Journal of Cleaner Production 93 (2015) 243e250

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Are Cradle to Cradle certified products environmentally preferable?

Analysis from an LCA approach
Pere Llorach-Massana a, b, *, Ramon Farreny a, c, Jordi Oliver-Sola

a, c
a
noma de Barcelona (UAB),
Sostenipra Research Group (SGR 01412), Institute of Environmental Sciences and Technology (ICTA), Z Building, Universitat Auto
Campus UAB, 08193 Bellaterra, Barcelona, Spain
b
ELISAVA Barcelona School of Design and Engineering, La Rambla 30-32, 08002 Barcelona, Spain
c
In

edit, In
, S.L. UAB Research Park, Eureka Building, 08193 Bellaterra, Barcelona, Spain
edit Innovacio

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The Cradle to Cradle (C2C) certification has gained popularity amongst companies as a way to distinguish
Received 19 September 2013 more environmentally friendly products. This article analyzes the C2C certification by determining how
Received in revised form successful this eco-labeling scheme is in distinguishing environmentally preferable products in order to
7 January 2015
probe if the certification informs correctly to the consumer about the environmental performance of
Accepted 13 January 2015
Available online 21 January 2015
products. Furthermore, we identify for which product types the C2C certification really results in envi-
ronmental impact reduction. First a review is done in order to detect the debilities, if any, of C2C. Sec-
ondly, the fact that C2C requirements do not tackle environmental aspects of products from a life cycle
Keywords:
Cradle to cradle (C2C)
approach, and concentrates exclusively on raw materials and end of life phases, is further analyzed in
Life cycle assessment (LCA) depth. To do so, Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) already published results for different product categories are
Ecolabelling used to determine if the life-cycle stages considered under the C2C approach coincide with the most
Product sustainability relevant stages in terms of life-cycle environmental impacts. This helps ascertain if and when C2C can be
Recycling considered an appropriate ecolabel.
It is concluded that for products with high-energy consumption during use, C2C does not guarantee
relevant environmental improvements, since it does not account for a substantial part of the product's
environmental impact. For these reasons, we argue that C2C is not always an appropriate scheme to
distinguish environmentally preferable products.
© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Consumption and Production (SCP) action plan (European

Commission, 2008a). SCP fosters a more sustainable lifestyle,
Today's society is more conscious than in the last decades about buying behavior and a better product and services use and dispose
the Earth's environmental and climate change problems (for from consumers. Under the SCP action plan, integrated product
example: deforestation, species extinction or increasing CO2 con- policies (IPP) have been promoted to standardize voluntary and
centrations). The evidence of the need for a change has influenced mandatory tools to reduce environmental degradation produced by
our societies' mentality. Consequently, the demand for environ- products and services throughout their entire life-cycle. Two of the
mentally friendly products has been increasing (Imkamp, 2000). IPP strategies (European Commission, 2012a) to achieve these ob-
Accordingly, consumers need to be able to identify and distinguish jectives, are to promote (1) standardized ecolabelling systems and
those products that are more respectful with the environment from (2) the use of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), which is a recognized
those which are not, and producers are motivated to differentiate and standardized method for quantifying environmental impacts
those environmentally preferable products. In order to be more supported by the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP,
eco-efficient, the European Commission promotes a Sustainable 2010) and the European Commission (European Commission,
2001, 2012b).
Presently there is an important necessity to inform consumers

noma de Barcelona (UAB),
about environmental aspects and one of the possible ways is by
* Corresponding author. Z Building, Universitat Auto
Campus UAB, 08193 Bellaterra, Barcelona, Spain. Tel.: þ34 93 586 86 45. using standardized, trusted, objective and credible ecolabel certif-
E-mail address: [email protected] (P. Llorach-Massana). icates. This article focuses on the Cradle to Cradle (C2C)

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.01.032
0959-6526/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
244 P. Llorach-Massana et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 93 (2015) 243e250

