The Organisation Environmental Footprint (OEF) Retailers pilot testing. Paolo Masoni Head, LCA and Eco-design Laboratory ENEA

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "The Organisation Environmental Footprint (OEF) Retailers pilot testing. Paolo Masoni Head, LCA and Eco-design Laboratory ENEA"

Transcription

1 The Organisation Environmental Footprint (OEF) Retailers pilot testing Paolo Masoni Head, LCA and Eco-design Laboratory ENEA Università Bocconi, Milano 2 July

2 OEFSR Retail Technical Secretariat 1 retailers assoc. 1 NGO 6 retailers 3 public agencies 1 LCA consultant 2

3 Why retailers? Retailers act as a link between a multitude of upstream and downstream markets Retail 10.9% of non financial business economy Key player in the European economy Turnover = EUR billions in 2010 (EU 27) Close relation to the supply chain partners and the consumers 3

4 Status of the pilot Screening study published Draft OEFSR published (Public consultation was running until the 27th of May 2015) Implementation of the received comments (in progress) Test of OEFSR by retailers in supporting studies (in progress) Test of communication of OEF results (in progress) 4

5 Goal and Scope Unit of analysis: Activities of a retailer, as a product provider, i.e. taking into account, when relevant, the life cycle impacts of the products provided, over a 1-year time interval System boundaries: Administration and R&D, Commuting of employees etc. Included in direct operations! 5

6 Methodological challanges Two major innovations with respect to carbon footprint of an organisation (present state of the art in the sector): Multi criteria and inclusion of product portfolio Data consistency Possible double counting (T-shirt Washing machine) Identification of most relevant impact categories Each retailer is different! Impact assessment methods not equally robust and fully covered by existing databases Assessment of the product portfolio Strong simplifications to make it feasible! 6

7 Product portfolio: Sectors considered Food Beverage Tobacco Telecommunications equipment Audio and video equipment Textiles Sporting equipment Games and toys Clothing Fruit and vegetables Meat and meat products Fish, crustaceans and mollusks Bread, cakes, flour and sugar conf. Automotive fuel Computers, per. units and software Hardware, paints and glass Carpets, rugs, wall and floor coverings Electrical household app. furniture, lighting eq. Books Newspapers and stationery Music and video recordings Footwear and leather goods Dispensing chemist Medical and orthopedic goods Cosmetic and toilet articles Flowers, plants, seeds, ferti., pet and pet food Watches and jewellery 7

8 Defining the product portfolio Sector Category Representative Product FOOD Fruits and Vegetables Apples Meet and meet alternatives. Beef 1 Beef 2 Pork Poultry Sheep/Goat Fish Eggs Beverages Coffee and tea Roasted and ground coffee Alcoholic beverages Other beverages Beer Bottled water 8

9 Major Assumptions Representative products selection: one or few products representative of the whole category production: selection of one production pathway among all the possibilities use phase end of life 9

10 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 20% Results of screening 10 Mineral, fossil & ren resource depletion Water resource depletion Land use Human toxicity, non cancer effects Particulate matter Ionizing radiation HH Ionizing radiation E (interim) Photochemical ozone formation Acidific a tion Terrestrial eutrophication Freshwater eutrophication Marine eutrophication Freshwater ecotoxicity Key learning: Product portfolio (production+use) is very important End of life Use Support Distribution Retail place Logistics Production Ozone depletion Human toxicity, cancer effects Climate change

11 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Without the product portfolio Support Distribution Retail place Logistics 11 Ozone depletion Human toxicity, cancer effects Human toxicity, non cancer effects Particulate matter Ionizing radiation HH Ionizing radiation E (interim) Photochemical ozone formation Acidific a tion Terrestrial eutrophication Freshwater eutrophication Marine eutrophication Freshwater ecotoxicity Land use Water resource depletion Mineral, fossil & ren resource depletion Climate change

12 kg CO2 eq / year of activity 5.E+09 4.E+09 3.E+09 2.E+09 1.E+09 0.E+00 GWP of product production Employees activities (for in house factories) Rental services Real estate Printing service products Gas station products Other goods Other garden supplies Flowers, plants and seeds Batteries and power Fuels, gases, lubricants and oils Cleaning/hygiene products, cosmetics and toiletries Healthcare Other cultural and recreational goods Sporting equipment and gadgets Music and videos Books, newspapers and paper/paper supplies Office machinery and supplies Information and communication equipment Kitchen merchandise Electrical household appliances Furniture, furnishings and decor Home hardware supplies Personal accessories Footwear and leather goods Clothing and textiles Live animals Pet food Tobacco Other beverages Alcoholic beverages Coffee and tea Other foods Confectionery Prepared/processed meals Oils and fats Grain products Dairy products Meat and meat alternatives Fruits and vegetables Key learning: when a retailer has a nonnegligible part ofitsactivity related to animal products, attention should be given to model this activity properly; problem of consistency 12

13 GWP of meat and alternatives Key learnings: fish seems to significantly contribute to impacts on climate change to be checked it is important to model the deforestation where it is relevant (i.e.:soybean production used to feed cows, pork or chicken 2.5E+09 kg CO2 eq / year of activity 2.0E E E E+08 Eggs (33'370'000 kg) Highvalue species fish, wildcaught (57'150'000 kg) Lamb (5'200'000 kg) Chicken (54'030'000 kg ) Pork (83'900'000 kg) Suckle beef, Brazil (7'210'000 kg) Average European beef (21'620'000 kg) 0.0E+00 13

14 Importance of multicriteria! Results normalised and equally weighted as required by PEF Note: impact category "Ionizing Radiation E (interim) is not 0 but simply not calculated on the normalization figure 14

15 Thanks for your attention Acknowledgement: Thanks to Quantis and all TS members for their contribution to this presentation Questions? 15