie- und Ressourcenmanagement; Rainer Hampp Verlag: Augsburg, Germany, 2015; ISBN 9783957101334. [Google Scholar]
  17. Cradle to Cradle Products Innovation Institute. Cradle to Cradle CertifiedTM Product Standard Version 3.1; Cradle to Cradle Products Innovation Institute: Oakland, CA, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  18. Bakker, C.A.; Wever, R.; Teoh, C.; de Clercq, S. Designing cradle-to-cradle products: A reality check. Int. J. Sustain. Eng. 2010, 3, 2–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Voorthuis, J.; Gijbels, C. A Fair Accord: Cradle to Cradle as a Design Theory Measured against John Rawls’ Theory of Justice and Immanuel Kant’s Categorical Imperative. Sustainability 2010, 2, 371–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Bjørn, A.; Hauschild, M.Z. Cradle to Cradle and LCA. In Life Cycle Assessment; Hauschild, M.Z., Rosenbaum, R.K., Olsen, S.I., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 605–631. ISBN 978-3-319-56474-6. [Google Scholar]
  21. Bjørn, A.; Hauschild, M.Z. Cradle to Cradle and LCA—Is there a Conflict? In Glocalized Solutions for Sustainability in Manufacturing; Hesselbach, J., Herrmann, C., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2011; pp. 599–604. ISBN 978-3-642-19692-8. [Google Scholar]
  22. ISO 14044 Environmental management - Life cycle assessment - Requirements and guidelines (EN ISO 14044:2006) 2006. Available online: https://www.iso.org/standard/38498.html (accessed on 10 March 2018).
  23. European Commission Commission Recommendation of 9 April 2013 on the use of common methods to measure and communicate the life cycle environmental performance of products and organisations 2013.
  24. Rechberger, H.; Brunner, P. Practical Handbook of Material Flow Analysis; Lewis Publisher: Washington, DC, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  25. Minkov, N.; Bach, V.; Finkbeiner, M. Characterization of the Cradle to Cradle CertifiedTM products program in the context of eco-labels and environmental declarations. Sustainability 2018, 10, 738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Kausch, M.F.; Klosterhaus, S. Response to “Are Cradle to Cradle certified products environmentally preferable? Analysis from an LCA approach.” J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 113, 715–716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Cradle to Cradle Products Innovation Institute Get Cradle to Cradle Certified. Available online: http://www.c2ccertified.org/get-certified/standards-development (accessed on 1 October 2017).
  28. Vercoulen, R. Impacts of the Cradle to Cradle Certified Products Program; Technical Report; Cradle to Cradle Centre: Venlo, The Netherlands, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  29. Llorach-Massana, P.; Farreny, R.; Oliver-Solà, J. Are Cradle to Cradle certified products environmentally preferable? Analysis from an LCA approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 93, 243–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Bor, A.-M.; Hansen, K.; Goedkoop, M.; Riviere, A.; Alvarado, C.; can den Wittendoer, W. Position~Paper:~Usability of Life Cycle Assessment for Cradle to Cradle purposes 2011. Available online: http://www.c2c-centre.com/library-item/usability-life-cycle-assessment-cradle-cradle%C2%AE-purpose (accessed on 2 May 2018).
  31. Reay, S.D.; McCool, J.P.; Withell, A. Exploring the feasibility of Cradle to Cradle (product) design: Perspective from New Zealand Scientists. J. Sustain. Dev. 2011, 4, 36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Reijnders, L. Are emissions or wastes consisting of biological nutrients good or healthy? J. Clean. Prod. 2008, 16, 1138–1141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Bjørn, A.; Hauschild, M.Z. Absolute versus Relative Environmental Sustainability. J. Ind. Ecol. 2013, 17, 321–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Finkbeiner, M.; Inaba, A.; Tan, R.; Christiansen, K.; Klüppel, H.-J. The New International Standards for Life Cycle Assessment: ISO 14040 and ISO 14044. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2006, 11, 80–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. European Commission. Regulation (EC) No 66/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the EU Ecolabel; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  36. Germanys’s Federal Environment Agency and RAL gGmbH The Blue Angel. Available online: https://www.blauer-engel.de/en/blue-angel/what-is-behind-it (accessed on 1 October 2017).