Certification, which is an ecolabelling scheme whose presence in of renewable energy makes energy consumption no longer relevant
the market looks set to increase in the coming years (C2C Institute, as an environmental impact for the C2C.
2011). The C2C certification is a nongovernmental ecolabel that the Finally, the third principle is to “celebrate diversity”
MBDC defines as “a multi-attribute, continuous improvement (McDonough and Braungart, 2005). C2C understands diversity as a
methodology that evaluates products across five categories of hu- cultural, economic and environmental issue, existing a strong
man and environmental health (Material health; Material reutili- relation between them. Consequently, designed systems should be
zation; Renewable energy and carbon management; water respectful with all these aspects. Then, if there is no economic
stewardship; Social fairness)” (C2C Institute, 2012a). At first glance, growth and industry is eco-efficient instead of eco-effective nature,
C2C concepts and principles seem to be a solution which may societies and cultures stability and survival could be affected
contribute to solve some of the current sustainability problems. negatively (McDonough and Braungart, 2005).
However, some literature questioned the feasibility of the ecolabel
approaches (Bakker et al., 2009; NL Agency, 2011; Reay et al., 2011; 2.2. Limitations of the C2C principles
Bjørn and Hauschild, 2012). This literature suggests that C2C cer-
tification could not be always distinguishing environmental pref- 2.2.1. Nutrients metabolism and the limits to growth
erable products. The C2C concept promotes an infinite economic and production
The general objective of this article is to determine whether C2C growth (MBDC, 2012; McDonough and Braungart, 2005), however,
certified products can be always trusted to be environmentally friendly there are some limitations regarding the biocapacity of the planet.
and if so, for which product typologies the C2C certification results in Historical development shows a relation between direct mate-
environmental impact reduction. rial consumption per inhabitant and economic growth (EEA, 2010);
To achieve the objective a bibliography review was realized to then probably, even when applying 100% closed material cycles,
detect the limitations of the C2C certification as an ecolabel. Later, virgin resources would be required to feed growth (Bjørn and
in relation with information extracted from the review, LCA results Hauschild, 2012). These virgin resources demand could be
from many different product typologies were used to determine if compensated by being more efficient and reducing material masses
the C2C certification can always distinguish more environmentally needed for production (as dematerialization concept proposes);
friendly product. nevertheless, being more efficient is not one of the proposed stra-
tegies on C2C agenda.
2. Conceptual framework As Nicolas Georgescu-Roegen (1971) stated, “The entropy law is
the taproot of economic scarcity”. Nowadays economy is a system,
This section presents the conceptual framework of the C2C which extracts low-entropy resources from nature and throw high-
principles and certification scheme and reviews its limitations as an entropy wastes into the environment. These low-entropy resources
appropriate approach for the promotion and identification of are the result of high quantity of solar energy absorbed during years
environmentally preferable products. First C2C concept is intro- (wood) or hundred million years (fossil fuels). Today entropy levels
duced to the reader and secondly different limitations related to the are increasing at a faster level than the natural capacity of ecosys-
concept are mentioned and explained. tems to absorb wastes and renew stocks of raw materials, which
The aspects concerning life-cycle stages taken into account will leads to resource scarcity (Ayres, 1998, 2004; Kallis, 2011;
be the object of further study throughout the article. Kerschner, 2010). Therefore, biological nutrient cycles may not be
compatible with infinite growth because natural regeneration
2.1. C2C concept processes are slower than the velocity of resources are consumed.

Architect William McDonough and chemist Michael Braungart 2.2.2. Biological nutrients metabolism and ecological consequences
conceived the C2C concept. C2C proposes to replace eco-efficiency C2C biological nutrient metabolism does not seem to be a so-
by eco-effectiveness (creating solutions that maximize economic lution as simple as C2C principles suggest. Some aspects,
value with no adverse ecological effects (Braungart et al., 2007)) to mentioned below, give the impression that biological nutrient
achieve the “state of zero: zero waste emissions, zero resource use metabolism is not in line with the “Celebrating Biodiversity
and zero toxicity” (Braungart et al., 2007; McDonough and Principle”.
Braungart, 2005). Introducing large quantities of biological nutrients in an
C2C is focused on three qualitative principles. To achieve zero ecosystem, could cause negative ecological effects (Reay et al., 2011;
resource use, the first principle, is based on the idea that “waste Reijnders, 2008). Reijnders (2008) defends that a high concentra-
equals food”. This concept consists of a system design where waste tion of biological nutrients will require a massive local consump-
is considered a nutrient for nature (biological nutrient metabolism) tion of oxygen, which could affect surrounding organisms.
or for other industrial processes (technical nutrient metabolism). Furthermore, higher concentrations of fixed nitrogen and phos-
The premise is that this closed cycle system does not need to be phates could change soil characteristics and cause water eutro-
eco-efficient (reduce resources use and wastes) because the more phication. These changes cloud be associated with the
waste it creates, the more nutrients are available for producing new disappearance of native species (Lal, 2004).
products (McDonough and Braungart, 2005). The materials which Another potential problem that can result from increased bio-
are classified as technological or biological nutrients are defined as logical nutrients are allelopathic substances. These are substances
upcycling materials. They are designed to close cycles and maintain secreted by organisms that have an inhibiting growing effect on
their status as a source. On the other hand, the waste that is not others. These species-specific substances may be detrimental for
reused either biologically or industrially is defined as downcycling other organisms (Reijnders, 2008). For example, organic residues
material. Downcycling “reveals poor design of a life-cycle and the coming from the processing of guayule for producing paper pulp,
related materials flows” (MBDC, 2012; McDonough and Braungart, linoleum filler, wallboard or pressed fuel logs, reduce the per-
2013). C2C aims to avoid downcycling materials and promote centage of germination of crops because of allelopathic substances
upcycling ones to achieve closed cycles. (Schloman et al., 1991).
The second principle is the use of energy from “current solar Biological nutrients cycles could be a good solution at a small
income” (McDonough and Braungart, 2005). Consequently, the use scale with limited flows of biological nutrients introduced in
 P. Llorach-Massana et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 93 (2015) 243e250 245

