OPEN ACCESS
The aim of this paper is to present an integrated approach to be used in environmental labelling of products. The approach is based on the joint use of three methods inspired by similar philosophy that capture different and complementary aspects of environmental issues. We call it CEW approach as it is based on the footprint family indicators: carbon footprint, ecological footprint and water footprint. Its pros and cons are discussed and an example of application to a product is included to illustrate its potential. A natural mineral water marketed in a 1.5 L PET bottle was chosen as case study and analyzed over its life cycle ‘from cradle to gate’, from the spring to the gate of the plant.
bottled drinking water, carbon footprint, ecological footprint, environmental labelling, water footprint
[1] Mamouni Limnios, E.A., Ghadouani, A., Schilizzi, S.G.M. & Mazzarol, T., Giving the consumer the choice: a methodology for product ecological footprint calculation. Ecological Economics, 68, pp. 2525–2534, 2009. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.04.020
[2] Schmidt, H.J., carbon footprinting, labeling and life cycle assessment. the International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 14, Supplement 1, S6–S9, 2009 doi:10.1007/s11367-009-0071-y
[3] regulation (Ec) No. 1980/2000 of the European Parliament and of the council of 17 July 2000 on a revised community eco-label award scheme. Available on-line at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/ lexuriServ/lexuriServ.do?uri=OJ:l:2000:237:0001:0012:en:PDf.
[4] ISO 14025:2006 Environmental labels and declarations – Type III environmental declarations – Principles and procedures, 2006.
[5] Swedish Environmental management council (mSr), requirements for Environmental Product Declarations, EPD (mSr 1999:2). Available on-line at: www.environdec.com.
[6] Baldo, g.l., marino, m. & rossi, S., Analisi del ciclo di vita lcA (life cycle Assessment).
gli strumenti per la progettazione sostenibile di materiali, prodotti e processi: Edizioni Ambiente, Italy, 2008.
[7] Wiedmann, T. & minx, J., A Definition of ‘carbon footprint’ (chapter 1). Ecological Economics research trends, Nova Science Publishers, hauppauge, New York, pp. 1–11, 2008.
[8] Intergovernmental Panel on climate change (IPcc), Climate Change 2007 – the physical Science Basis. contribution of Working group I to the fourth Assessment report of the IPcc, 2007.
[9] carbon Trust, Department for Environment, food and rural Affairs (DEfrA) & British Standards (BSI), Guide to pAS 2050: How to assess the carbon footprint of goods and services. great Britain, 2008.
[10] Wackernagel, m. & rees, W.E., our Ecological footprint: reducing Human Impact on the Earth. New Society: gabriola Island, British columbia, 1996.
[11] Wackernagel, m. & kitzes, J., Ecological footprint, Encyclopedia of Ecology, Elsevier: Amsterdam, pp. 1031–1037, 2008. doi:10.1016/B978-008045405-4.00620-0
[12] kitzes, J., galli, A., Bagliani, m., Barrett, J., Dige, g., Ede, S., Erb, k-h., giljum, S., haberl, h., hails, c., Jungwirth, S., lenzen, m., lewis, k., loh, J., marchettini, N., messinger, h., milne, k., moles, r., monfreda, c., moran, D., Nakano, k., Pyhälä, A., rees, W., Simmons, c., Wackernagel, m., Wada, Y., Walsh, c. & Wiedmann, T.,
A research agenda for improving national ecological footprint accounts. Ecological Economics, 68(7), pp. 1991–2007, 2009.
[13] galli, A., kitzes, J., Wermer, P., Wackernagel, m., Niccolucci, V. & Tiezzi, E., An exploration of the mathematics behind the ecological footprint. International Journal of Ecodynamics, 2(4), pp. 250–257, 2007. doi:10.2495/EcO-V2-N4-250-257
[14] monfreda, c., Wackernagel, m. & Deumling, D., Establishing national natural capital accounts based on detailed ecological footprint and biological capacity assessments. Land Use policy,
21, pp. 231–246, 2004. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2003.10.009
[15] global footprint Network (gfN), Ecological footprint standards. Available on-line at: http:// www.footprintnetwork.org/gfn_sub.php?content=standards, 2007.
[16] hoekstra, A.Y. & hung, P.Q., Virtual water trade: a quantification of virtual water flows between nations in relation to international crop trade. Value of Water research report Series, vol.11. uNEScO-IhE, Delft, The Netherlands, 2002.
[17] Allan, J.A., Virtual water: a strategic resource, global solutions to regional deficits. Groundwater, 36(4), pp. 545–546, 1998. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6584.1998.tb02825.x
[18] hoekstra, A.Y & chapagain, A.k., Globalization of water. Sharing the planet’s freshwater resources. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford: uk, pp. 207, 2008.
[19] hoekstra, A.Y., human appropriation of natural capital: a comparison of ecological footprint and water footprint analysis. Ecological Economics, 68(7), pp. 1963–1974, 2009. doi:10.1016/j. ecolecon.2008.06.021
[20] cerelia Environmental Product Declaration. cerelia natural mineral water packaged in 1.5 l PET bottle and 1 l glass bottle. registration No. S-P-00123. Available on-line at: www.cerelia. it or www.environdec.com, 2007.
[21] The Swedish Environmental management council (mSr), ciba Expert Services, cerelia S.p.A., Product category rules (Pcr) for preparing an environmental product declaration (EPD) for Natural mineral Water. registration No. 2006:07, Version 1.0. Available on-line at:
www.environdec.com, 2007.
[22] Boustead, I., Eco-profiles of the European plastics Industry. reports for Plastics Europe.
Available on-line at: http://lca.plasticseurope.org/index.htm, 2005.
[23] lenzen, m. & murray, S.A., A modified ecological footprint method and its application to Australia. Ecological Economics, 37, pp. 229–255, 2001. doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(00)00275-5
[24] Barrett, J., Vallack, h., Jones, A. & haq, g., A material flow analysis and ecological footprint of York. Technical report. Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm, 2002
[25] holden, E. & høyer, k.g., The ecological footprint of fuels. transportation research part D: transport and Environment, 10(5), pp. 395–403, 2005. doi:10.1016/j.trd.2005.04.013
[26] Drichoutis, A.c., lazaridis, P., Nayga, N.m. Jr., On consumers’ valuation of nutrition information. Bulletin of Economic research, 61(3), pp. 223–247, 2009 doi:10.1111/j.14678586.2009.00303.x