  37. Finkbeiner, M. Product environmental footprint—Breakthrough or breakdown for policy implementation of life cycle assessment? Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2014, 19, 266–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. European Commission. Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules Guidance - Version 6.2 - June 2017; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  39. Lehmann, A.; Bach, V.; Finkbeiner, M. Product environmental footprint in policy and market decisions: Applicability and impact assessment. Integr. Environ. Assess. Manag. 2015, 11, 417–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Austrian Standards OENORM S 2096-1:2005-01-01 - Material flow analysis - Part 1: Application in waste management - Concepts; Austrian Standards Institute: Vienna, Austria, 2005.
  41. Hendriks, C.; Obernosterer, R.; Müller, D.; Kytzia, S.; Baccini, P.; Brunner, P.H. Material Flow Analysis: A tool to support environmental policy decision making. Case-studies on the city of Vienna and the Swiss lowlands. Local Environ. 2000, 5, 311–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Gottschalk, F.; Sonderer, T.; Scholz, R.W.; Nowack, B. Possibilities and limitations of modeling environmental exposure to engineered nanomaterials by probabilistic material flow analysis. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Liu, X.; Tanaka, M.; Matsui, Y. Generation amount prediction and material flow analysis of electronic waste: A case study in Beijing, China. Waste Manag. Res. 2006, 24, 434–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Hashimoto, S.; Tanikawa, H.; Moriguchi, Y. Where will large amounts of materials accumulated within the economy go?—A material flow analysis of construction minerals for Japan. Waste Manag. 2007, 27, 1725–1738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Davis, J.; Geyer, R.; Ley, J.; He, J.; Clift, R.; Kwan, A.; Sansom, M.; Jackson, T. Time-dependent material flow analysis of iron and steel in the UK. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2007, 51, 118–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Bringezu, S.; Moriguchi, Y. Material flow analysis. In A Handbook of Industrial Ecology; Edwar Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2002; pp. 79–90. [Google Scholar]
  47. Reimann, K.; Finkbeiner, M.; Horvath, A.; Matsuno, Y.; Preto, U.; Pennington, D.; Pant, R. Evaluation of environmental life cycle approaches for policy and decision making support in micro and macro level applications 2010. Available online: http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/111111111/15195/1/lbna24562enc.pdf (accessed on 6 July 2017).
  48. Joint Research Centre International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook- Recommendations for Life Cycle Impact Assessment in the European context; European Commission: Luxembourg, 2011.
  49. Forin, S.; Berger, M.; Finkbeiner, M. Measuring Water-related Environmental Impacts of Organizations: Existing Methods and Research Gaps. Int. J. LCA 2017, submitted. [Google Scholar]
  50. The Product-Life Institute Cradle to Cradle. Available online: http://www.product-life.org/en/cradle-to-cradle (accessed on 1 October 2017).
  51. Ellen MacArthur Foundation Schools Of Thought. Available online: https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/circular-economy/schools-of-thought/cradle2cradle (accessed on 1 October 2017).
  52. European Commission. Closing the Loop—An EU Action Plan for the Circular Economy; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  53. BIO. Intelligence Service Assessment of Resource Efficiency Indicators and Targets; Final Report Prepared for the European Commission, DG Environment; Institute for Social Ecology (SEC) and Sustainable Europe Research Institute (SERI): Vienna, Austria, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  54. Cradle to Cradle Products Innovation Institute US EPA RECOMMENDS CRADLE TO CRADLE CERTIFIED PRODUCT STANDARD. Available online: http://www.c2ccertified.org/news/article/us-epa-recommends-cradle-to-cradle-certified-product-standard (accessed on 1 November 2017).
  55. UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative. Towards a Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment - Making Informed Choices on Products; United Nations Environment Programme: Paris, France, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  56. UNEP. Global Material Flows and Resource Productivity—An Assessment Study of the UNEP International Resource Panel; United Nations Environment Programme: Paris, France, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  57. Cradle to Cradle Products Innovation Institute. Policy for Revision of the Cradle to Cradle CertifiedTM Product Standard Version 1.0; Cradle to Cradle Products Innovation Institute: Berlin, Germany, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  58. European Commission Environmental Footprint E-commenting Wiki page. Available online: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/cas/login?loginRequestId=ECAS_LR-14023568-96ZZJzRUM0tTWT7qbzNWh6BoJXyGHgB5cm1jxk3M4USyeI7ndsheSaeZkQJJEWctAff64fNOdwaa77L45miRHE-PHslUMVSXYCcErG0LecxcC-80RSr1Bw7w2JCpaEGGPWSVSCEEuUE0g9CiIyNSdc0lG (accessed on 1 November 2017).