nature; nevertheless, numerous flows and concentrations of bio- wind energy have some potential ecological and environmental
logical nutrients may collapse the capacity of ecological systems to impacts.
assimilate them.
2.2.5. Life cycle stages considered by C2C
2.2.3. Closing cycles and current paradigms Another limitation is the fact that C2C does not seem to promote
Implementing the C2C concept in a worldwide scenario requires environmental improvements in all life-cycle stages (Bjørn and
severe social and infrastructure changes. Furthermore, these Hauschild, 2012; NL Agency, 2011). As the C2C concept defines,
changes do not automatically ensure an environmental improve- one of its principles is mainly focused on materials, namely their
ment because of transport and management requirements. Thus, extraction and recycling as technical and biological nutrients, and
the effectiveness of this concept seems not to be guaranteed. ignores some life cycle stages of products as shown in Fig. 1.
Applying C2C approaches in an economy requires important For production and transportation, C2C promotes the use of
logistic changes. For closing cycles, all products' materials must be renewables to solve environmental aspects but this requirement
recovered at the end of their life; nevertheless, under the current has some limitations as it is mentioned in the previous section
paradigm it may be easier for consumers to throw away their (“Current Solar Income Principle”). Because of these limitations C2C
wastes. For many reasons, it cannot be expected from all users to results in the omission of production, transportation and use
give back to the manufacturer all products after their use. Hence, stages; therefore, the potential environmental impacts related to
the 100% closed cycle is difficult (or even impossible) to implement. these stages are not taken into account under the C2C approach and
The full waste recovery would require an extraordinary increase certification scheme (Fig. 1). In consequence, C2C does not always
of transport and management of goods that are associated with reflect environmental issues of very relevant life-cycle stages.
higher energy consumption. The energy requirements may result in
a scenario where materials' management for closing nutrient cycles 3. Methodology
could represent a higher environmental impact than other waste
management solutions. This section presents the methodology in order to determine
whether C2C certified products can be trusted to be environmen-
2.2.4. Current solar income principle tally friendly and for which product categories.
A widespread application of the C2C concept in the current The methodology of analysis used is divided into three steps
economic system would encounter with some limitations to ach- (Fig. 2):
ieve an energetic system fully based on renewable energies.
The C2C certification demands the use of 100% renewable en- 3.1. Step 1. Product selection
ergy for products manufacturing and materials recycling in the case
of the highest standard of certification: Platinum level (C2C A set of Product Categories (mattresses, furniture, paper, foot-
Institute, 2012a), which has not been obtained by any product wear, paints, buildings, textiles, cleaning products, televisions,
yet. However, C2C certification does not really consider energy not portable computers, mobile phones and light bulbs) were identified.
associated with manufacturing (e.g. energy consumed in use). These product categories had to satisfy the following requirements:
Nowadays it is feasible to produce one product using 100% (1) they should be of everyday use, and (2) they should be included
renewable energy. However, it is impossible to produce all both in the C2C certification scheme (C2C Institute, 2012b) and in
economy-wide products using renewables as C2C authors suggest. the EU Ecolabel system (European Commission, 2013).
Our society is still far to achieve an energy system based 100% on The last criterion was included because the EU Ecolabel is a
renewable energies, as in 2008 only the 12.9% of the world's energy reference label and uses LCA studies as a base. Later, the identified
demand was supplied by renewable energies (IPCC, 2011a). There is Products Categories were classified according to their energy in-
still not clear future for renewable. Best previsions foresee that in tensity (Fig. 3). Finally, five Product Categories with varying energy
2050 80% of the global energy supply could be based on renewables intensity were selected for the study, trying to cover all energy
(NREL, 2012), however, more pessimistic projections, suggest that intensity ranges: furniture, office buildings, cleaning products,
only 15% of consumed energy will come from renewable sources in textiles and TV & Lamps.
2050 (IPCC, 2011b). Energy intensity is defined as the ratio between the product's
In addition, it cannot be considered that renewable energies energy consumption during use per year (KJ) and the product's
have zero environmental impact, as the C2C eco-effectiveness mass (kg). The parameter was used as the selection parameter
concept promotes (maximize economic value with no adverse because it was predicted that if the use stage is not taken into ac-
ecological effects). The IPCC (2011b) recognizes that, for example, count by C2C certification schemes, there could be an interesting

Fig. 1. Comparison between stages that LCA and C2C take into account accordingly to a life-cycle approach. Stages taken into account are in bold.
246 P. Llorach-Massana et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 93 (2015) 243e250

Fig. 2. Methodology scheme.

difference between those products with and without energy con- products, textiles and TV & Lamps) by using LCA studies as reference.
sumption at use, as it is suggested that energy consumption during LCA studies available for each Product Category are analyzed to
use is responsible for most of the life-cycle impacts of energy determine how their environmental impact is distributed
related products. This selection parameter was also interesting throughout their entire life-cycle, which is considered to be divided
because it contrasts the relation between energy consumption at into 5 life cycle stages: material resources, transportation, produc-
use stage (not taken into account by C2C certification schemes) and tion, use and end of life.
the amount of material used to produce a product (the main aspect This step aims to analyze if the stages with the highest envi-
that C2C tackles). ronmental impact from each Product Category are or not the same
Data used for this classification was based on technical specifi- that C2C requirements tackle: raw materials and end of life (Fig. 1).
cations of products (e.g. TVs and light bulbs technical sheets) or on If the majority of the environmental impact from one group cate-
existing sectorial-wide reports as it is the case of EU Ecolabel gory is not focused on these stages, it will be considered that C2C
product categories' bases and preliminary reports (European does not approach correctly the environmental concerns of this
Commission, 2013). The collected data was basically the products' type of products.
mass and energy consumption during use stage. The selected impact categories for the study are: abiotic deple-
Furniture, Mattress, Footwear, Paper and Paints Product Cate- tion potential (ADP), acidification potential (AP) eutrophication
gories were considered to have an energy intensity equal to 0 as potential (EP), global warming potential (GWP), ozone layer
they do not have energy consumption. For the other groups specific depletion potential (ODP) and human toxicity potential (HTP).
references were used to define their energy intensity: office The arithmetic mean of the percentage contribution of the
buildings (European Commission, 2011a); cleaning products different impact categories was done to calculate the environ-
(European Commission, 2011b; Procter & Gamble et al.,. 2006; mental impact for each product life cycle stage. For example, to
Dewaele et al., 2004); textiles (Beton et al., 2010); TVs(Sony, calculate the use stage percentage of environmental impact, the
2013; Samsung, 2013a; Philips, 2013a); portable computers contribution, of the different impact categories used during the
(ASUS, 2013; Apple, 2013a; Hp, 2013); mobiles (Samsung, 2013b; analysis, was added and divided by the number of impact cate-
Apple, 2013b; htc, 2013); and light bulbs (European Commission. gories used. This process was repeated for each product within each
2011c; Philips, 2013b). product category and their 5 life-cycle stages. In case that any of the
selected indicators was not available; the arithmetic mean was
3.2. Step 2. Analyzing LCAs for the defined product categories calculated without taking it into account. However, at least 5 in-
dicators are required for calculating the mean.
The purpose of this step is to identify which life-cycle stages Most of LCA results used were available from the European
concentrate the most relevant environmental impacts for each of Ecolabel product categories' bases (European Commission, 2013)
the selected product categories (furniture, office buildings, cleaning that include sectorial wide LCA data (Table 1). This database is

