Jotun A/S – Multinational paint company · PDF fileAnne Lill Gade / Product Environmental Footprint Nordic Workshop / 28.09.2016 Nordic Workshop - Product Environmental Footprint

Anne Lill Gade / Product Environmental Footprint Nordic Workshop / 28.09.2016

Nordic Workshop - Product Environmental Footprint

Jotun A/S – Multinational paint company

1.  Why do we engage ?

2.  PEF pilot project: Decorative paints

3.  Challenges we have met: •  Durability •  Regional differences •  Methods •  Non-conformance with EPDs

4.  Are benchmarking wanted ?



Cities use 75% of the worlds energy and Produces 80% of the greenhouse gas emissions United Nations Human Settlements Programme, 2007

Customer requirements - Green building standards LCA and EPD requested



LCA and EPD is currently being introduced in most Green Building Standards



Pilot: Decorative Coatings

Co-ordinator: CEPE - the European Paint Association •  Akzo Nobel: France, the Netherlands, multinational •  Crown-Hempel: UK, multinational •  DAW: Germany, SME •  Jotun: Norway, multinational •  ONIP: France, SME •  PPG: The Netherlands, multinational Technical secretariat + 8 working groups



Participate, contribute, long term planning

Harmonised benchmarking is the way forward! Jotun wants to contribute : •  Credit for environmental benefits (country, company, product) •  Correct benchmarks - strong competitive factor Early knowledge of new criteria - secure longterm R&D

Adequate customer communication: •  Formats •  Languages •  Labels



Pilot: Decorative Coatings - Challenges

1.  Durability

2.  Regional differences

3.  Calculation tools and databases

4.  Differences PEF and EPD



1. Durability is key

−  No common test methods today

−  Dependant on climatic conditions

−  Accelerated tests will never show real life

−  Difficult to guarantee – depends on pre-treatment and application



2. Differences between regions:

•  Importance of environmental impacts

•  Energy supply, waste handling, customer attitude −  raw materials, logistics, application and maintenance will get EU medium solutions

•  Focus on factors that are product connected −  product formulation, manufacturing



3. Calculation tools and databases

•  Weaknesses in the impact assessment – example Water resources depletion, Human toxicity cancer

•  Differences between Simapro and GABI

•  Common chemical raw material LCI databases required



4. Differences between PEF and current EPD

EPD for buildings are: •  Well establised in Green buildings standards •  Driven by EPD Programme Operators and Green Building Councils •  Added up for a building The Commission has created the PEF4Buildings to communicating a PEF in EPD format. Nevertheless:

EPD PEF Life cycle stages Cradle to gate Cradle to grave Impacts 7 environmental + 10

resources + 8 end of life 14 environmental (incl health)

Allocation of impacts RM impacts allocated to different stages

All RM impacts allocated to the first stage (A1)



Do we want an international benchmark?

One benchmark system is easiest to handle for industry ! BUT - the benchmark must be: General enough to give ONE benchmark, BUT specific enough to:

•  Distinguish between products •  Reflect the durability of the products •  Give an adequate benchmark for each region/country

AND we need proper calculation methods and weighting of impacts !



THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION !

Documents

Jotun A/S – Multinational paint company · PDF fileAnne Lill Gade / Product Environmental Footprint Nordic Workshop / 28.09.2016 Nordic Workshop - Product Environmental Footprint