  59. Peiró, L.T.; Méndez, G.V.; Ayres, R.U. Material Flow Analysis of Scarce Metals: Sources, Functions, End-Uses and Aspects for Future Supply. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47, 2939–2947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Patrício, J.; Kalmykova, Y.; Rosado, L.; Lisovskaja, V. Uncertainty in Material Flow Analysis Indicators at Different Spatial Levels. J. Ind. Ecol. 2015, 19, 837–852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. McDonough, W.; Braungart, M.; Clinton, B. The Upcycle: Beyond Sustainabilit—Designing for Abundance, 1st ed.; North Point Press: New York, NY, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  62. Braungart, M.; McDonough, W. Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things, 1st ed.; North Point Press: New York, NY, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  63. Klöpffer, W.; Grahl, B. Ökobilanz (LCA): Ein Leitfaden für Ausbildung und Beruf; Wiley-VCH: Weinheim, Germany, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  64. Finkbeiner, M. Special Types of Life Ccyle Assessment, 1st ed.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  65. Pizzol, M.; Laurent, A.; Sala, S.; Weidema, B.; Verones, F.; Koffler, C. Normalisation and weighting in life cycle assessment: Quo vadis? Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2017, 22, 853–866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Sonderegger, T.; Dewulf, J.; Fantke, P.; de Souza, D.M.; Pfister, S.; Stoessel, F.; Verones, F.; Vieira, M.; Weidema, B.; Hellweg, S. Towards harmonizing natural resources as an area of protection in life cycle impact assessment. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Galatola, M.; Pant, R. Reply to the editorial “Product environmental footprint—Breakthrough or breakdown for policy implementation of life cycle assessment?” written by Prof. Finkbeiner (Int J Life Cycle Assess 19(2):266-271). Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2014, 19, 1356–1360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Guinée, J.B.; Gorrée, M.; Heijungs, R.; Huppes, G.; Kleijn, R.; de Koning, A.; van Oers, L.; Sleeswijk, A.W.; Suh, S.; de Haes, H.A.U.; et al. Handbook on life Cycle Assessment. Operational Guide to the ISO Standards. I: LCA in Perspective. IIa: Guide. IIb: Operational Annex. III: Scientific Background; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  69. Hellweg, S.; Mila i Canals, L. Emerging approaches, challenges and opportunities in life cycle assessment. Science 2014, 344, 1109–1113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Laner, D.; Rechberger, H.; Astrup, T. Applying Fuzzy and Probabilistic Uncertainty Concepts to the Material Flow Analysis of Palladium in Austria. J. Ind. Ecol. 2015, 19, 1055–1069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Manfredi, S.; Allacker, K.; Pelletier, N.; Schau, E.; Chomkhamsri, K.; Pant, R.; Pennington, D. Comparing the European Commission product environmental footprint method with other environmental accounting methods. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2015, 20, 389–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Sandin, G.; Peters, G.M.; Svanström, M. Using the planetary boundaries framework for setting impact-reduction targets in LCA contexts. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2015, 20, 1684–1700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Rockström, J.; Steffen, W.; Noone, K.; Persson, A.; Chapin, F.S.; Lambin, E.F.; Lenton, T.M.; Scheffer, M.; Folke, C.; Schellnhuber, H.J.; et al. A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 2009, 461, 472–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Reijnders, L. Phosphorus resources, their depletion and conservation, a review. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2014, 93, 32–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Yoshida, S.; Hiraga, K.; Takehana, T.; Taniguchi, I.; Yamaji, H.; Maeda, Y.; Toyohara, K.; Miyamoto, K.; Kimura, Y.; Oda, K. A bacterium that degrades and assimilates poly(ethylene terephthalate). Science 2016, 351, 1196–1199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Van Sebille, E.; Wilcox, C.; Lebreton, L.; Maximenko, N.; Hardesty, B.D.; van Franeker, J.A.; Eriksen, M.; Siegel, D.; Galgani, F.; Law, K.L. A global inventory of small floating plastic debris. Environ. Res. Lett. 2015, 10, 124006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. United Nations Environment Programme. Marine Plastic Debris and Microplastics—Global Lessons and Research to Inspire Action and Guide Policy Change; United Nations Environment Programme: Paris, France, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  78. Ocean Conservancy Stemming the tide: Land-based strategies for a plastic-free ocean 2015. Available online: https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/sustainability-and-resource-productivity/our-insights/stemming-the-tide-land-based-strategies-for-a-plastic-free-ocean (accessed on 6 July 2017).