Fig. 3. Product classification taking into account energy intensity during use (kJ/kg) for one year. A logarithmic scale (10) is used to represent results. Dashed lines show the
selected Product Categories.
 P. Llorach-Massana et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 93 (2015) 243e250 247

Table 1 3.3. Step 3. Energy intensity and LCA results discussion

References used to determine the environmental impact for each Product Category
and the impact categories analyzed from each document.
This step aims to determine for which products applying C2C
LCA references for each selected product category and related impact category concepts will represent an environmental improvement under a
Product Reference Impact category life cycle approach. It is discussed if C2C can be considered a correct
category certification for all product typologies. Finally, we propose a new
Furniture lez-García et al., 2012
Gonza ADP; GWP; AP; EP; ODP; HTP approach to adequate the use of the C2C certification and avoid
Office European Commission, 2011a ADP; AP; EP; GWP; ODP transmitting misleading or confusing information to consumers in
buildings order to protect them.
Cleaning Procter & Gamble et al., 2006 AP; EP; GWP; ODP; HTP
Products* Dewaele et al., 2004 AP; EP; GWP; ODP; HTP
Textiles Beton et al., 2010 GWP, HTP and Freshwater 4. Results & discussion
Ecotoxicity for Raw materials
category & other support
information This section is divided into three steps according to the
Møller Kristensen et al., 2007 AP; EP; GWP; ODP; HTP methodology:
TV & Lamps European Commission, 2011c Tv's general environmental
impact information.
European Commission, 2008c Lamps' general environmental 4.1. Step 1. Product selection
impact information
European Lamp Companies Direct percentage of the
As Fig. 3 shows, five different groups, with differences in ma-
Federation, 2005 environmental impact
European Lamp Companies distribution for the
terial use and energy consumption are considered for this study:
Federation, 2009 different phases furniture; office buildings; cleaning products; textiles; and TV &
Lamps. The selected Product categories try to cover most of energy
*For those impact categories with more than one reference, the arithmetic mean
from the several LCA studies was done. If more than one product is analyzed in these intensity ranges. Furniture was selected as a representative group
references, mean values are used too. of products with zero energy intensity because it is the one with the
highest number of C2C certifications (C2C Institute, 2012b). Build-
ings, with high energy consumption but low energy intensity (due
considered trustful and reliable as it comes from public sources and to high mass), are represented by office buildings because LCA re-
it is supported by the European Commission (European sults from the EU Ecolabel are focused on this typology of buildings.
Commission, 2012c). Some of the available sectorial LCA studies Similarly, cleaning products consider handwashing soap and de-
analyze different subgroups of products for each EU Ecolabel tergents for dishwasher and laundry, according to the product ty-
product category. pologies included in the EU ecolabel reports. TV & Lamps category
For the case of TV & Lamps, European Commission reports does groups two products with high energy consumption and high en-
not present specific LCA results but directly the environmental ergy intensity.
impact distribution for each life cycle stage, which is automatically
taken for this assessment.
4.2. Step 2. Analyzing LCAs for defined product categories
For furniture and Cleaning products categories, LCA results
provide packaging environmental impact as a separated impact
lez-García et al., 2011; Gonza lez-García et al., 2012; Procter This section defines and analyzes the environmental impact
(Gonza
distribution for the defined product categories:
& Gamble et al., 2006; Dewaele et al., 2004). To study the most
favorable case for C2C, packaging impacts are allocated to the raw
material stage, as is where C2C requirements focus on. 4.2.1. Furniture
The LCA results for office buildings, cleaning products and TV & The most environmentally relevant impact of this group is
Lamps categories were available from the European Ecolabel associated to a phase that C2C requirements take into account:
product categories' bases (European Commission, 2013). For materials (Table 2). Values for this stage depend on materials used:
defining the distribution of environmental impacts for the furniture wood, stainless steel, aluminum, leathers, glass, plastics among
Product Category, information coming from the EU Ecolabel back- others (Gonza lez-García et al., 2012; European Commission,
ground report (European Commission, 2008b) does not provide 2008b). Selected materials also determine the environmental
LCA results; therefore, other case studies were used to support impact associated to production. According to Table 2, C2C pays
results (Table 1). To determine the environmental impact for the attention to life-cycle stages that account for 62% of the impact as
different impact categories, information was extracted from a the certification is exclusively focused on raw materials and end of
specific case study based on wooden childhood furniture life stages. For these products, it can be considered that C2C helps to
(Gonza lez-García et al., 2012). For Textiles group there was a similar reduce their environmental impact. However, the 38% of the impact
situation, consequently another document from the Danish Min- is not accounted. This percentage includes production and
istry of The Environment was used (Møller Kristensen et al., 2007). transportation.

