Measuring environmental impact has become a cornerstone of companies’ ecological transition. Beyond a compliance exercise, it now serves as a strategic tool for understanding and transformation. Several international methodological frameworks, such as the Product Environmental Footprint (PEF), have been developed to ensure a rigorous and comparable assessment of the environmental impact of products. Often based on Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), these frameworks provide the scientific foundation needed to quantify greenhouse gas emissions and, more broadly, environmental impacts associated with each stage of a product’s life cycle.
However, these methodologies go beyond measurement: they act as genuine levers for optimization and innovation. They guide companies toward more efficient eco-design, continuous improvement of processes, and competitive differentiation through sustainability.
In this article, Alcimed explores the main existing methodological frameworks for life cycle analysis and how they help companies shape their optimization and innovation strategies.
To measure a product’s environmental footprint, several international methodological frameworks have been developed. These are generally based on life cycle assessment, in accordance with ISO 14044 standards, allowing a quantification of environmental impacts from raw material extraction to the end of the product’s life. Among them, some focus exclusively on carbon footprint (covering only greenhouse gas emissions), while others take a broader environmental perspective in which carbon is just one of several indicators.
Below are the main recognized frameworks and their specificities.
This international standard, published in 2018, builds on existing life cycle assessment norms and is now considered a reference for quantifying a product’s carbon footprint. ISO 14067 provides guidelines and a methodology for calculating life-cycle emissions and communicating the results. It is a relatively general and flexible framework, often used as a basis for voluntary assessments when no more specific methodology is required.
Developed by the British Standards Institute and published in 2008, PAS 2050 focuses specifically on carbon footprint assessment. It provides detailed rules for calculating greenhouse gas emissions throughout the product life cycle, making it more prescriptive than ISO 14067.
The Greenhouse Gas Protocol was developed in 2011 as a joint initiative of the World Resources Institute (WRI) and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) and was designed to align with PAS 2050. It serves as a global reference standard for assessing greenhouse gas emissions over a product’s life cycle. To promote transparency, the GHG Protocol includes clear guidance on public disclosure of results. Furthermore, it consists of two distinct standards—one for product carbon footprint and another for organizational carbon footprint.
The Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) was developed by the European Commission as part of the Single Market for Green Products initiative to harmonize life cycle assessment methods in Europe and provide a common framework for evaluating and communicating a product’s environmental performance.
Unlike approaches that focus only on carbon emissions, the PEF looks at the bigger picture — covering 16 environmental impact categories, from climate change and resource depletion to pollution, across the entire life cycle. It also relies on sector-specific rules (PEFCR – Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules), ensuring reproducible, comparable, and verifiable results within a given product category. This makes it a demanding framework regarding data quality and the methodology used. For example, the PEF requires Environmental Footprint-compliant data and standardized modeling to ensure reproducibility and fair comparison between products.
The European Union strongly supports the PEF and is expected to adopt it as a reference for future regulations, even though it is not yet legally mandatory. This growing endorsement is already driving greater demand for product environmental declarations (typically based on the European standard EN 15804), especially in public tenders.
Like the GHG Protocol, the PEF also has an organizational equivalent—the OEF (Organization Environmental Footprint)—for assessing the environmental impact of entire organizations.
AFNOR introduced this French framework in 2015, using a multi-criteria approach much like the PEF. It was designed to harmonize environmental assessment methods in France while remaining aligned with international initiatives such as the EU-driven PEF.
The frameworks presented above all follow common principles (ISO life cycle standards), yet differ in their scope—whether in geographical focus or the types of environmental impacts considered. The PEF stands out for its wide coverage of environmental aspects beyond carbon and its ambition to harmonize practices across Europe.
Learn more about how our team can support you in your projects related to decarbonization >
The methodological frameworks discussed above, through their holistic perspective, are powerful strategic levers for optimization and innovation. They provide decision-makers with an objective view of a product’s life cycle and help companies identify opportunities for improvement and transformation.
Multi-criteria life cycle analyses such as the PEF offer a complete picture of a product’s environmental footprint and highlight the stages or components with the greatest impact. By adopting this broad perspective, companies can prioritize actions where they will be most effective while ensuring they do not create unintended impacts elsewhere in the life cycle. For example, reducing the footprint of a material should not lead to increased impact during product use or end-of-life. Thus, multi-criteria analysis becomes an essential tool for identifying sustainable solutions that benefit both the planet and business performance.
Beyond incremental optimization, frameworks like the PEF can also drive more radical innovation. By assessing previously overlooked environmental impacts, they can inspire transformative changes in product design and business models. For instance, if life cycle analysis reveals that the greatest impact occurs during the use phase, the company may consider alternative solutions or strengthen circular economy approaches to reduce the overall footprint.
Finally, given the current regulatory momentum on environmental standards, it is strategic for companies to rely on robust frameworks to guide decision-making and align innovations with sustainability objectives.
In response to today’s environmental challenges, various methodological frameworks have been developed to help organizations better measure the environmental impact of their products and activities. Among these, the PEF stands out as a particularly relevant framework for obtaining a multi-criteria view of a product’s life cycle—an approach that serves as a strong lever for both optimization and innovation for companies striving to align their actions with tomorrow’s environmental priorities.
For all these reasons, Alcimed has developed a tool inspired by the PEF (EcoXplorer) that provides an initial level of assessment, helping to identify priorities for optimization and innovation—areas in which we would be delighted to support you. Don’t hesitate to contact our team!
About the author,
Agnès, Project Manager in Alcimed’s Energy Environment Mobility team in France
Data - AI
The environmental impact of digital is equal to that of air transport. So why and how can you adopt sustainable data management in your company?
Energy - Environment - Mobility
The environmental impact of renewable energy, like wind power, is not neutral. Discover 5 ways to reduce their ecological footprint.
Healthcare
The SNITEM symposium revealed 3 challenges for enhancing the sustainability of the medical device industry. What are these challenges?