EF v3.1 (Environmental Footprint): understanding the PEFCR-mandatory method

In 2013, the European Commission launched the "Product Environmental Footprint" (PEF) initiative to standardise product-level environmental reporting. The initiative provides category-based rules (PEFCR) and a single supporting LCIA method (EF). EF v3.0 was published in 2018; v3.1 (2022) is the latest version with many characterisation-factor updates.

EF v3.1 — 16 impact categories

EF v3.1 specifies which characterisation factors apply to which categories. Many share roots with CML but include EU-specific updates. A distinctive feature is the "robustness level" per category — Level I (proven), Level II (acceptable), Level III (needs improvement). Level III categories (e.g. eco-toxicity) are reported for scientific evaluation but not weighted into decision-making.

Normalisation and weighting

Beyond raw characterisation, EF defines normalisation (dividing each category by the EU average per-citizen yearly impact) and weighting (collapsing categories into a single score). The weighting coefficients were set by panels during the PEFCR project — climate change 21.06%, resource use (minerals & metals) 7.55%, ecotoxicity 1.92%, etc. These weights are mandatory for single-score product-level comparisons. In independent LCA studies the weighting is optional — only required when applying PEFCR.

PEFCR application

PEFCRs are published as category-specific rule sets — batteries, leather goods, fish products, dairy, T-shirts, household furniture, cosmetics packaging, and so on. Each PEFCR details: functional unit, category scope, mandatory modules, EF v3.1 application, verification requirements. A PEFCR-bound product can make a "PEF representative claim" in the EU single market — important for consumer labelling beyond green-building certification. PEFCRs for construction materials are not yet ready in most categories; EN 15804+A2 retains its territory.

Alignment with EN 15804+A2

EN 15804+A2 and EF v3.1 are close but not identical. Most of A2's 19 indicators also exist in EF, but some older characterisation factors differ (e.g. EN 15804+A2 still uses the WMO 1998 approach for ODP, while EF uses the 2014 update). The same LCA produces a different ODP result under A2 vs EF. A multi-market manufacturer should compute both A2 and EF in parallel.