Table 2
lez-García et al., 2012).
Environmental impact distribution (in percentage rounded to 0 or 5) for different impact categories related to Furniture group (Gonza

Impact categories (%) e values rounded to 0 or 5 Phase tackled

by C2C?
ADP AP EP GWP ODP HTP Average

Furniture Raw materials 60% 55% 65% 60% 55% 75% 60% YES
Transportation 10% 5% 10% 10% 10% 5% 10% NOT
Production 30% 40% 25% 30% 35% 20% 30% NOT
Use 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% <5% NOT
End of life 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% <5% YES
248 P. Llorach-Massana et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 93 (2015) 243e250

Table 3
Relative contribution of the different life cycles stages to the environmental impact (in percentage rounded to 0 or 5) of 1 m2 of office area during one year in London (European
Commission, 2011a). These results are used to analyze the environmental impact distribution for office buildings group.

Impact categories (%) e values rounded to 0 or 5 Phase tackled

by C2C?
ADP AP EP GWP ODP HTP Average

Office buildings Raw Materials 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% e <5% YES

Transportation & production 90% 5% 10% 10% 5% e 25% NOT
Use 10% 95% 90% 90% 95% e 75% NOT
End of life 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% e <5% YES

4.2.2. Office buildings LCA results from the European Commission report (Beton et al.,
The reference report (European Commission, 2011a) used to 2010) include the environmental impact from raw materials
analyze the LCA for office buildings group, presents the impact of extraction and production phase. However, the report just specifies
transportation and production altogether. Then, results for these the raw materials distribution for GWP, HTP and Freshwater Eco-
stages are presented together as is considered that both stages are toxicity categories. In consequence, another report from the Danish
omitted by C2C approaches. Ministry of The Environment was used (Møller Kristensen et al.,
For office buildings group, the most relevant environmental 2007).
impact is at the use stage (Table 3), associated with energy con-
sumption mainly for lighting, heating or cooling (European 4.2.5. TV & lamps
Commission, 2011a). However, this stage is not considered by the To analyze TVs' the European Commission report does not
C2C certification scheme. Then, for this group C2C tackles less than present specific LCA results (European Commission, 2008c). This
the 10% of the environmental impact. According to these results, report informs about the fact that at least 80% of the environ-
C2C does not approach correctly the environmental impact of this mental impact from TVs comes from use stage due to energy
Product Category. consumption. For light bulbs the European Commission docu-
ment does not give LCA results neither (European Commission,
2011c), however it refers to another report from the ELCF
4.2.3. Cleaning products
(European Lamp Companies Federation, 2005). This one facili-
Because of certain chemical substances that cleaning products
tates the general percentage distribution of light bulbs showing
contain, the highest environmental impact is at raw materials
that 90% of the environmental impact comes from use stage
(Procter & Gamble et al., 2006; Dewaele et al., 2004). The use stage
because of energy consumption. In contrast, raw materials and
has the second highest impact, principally due to the energy
end of life represent an irrelevant environmental impact. A sec-
required for heating water during use (European Commission,
ond report with more actualized information from the ELCF in
2011b).
2009 (European Lamp Companies Federation, 2005) maintains
Around 64% of the environmental impact (raw materials and
this impact distribution (Table 6). According to this, the envi-
end of life) is taken into account under C2C approaches. Therefore,
ronmental impact of TV & Lamps Product Category is concen-
environmental improvements could be obtained when applying
trated in a stage that is not considered within the C2C approach.
C2C requirements to this Product Category. Nevertheless these
For products using electricity, such as in this group, it should be
improvements are limited, as C2C fails to catch the other 36% of the
taken into account that there may be a variability of LCA results
environmental impact (transportation, production and use stages).
depending on the energy mix used for the analysis (Ecoinvent,
To obtain LCA results from cleaning products, reference reports
2009). Fox example, Norway energy mix at consumer produces
are those ones used by the European Commission (European
96% less CO2 equivalent emissions per MJ generated than the
Commission, 2011b) to define the bases of the EU Ecolabel for
energy mix from Portugal because of the use of hydroelectric
cleaning products (Procter & Gamble et al., 2006; Dewaele et al.,
energy (Ecoinvent, 2009). Consequently, an energy mix highly
2004) (Table 4).
based on renewable resources may reduce the environmental
impact of the use stage.
4.2.4. Textiles Nevertheless, assuming that a renewable energy mix is used,
Within this Product Category, the use stage is the one with the results may not be affected. Use stage will probably continue being
highest environmental impact (62%) (Table 5). The second most the stage with the highest environmental impact. For example, if a
relevant environmental impact is at raw material sources (21%). lamp lifespan is 15 years, during this period the lamp will be
Values for this stage vary according to the selected natural or consuming energy. Then, despite it is using green energy, which
synthetic fibers and coloring agents (Beton et al., 2010). C2C cares also have an environmental impact associated, this energy will be
for life-cycle stages responsible for the 28% of the environmental the most important input of this product in its lifecycle. Mentioned
impact (raw material plus end of life), therefore does not approach aspects could lead to a sensitivity analysis; however, it is out of the
the whole environmental impact of the product. scope of the paper.