  79. Gutzler, C.; Helming, K.; Balla, D.; Dannowski, R.; Deumlich, D.; Glemnitz, M.; Knierim, A.; Mirschel, W.; Nendel, C.; Paul, C.; et al. Agricultural land use changes—A scenario-based sustainability impact assessment for Brandenburg, Germany. Ecol. Indic. 2015, 48, 505–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Garcia, J.C.; De Matos, C.T.; Aurambout, J.-P. Environmental Sustainability Assessment of Bioeconomy Products and Processes—Progress Report 2 2016. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/publication/brochures-leaflets/environmental-sustainability-assessment-bioeconomy-products-and-processes-progress-report-2 (accessed on 20 March 2018).
  81. Bach, V.; Berger, M.; Finogenova, N.; Finkbeiner, M. Assessing the Availability of Terrestrial Biotic Materials in Product Systems (BIRD). Sustainability 2017, 9, 137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Eerhart, A.J.J.E.; Faaij, A.P.C.; Patel, M.K. Replacing fossil based PET with biobased PEF; process analysis, energy and GHG balance. Energy Environ. Sci. 2012, 5, 6407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Chen, L.; Pelton, R.E.O.; Smith, T.M. Comparative life cycle assessment of fossil and bio-based polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 137, 667–676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Bach, V.; Berger, M.; Forin, S.; Finkbeiner, M. Comprehensive approach for evaluating different resource types—Case study of abiotic and biotic resource use assessment methodologies. Ecol. Indic. 2017, submitted. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Schowalter, T.D. Decomposition and Pedogenesis. In Insect Ecology; Elsevier: New York, NY, USA, 2016; pp. 477–510. [Google Scholar]
  86. Haynes, R. Mineral Nitrogen In The Plant-Soil System (Physiological Ecology), 1st ed.; Academic Press Inc.: Orlando, FL, USA, 1986; ISBN 978-0123349101. [Google Scholar]
  87. Tsoutsos, T.; Frantzeskaki, N.; Gekas, V. Environmental impacts from the solar energy technologies. Energy Policy 2005, 33, 289–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Gössling, S.; Broderick, J.; Upham, P.; Ceron, J.-P.; Dubois, G.; Peeters, P.; Strasdas, W. Voluntary Carbon Offsetting Schemes for Aviation: Efficiency, Credibility and Sustainable Tourism. J. Sustain. Tour. 2007, 15, 223–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Jindal, R.; Swallow, B.; Kerr, J. Forestry-based carbon sequestration projects in Africa: Potential benefits and challenges. Nat. Resour. Forum 2008, 32, 116–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Bull, J.W.; Suttle, K.B.; Gordon, A.; Singh, N.J.; Milner-Gulland, E.J. Biodiversity offsets in theory and practice. Oryx 2013, 47, 369–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Kjaer, L.L.; Pagoropoulos, A.; Schmidt, J.H.; McAloone, T.C. Challenges when evaluating Product/Service-Systems through Life Cycle Assessment. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 120, 95–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  92. Berger, M.; Warsen, J.; Krinke, S.; Bach, V.; Finkbeiner, M. Water footprint of European cars: Potential environmental impacts of water consumption along automobile life cycles. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Henßler, M.; Bach, V.; Berger, M.; Finkbeiner, M.; Ruhland, K. Resource Efficiency Assessment—Comparing a Plug-In Hybrid with a Conventional Combustion Engine. Resources 2016, 5, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Pretot, S.; Collet, F.; Garnier, C. Life cycle assessment of a hemp concrete wall: Impact of thickness and coating. Build. Environ. 2014, 72, 223–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  95. Dammer, L.; Carus, M.; Raschka, A.; Scholz, L. Market Developments of and Opportunities for biobased products and chemicals 2013. Available online: https://www.eumonitor.nl/9353000/1/j4nvgs5kjg27kof_j9vvik7m1c3gyxp/vjken6y2ivvo/f=/blg338557.pdf (accessed on 06 July 2017).
