LCA and carbon footprint verifications

Outlining the steps to be taken for an independent review.

In recent years, glove manufacturers have started to conduct detailed studies to understand the environmental impacts of their products and supply chains. The reasons for conducting a study vary. It could be to understand the impacts of a product and to identify opportunities to reduce its impacts, to compare the impacts of a range of products, to understand changes to raw material inputs and production processes, or even to compare production locations.

A company may choose to focus only on the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with a product, in the form of a product carbon footprint study that measures global warming potential (GWP). Global warming is intrinsically linked to climate change, which is one of the biggest challenges the planet is facing and is also an environmental impact that is well known and understood by the wider public. It is therefore a valid area of focus.

However, other companies may instead choose to conduct a detailed lifecycle assessment (LCA) study, which will take into account a wider range of environmental impacts. The process followed to conduct both a product carbon footprint and an LCA are the same – the difference is in the results that are reported. A product carbon footprint will only report the GWP of a product expressed as a mass of CO₂e. An LCA report will also report values for other impacts, examples including acidification, water depletion, eutrophication, ecological toxicity and the presence of particulate matter.

There are two main routes for any companies wanting to conduct either a product carbon footprint study or an LCA study. These are: 1) they can conduct their own study internally, or 2) they can contract a specialist consultant to conduct the study on their behalf.

Confidence in results

Once the carbon footprint study or LCA study has been completed (whether internally or by an external company), a further crucial step can be to seek an independent and impartial verification or review of the study and its findings. This step would certainly be recommended if the results of the study are likely to be shared with customers and consumers or made available to the wider public (for example, by publishing them on the company’s website). An independent verification or review provides the following benefits:

• gives the company confidence in the findings of the study
• creates trust with customers and consumers
• avoids accusations of ‘greenwashing’ being made
• builds credibility in the marketplace
• improves the overall quality of the study by taking into account any feedback received.

Verification and review options

All reviews should follow recognised international standards. The relevant standard to use will be determined by the methodology used for the original study as, shown in table 1.

Table 1: Methodology and standards
Type of study	Methodology used to conduct the study	Standard for verification
Product carbon footprint	ISO 14067:2018 – ‘Greenhouse gases. Carbon footprint of products. Requirements and guidelines for quantification’.	ISO 14604-3:2019 – ‘Greenhouse gases. Specification with guidance for the verification and validation of greenhouse gas statements’.
Lifecycle assessment	ISO 14040:2006 – ‘Environmental Management. Lifecycle assessment. Principles and framework’. ISO 14044:2006 – ‘Environmental management. Lifecycle assessment. Requirements and guidelines’.	ISO 14071:2024 – ‘Environmental management. Lifecycle assessment. Critical review processes and reviewer competencies’. Additional requirements and guidelines to ISO 14044:2006.

While there are similarities between the two standards, their intended aims and outcomes are quite different as explained in more detail in the following sections of this article.

ISO 14064-3:2019

ISO 14064-3:2019 aims to ensure that: 1) the primary data used in the study is truthful and correct, 2) the carbon footprint has been calculated correctly, and 3) the resulting greenhouse gas statement is truthful. The verification process has a series of distinct stages as detailed in table 2.

Table 2: Stages of the verification process
Stage	Description
Pre-engagement activities	The client and the verifying company agree the objectives of the engagement, the scope of the verification and what level of assurance is required.
Select verification team	The verifying company selects a team to complete the verification.
Verification planning	The verification itself is planned. This includes determining if a site visit is required, what evidence will need to be gathered and how it will be gathered.
Execution of verification activities	The verification activities are conducted according to the plan.
Completion of verification activities	The product carbon footprint statement will be reviewed alongside the findings of the verification. A conclusion will be reached, and an opinion will be drafted stating the level of assurance and the basis for the conclusion.
Independent review	The verification is reviewed by a competent reviewer who was not part of the verification team.
Issuance of the opinion	The findings of the verification will be issued to the client in the form of an opinion statement.

Levels of assurance

A verification can be conducted to one of two levels of assurance – ‘limited’ and ‘reasonable’. The differences between them are summarised in table 3.

Table 3: Comparison of limited and reasonable assurance levels
Assurance level	Scope	Level of confidence	Conclusion
Limited	Less extensive review. Verifier performs selective analysis.	Moderate confidence that the greenhouse gas statement is free from material misstatements.	Expressed in negative form – for example, ‘nothing has come to our attention that causes us to believe the GHG statement is materially misstated’.
Reasonable	Thorough and detailed review. Extensive testing and analysis.	High confidence that the greenhouse gas statement is free from material misstatements.	Expressed in positive form, such as: ‘in our opinion, the GHG statement is reasonably stated’.

The resulting opinion statement can then be used by the company as evidence that the carbon footprint value they are claiming has been independently verified.

ISO 14071:2024

An LCA critical review has a much greater focus on the methodology that has been used to conduct the study. The process is intended to ensure that:

• the methods used to carry out the LCA are consistent with ISO 14040 and ISO 14044
• the methods used to carry out the LCA are scientifically and technically valid
• the data used are appropriate and reasonable in relation to the goal of the study
• the interpretations reflect the limitations identified and the goal of the study
• the study report is transparent and consistent.

The review can be conducted concurrently alongside the LCA study itself, or it can take place once the LCA study has been completed. Once the reviewers have been selected and an agreement is in place between the commissioning company and the reviewer, the review itself can commence. The review will consider all aspects of the LCA, including calculation procedures, lifecycle inventory (LCI), impact assessment methodologies, characterisation factors, calculated LCI and lifecycle impact assessment (LCIA) results and interpretation. The outputs of the critical review process are a critical review report and a critical review statement, both of which are completed in line with the requirements detailed in ISO 14071:2024.

The report will detail any editorial, technical or general comments and queries that the reviewer may have. There will then be an opportunity for those remarks to be addressed by the originating company, with their feedback to the comments also being captured in the report. This can be an iterative process with multiple rounds of reviews and comments being completed until the final report is concluded, at which point the critical review statement will be issued.

---