Table 4
Environmental impact categories distribution (in percentage rounded to 0 or 5) cleaning products category (Procter & Gamble et al., 2006; Dewaele et al., 2004).

Impact categories (%) e values rounded to 0 or 5 Phase tackled by C2C?

ADP AP EP GWP ODP HTP Average

Cleaning products Raw materials e 70% 30% 55% 60% 60% 55% YES
Transportation e 15% 0% 5% 25% 5% 10% NOT
Production e 5% 25% 5% 0% 5% 5% NOT
Use e 10% 30% 20% 15% 25% 20% NOT
End of life e 0% 25% 15% 0% 5% 10% YES
 P. Llorach-Massana et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 93 (2015) 243e250 249

Table 5
Environmental impact distribution for different impact categories related to Textiles group. Values are given in percentage and rounded to 0 or5 (Møller Kristensen et al., 2007).

Impact categories (%) e values rounded to 0 or 5 Phase tackled

by C2C?
ADP AP EP GWP ODP HTP Average

Textiles Raw materials e 15% 20% 10% 30% 30% 20% YES
Transportation e 0% 0% 0% 0% 5% <5% NOT
Production e 10% 10% 10% 10% 5% 10% NOT
Use e 75% 70% 80% 25% 60% 60% NOT
End of life e 0% 0% 0% 34% 0% 5% YES

4.3. Step 3. Energy intensity and LCA results discussion 5. Conclusions

According to the previous results, it seems that there is a trend The analysis done showed that:
which shows that a higher energy intensity means a higher envi-
ronmental impact related to use stage. However, office buildings  The C2C does not tackle environmental aspects of products from
Product Category does not fit to this trend. The energy intensity of a life-cycle approach. Its requirements focus exclusively on raw
this group should be higher than textiles and cleaning products to materials and end of life stages; therefore, it gives partial envi-
maintain the relationship. However, it must be taken into account ronmental solutions, which do not always adapt correctly to the
that to calculate material intensity from buildings, the energy con- life-cycle distribution of environmental impacts for products.
sumption per year and the whole mass of the building were used. For example, for office buildings and TV & Lamps Product Cat-
Therefore if it was only used the proportional mass relative to one egories, the 90% of their environmental impact is concentrated
year of life of the building the energy intensity would be higher. If our on transportation, production and use stages. Consequently, C2C
predictions were correct, energy intensity might be one of the in- does not take into account the most relevant environmental
dicators to determine if a product could be correctly certified by C2C. impact of these products. Hence, C2C requirements have some
Secondly, it was seen that for office buildings, textiles and TV & limitations to guarantee the global environmental performance
Lamps categories, with high environmental impact on use stage, of such product categories. Then, C2C certification cannot be
C2C certification omits the most environmentally unfriendly stages considered an ecollabelling scheme able to distinguish all types
because it focuses on raw materials and end of life stages. Then it of environmentally preferable products.
cannot be considered that these products are really more envi-  There is a direct relationship between energy consumption
ronmentally friendly when are certified by C2C, since the life cycle during use and the increase of the global environmental
stages that concentrate most of the environmental impact are not impact for almost all impact categories. It is suggested that C2C
considered. certification, which does not take into account energy in-
However, it must be taken into account that C2C works well on tensity, may not be appropriate for products with high energy
materials and human toxicity frameworks (MBDC, 2012; McDonough intensity as it does not tackle the most relevant environmental
and Braungart, 2013). For example, electronic devices (light bulbs, TVs impacts for these products (that is, the use stage). However,
or computers) use many hazardous materials. Despite these products this connection should be further analyzed. For example, the
have a low impact related to materials phase are commonly used, so use of an energy mix, which uses high percentage of renew-
lots of these products are present in our society. Then, the concen- ables, could reduce the environmental impact of use stage.
tration of hazardous substances increases. Consequently, at planetary Using other parameters, as the carbon footprint, to classify
scale their impact could affect negatively to ecosystems. Therefore, products could be interesting for further research but may lead
C2C approach could help to produce less toxic products what could to similar conclusions.
lead, for example, to the conservation of biodiversity and freshwater  The C2C certification requirements are adequate to develop
resources quality. Then, C2C could be useful to distinguish products products made of more environmentally friendly materials.
produced with materials of low toxicity. Thus, the certification could be used as a tool to reduce the
Finally, and according to last paragraph the C2C certification has presence of hazardous materials in our society and ecosystems
a great potential for the development and selection of more envi- as well as to distinguish non-hazardous products. However, it
ronmentally friendly materials. Nevertheless, the fact that the fails in lacking a holistic life cycle approach despite the circular
certification does not always consider the most important envi- approach given. Using a life-cycle approach could be a good
ronmental aspects of products means that consumers cannot trust solution to adapt certification requirements for each type of
C2C certified products to be environmentally desirable. products, according to those specific issues that produce most of
C2C certifies the application of good strategies in the material its environmental impact. Therefore, the certification should
management, but this is only a part of the life cycle of a product, and include environmental requirements for all life cycle stages.
not always the most relevant.  Further research could expand the range of products typologies
analyzed and contrast products under other certifications with
Table 6 products certified by C2C.
Percentage environmental distribution of lamps for the different life cycle stages  The number of environmental private certifications is
(European Lamp Companies Federation, 2009).
increasing. Adding a minimum control on these certifications
Average Phase tackled from the government (e.g. promoting supervision policies by
by C2C? independent third parties) would be interesting to ensure
TV & lamps environmental Raw materials 4% YES transparent and truthful certificates.
impact distribution Transportation 3% NOT  Finally, we suggest that C2C should include eco-efficiency stra-
Production 5% NOT
tegies (such as dematerialization; minimize energy consump-
Use 90% NOT
End of life 2% YES tion) to reduce environmental impacts, considering that any
250 P. Llorach-Massana et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 93 (2015) 243e250