  96. Institut Bauen und Umwelt e.V. Polymatt Sigma Coatings. Available online: https://epd-online.com/EmbeddedEpdList/Download/5728 (accessed on 1 November 2017).
  97. Al-Salem, S.M.; Lettieri, P.; Baeyens, J. Recycling and recovery routes of plastic solid waste (PSW): A review. Waste Manag. 2009, 29, 2625–2643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  98. Welle, F. Twenty years of PET bottle to bottle recycling—An overview. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2011, 55, 865–875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. European Union Directive. 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives. Off. J. Eur. Union L 312/3. 2008. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32008L0098 (accessed on 6 July 2017).
  100. Braungart, M. The wisdom of the cherry tree. Int. Commer. Rev. 2007, 7, 152–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Braungart, M.; McDonough, W.; Bollinger, A. Cradle-to-cradle design: Creating healthy emissions—A strategy for eco-effective product and system design. J. Clean. Prod. 2007, 15, 1337–1348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. McManus, M.C.; Taylor, C.M. The changing nature of life cycle assessment. Biomass Bioenergy 2015, 82, 13–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  103. Gül, S.; Spielmann, M.; Diana, E.; Lehmann, A.; Bach, V.; Finkbeiner, M. Benchmarking and Environmental Performance Classes in Life Cycle Assessment—Development of a Procedure for Non-Leather Shoes in the Context of the Product Environmental Footprint. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2015, 20, 1640–1648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Thinkstep GaBi Product Sustainability Software 2016. Available online: http://www.gabi-software.com/switzerland/index/ (accessed on 2 May 2018).
  105. Ecoinvent. Ecoinvent database 2016. Available online: https://www.ecoinvent.org/database/database.html (accessed on 6 July 2017).
  106. Ciroth, A. Software for Life Cycle Assessment. In Life Cycle Assessment Handbook; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2012; pp. 143–157. [Google Scholar]
  107. PRÉ SimaPro LCA software 2017. Available online: https://simapro.com/ (accessed on 6 July 2017).
  108. TU Wien—Forschungsbereich Abfallwirtschaft und Ressourcenmanagement Stan. Available online: http://www.stan2web.net/ (accessed on 1 December 2017).
Sustainability 10 01562 g001 550
Figure 1. Overview of the biomass circulation in the biological and technical nutrient cycle.
Figure 1. Overview of the biomass circulation in the biological and technical nutrient cycle.
Sustainability 10 01562 g001
Sustainability 10 01562 g002 550
Figure 2. Overview of considered life cycle stages within LCA and LCA-based methods (e.g., PEF), cradle-to-gate, gate-to-gate (shown with thin arrows) and C2CP (differentiations are made between the categories and certification levels; shown with thick arrows).
Figure 2. Overview of considered life cycle stages within LCA and LCA-based methods (e.g., PEF), cradle-to-gate, gate-to-gate (shown with thin arrows) and C2CP (differentiations are made between the categories and certification levels; shown with thick arrows).
Sustainability 10 01562 g002
Table
Table 1. Overview of publications focusing on the reliability of C2CP to determine the environmental performance of products.
Table 1. Overview of publications focusing on the reliability of C2CP to determine the environmental performance of products.