human activity has an impact on nature, including renewables, European Commission, 2012c. Criteria Development and Revision. http://ec.europa.
eu/environment/ecolabel/criteria-development-and-revision.html (accessed
and taking into account the planetary limits for growth.
23.04.13.).
European Commission, 2013. Eu Ecolabel Product Groups and Criteria. http://ec.
Acknowledgments europa.eu/environment/ecolabel/products-groups-and-criteria.html (accessed
20.04.13.).
Gonz alez-García, García Lozano, S.,R., Moreira, M.T., Gabarrell, X., Rieradevall i
We would like to acknowledge Dr. Gara Villalba for her help and Pons, J., Feijoo, G., Murphy, R.J., 2012. Eco-innovation of a wooden childhood
constructive comments that helped to improve this manuscript. furniture set: an example of environmental solutions in the wood sector. Sci.
Thanks also to two anonymous reviewers that have contributed to Total Environ. 426 (0), 318e326.
Gonz alez-García, S., Gasol, C.M., Lozano, R.G., Moreira, M.T., Gabarrell, X., Rier-
this work with their critical review. adevall i Pons, J., Feijoo, G., 2011. Assessing the global warming potential of
wooden products from the furniture sector to improve their ecodesign. Sci.
References Total Environ. 410e411, 16e25.
Hp, 2013. Home & Office: Laptops. http://www.shopping.hp.com/en_US/home-
office/-/products/Laptops/Laptops (accessed 24.05.13.).
Apple, 2013a. MacBoock Pro: Tech Specs. http://www.apple.com/macbook-pro/
htc, 2013. Smartphones. http://www.htc.com/us/smartphones/ (accessed 24.05.13.).
specs-retina/ (accessed 23.05.13.).
Imkamp, H., 2000. The interest of consumers in ecological product information is
Apple, 2013b. iPhione Tech Specs. http://www.apple.com/iphone/specs.html
growing e evidence from two German Surveys. J. Consumer Policy 23 (2),
(accessed 24.05.13.).
193e202.
ASUS, 2013. Notebooks and Ultrabooks. http://www.asus.com/Notebooks_
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), 2011a. Potential of Renewable
Ultrabooks/ (accessed 23.05.13.).
Energy Outlined in Report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Ayres, R.U., 1998. Eco-thermodynamics: economics and the second law. Ecol. Econ.
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), 2011b. In: Edenhofer, O., Pichs-
26 (2), 189e209.
Madruga, R., Sokona, Y., Seyboth, K., Matschoss, P., Kadner, S., Zwickel, T.,
Ayres, R.U., 2004. Thermodynamics and economics, overview. In: Cutler (Ed.),
Eickemeier, P., Hansen, G., Schlo €mer, S., von Stechow, C. (Eds.), Renewable Energy
Encyclopedia of Energy. Elsevier, New York.
Sources and Climate Change Mitigation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
Bakker, C.A., Wever, R., Teoh, C., De Clercq, S., 2009. Designing cradle-to-cradle
United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. Prepared by Working Group III of the
products: a reality check. Int. J. Sustain. Eng. 3 (1), 2e8.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 1075 pp. (Chapter 7 & 9).
Beton, A., Dias, D., Farrant, L., Gibon, T., Guern, Y.L., 2010. In: Environment (Ed.),
Kallis, G., 2011. In defence of degrowth. Ecol. Econ. 70 (5), 873e880.
Environmental Improvement Potential of Textiles (IMPRO-Textiles). European
Kerschner, C., 2010. Economic de-growth vs. steady-state economy. J. Clean. Prod. 18
Commission.
(6), 544e551.
Bjørn, A., Hauschild, M.Z., 2012. Absolute versus relative environmental sustain-
Lal, R., 2004. Soil carbon sequestration to mitigate climate change. Geoderma 123
ability. J. Indust. Ecol. 12.
(1e2), 1e22.
Braungart, M., McDonough, W., Bollinger, A., 2007. Cradle-to-cradle design: creating
MBDC (McDonough Braungart Design Chemistry), 2012. In: Cradle to Cradle
healthy emissions e a strategy for eco-effective product and system design.
Certified CM Product Standard - Version 3.0. Cradle to Cradle Products Institute.
J. Clean. Prod. 15 (13e14), 1337e1348.
G. Written in collaboration with Environmental Protection Encouragement
C2C Institute (Cradle to Cradle Products Innovation Institute), 2011. The Cradle to
Agency.
Cradle Products Innovation Institute at the Clinton Global Initiative. http://
McDonough, W., Braungart, M., 2005. In: Kappel, G.P.V. (Ed.), Cradle to Cradle (De la
c2ccertified.org/news/article/clinton_global_initiative (accessed 28.04.13.).
cuna a la cuna) Redisen ~ ando la forma en que ahacemos las cosas. Mc GrawHill
C2C Institute (Cradle to Cradle Products Innovation Institute), 2012a. Cradle to
first English edition 2003 ed.
Cradle Certification. http://c2ccertified.org/ (accessed 28.04.13.).
McDonough, W., Braungart, M., 2013. The Upcycle: beyond Sustainability -
C2C Institute (Cradle to Cradle Products Innovation Institute), 2012b. Cradle to
Designing for Abundance, first ed. Charles Melcher.
Cradle Certified Products. http://c2ccertified.org/products/registry (accessed
Møller Kristensen, F., Henrik Knudsen, H., Fred Larsen, H., Wenze, H., Hansen, J.,
27.04.13.).
Ellebæk Laursen, S., 2007. EDIPTEX e Environmental Assessment of Textiles.
Dewaele, J., Schowanek, D., Pant, R., Jaspers, V., Hoof, G.V., Baron, C., 2004. In:
Danish Ministry of the Environment, Denmark.
Comparative Life Cycle Assessment Study 3 Products for Kitchen Surfaces
NL Agency, Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment, 2011. Usability of Life
tergence, de
(French Study). d. l. e. Association Française des Industries de la de
Cycle Assessment for Cradle to Cradle Purposes (Agentschap NL).

ne et des produits d'hygie
l'hygie
ne industrielle.
NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory), 2012. In: Hand, M.M., Baldwin, S.,
Ecoinvent, 2009. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories. Ecoinvent Database v3.0.
DeMeo, E., Reilly, J.M., Mai, T., Arent, D., Porro, G., Meshek, M., Sandor, D. (Eds.),
Technical report. http://www.ecoinvent.ch/ (accessed March 2014).
Renewable Electricity Futures Study. National Renewable Energy Laboratory,
EEA (European Environment Agency), 2010. In: The European Environment: State
Golden, CO, 4 vols. NREL/TP-6A20-52409.
and Outlook 2010dMaterial Resources and Waste. EEA, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Philips, 2013a. Products: Sound and Visions - Televisions. http://www.usa.philips.
European Lamp Companies Federation, 2005. Environmental Aspects of Lamps, first
com/c/televisions-3000-series/30137/cat/en/#filterState0¼3000_SERIES_FLAT_
ed. (Brussels).
TV_SE_US_CONSUMER%3Dtrue;compareState0¼id0%3D%2Cid1%3D%2Cid2%3D
European Lamp Companies Federation, 2009. Environmental Aspects of Lamps,
%2CcompareView%3Dfalse;productState0¼page%3D1%2Csort%3Dsubcat_asc_
second ed. (Second Publication, Brussels).
group (accessed 24.05.13.).
European Commission, 2001. Green Paper on Integrated Product Policy
Philips, 2013b. Product Catalog: Lamps. http://www.ecat.lighting.philips.es/l/
(Luxembourg).
lamparas-profesionales/24034/cat/ (accessed 23.05.13.).
European Commission, 2008a. In: Communication from the Commission to the
Procter & Gamble, B. I. Center, C. P. S. -Environmental, 2006. In: F.M.D. Organisation
European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Com-
(Ed.), Comparative Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Ariel “Actif a
froid” (2006), a
mittee and the Committee of the Regions: on the Sustainable Consumption and
laundry detergent that allows to wash at colder wash temperatures, with
Production and Sustainable Industrial Policy. E. Commission, Brussels, p. 12.
previous Ariel laundry detergents (1998, 2001).
European Commission, 2008b. In: Environment (Ed.), Furniture Background Prod-
Reay, S.D., McCool, J.P., Withell, A., 2011. Exploring the feasibility of Cradle to Cradle
uct Report. European Commission, DG Environment-G2, B-1049, Bruxelles.
(Product) design: perspectives from New Zealand Scientists. J. Sustain. Dev. 4.
European Commission, 2008c. In: European Commission (Ed.), Revising the Ecola-
Reijnders, L., 2008. Are emissions or wastes consisting of biological nutrients good
bel Criteria for Televisions e Final Report. DG Environment.
or healthy? J. Clean. Prod. 16 (10), 1138e1141.
European Commission, 2011a. In: Technical Background Study in Support of the
Samsung, 2013a. TVs. http://www.samsung.com/us/video/tvs (accessed 24.05.13.).
Development of the EU Ecolabel and GPP Criteria for Office Buildings. C. n.
Samsung, 2013b. Cell Phones. http://www.samsung.com/us/mobile/cell-phones
151935-2010A08-ES.
(accessed 24.05.13.).
European Commission, 2011b. In: Green Public Procurement Cleaning Products and
Schloman Jr., W.W., Hilton, A.S., McGrady, J.J., 1991. Allelopathic response of vege-
Services. European Commission, DG Environment. Technical Background Report.
tables to guayule residue. Bioresour. Technol. 35 (2), 191e196.
European Commission, 2011c. In: European Commission (Ed.), Green Public Pro-
Sony, 2013. TV and Home Entertainment. http://store.sony.com/c/TVs-LED-LCD-3D-
curement Indoor Lighting Technical Background Report. DG Environment-C1,
TV/en/c/S_Televisions?SR¼nav:electronics:tv_home_video:sony_hdtv:shop_
BU 9, 1160 Brussels.
compare:ss (accessed 24.05.13.).
European Commission, 2012a. Integrated Product Policy (IPP). http://ec.europa.eu/
UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme), 2010. The Life Cycle Initiative:
environment/ipp/ (accessed 15.04.13.).
International Life Cycle Partnerships for a Sustainable World. http://lcinitiative.
European Commission, 2012b. European Platform on Life Cycle Assessment (LCA).
unep.fr/ (accessed 25.04.13.).
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ipp/lca.htm (accessed 15.03.13.).