Title and Author(s)Short Summary
Impacts of the Cradle to Cradle certified products program, published by Vercoulen (2014) [28]Analysis of existing methods addressing impacts relevant to the C2CP and introducing a developed framework as a solution
Characterization of the Cradle to Cradle Certified™ Products Program in the Context of Eco-labels and Environmental Declarations, published by Minkov et al. (2018) [25] Analysis with regard to maturity of C2CP as a tool for external communication
Are Cradle to Cradle certified products environmentally preferable? Analysis from an LCA approach, published by Llorach-Massana et al. (2015) [29]Analysis of C2CP certification with regard to distinguishing environmentally more preferable products as well as informing consumers correctly about the environmental performance
Usability of Life Cycle Assessment for Cradle to Cradle purposes—Position paper of Netherlands Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment, published by Bor et al. (2011) [30]Exploration of the usability of LCA for C2CP purposes
Designing Cradle to Cradle products: a reality check, published by Bakker et al. (2010) [18]Analysis of the applicability of the C2CP concept in day-to-day product development in a business setting
Exploring the Feasibility of Cradle to Cradle (Product) Design: Perspectives from New Zealand Scientists, published by Reay et al. (2011) [31]Feasibility of using the C2CP for sustainable product design in New Zealand is examined by asking a sample of New Zealand scientists to explore the underlying science and reliability of the C2C framework
Are emissions or wastes consisting of biological nutrients good or healthy? —Letter to the editor, published by Reijnders (2008) [32]Statement that no wastes or emissions derived from biological materials are ecologically irrelevant and intrinsically good or healthy
Cradle to Cradle and LCA, published by Bjørn and Hauschild (2018) [20]
Absolute versus Relative Environmental Sustainability—What can the Cradle-to-Cradle and Eco-efficiency Concepts Learn from Each Other? published by Bjørn and Hauschild (2013) [33]		Introduction in C2CP framework and certification scheme Comparison of LCA and eco-efficiency with C2CP
Table
Table 2. Overview of criteria and sub-criteria to analyze C2CP as well as the existing methods focusing on environmental assessment (LCA and PEF) and on end-of-life of products and materials (MFA).
Table 2. Overview of criteria and sub-criteria to analyze C2CP as well as the existing methods focusing on environmental assessment (LCA and PEF) and on end-of-life of products and materials (MFA).
CriterionSub-Criterion
(1) Stakeholder acceptance
  • Used in policy
  • Authoritative body supports method
  • Stakeholder participation
(2) Documentation and review
  • Method is documented
  • Uncertainties are addressed
(3) Environmental relevance
  • Broad coverage of environmental emissions
  • Relevant environmental impacts are addressed
  • Entire life cycle is addressed
(4) Scientific soundness
  • Method has undergone scientific review
  • Method is object to scientific work
  • Method allows for reproducibility
(5) Applicability
  • Globally valid
  • Effort to collect data
  • Tool to support application
Table
Table 3. Results of the criteria-based assessment for C2CP, LCA, PEF and MFA.
Table 3. Results of the criteria-based assessment for C2CP, LCA, PEF and MFA.
Methods/CriteriaC2CPLCAPEFMFA
Stakeholder acceptanceUsed in policiesNoYesNo 1Partly
Authoritative body supports methodOneMultipleOneOne
Stakeholder participationPartlyYesPartlyPartly
Documentation and reviewMethod is documentedYesYesYesYes
Uncertainties are addressedNoYesPartlyPartly
Environmental relevanceBroad coverage of relevant emissionsPartlyYesYesPartly
Relevant environmental impacts are addressedNoYesPartlyNo
Entire life cycle is consideredNoYesYesYes
Scientific soundnessMethod has undergone scientific review PartlyYesYesPartly
Method is object of scientific work PartlyYesPartlyYes
Allows for reproducibilityYesYesYesYes
ApplicabilityGlobally valid YesPartlyPartlyYes
Effort of data collection HighHighHighHigh
Tool to support applicationNoYesYesYes
1 The PEF project is in its pilot phase. After the pilot phase is completed (probably April 2018), strategies for policy implementation will be developed. However, even though it is likely that (some) principles of PEF will be implemented into existing/new regulations, it cannot be guaranteed.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Bach, V.; Minkov, N.; Finkbeiner, M. Assessing the Ability of the Cradle to Cradle Certified™ Products Program to Reliably Determine the Environmental Performance of Products. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1562. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10051562

AMA Style

Bach V, Minkov N, Finkbeiner M. Assessing the Ability of the Cradle to Cradle Certified™ Products Program to Reliably Determine the Environmental Performance of Products. Sustainability. 2018; 10(5):1562. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10051562

Chicago/Turabian Style

Bach, Vanessa, Nikolay Minkov, and Matthias Finkbeiner. 2018. "Assessing the Ability of the Cradle to Cradle Certified™ Products Program to Reliably Determine the Environmental Performance of Products" Sustainability 10, no. 5: 1562. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10051562

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop