FAQs

PlasticsEurope’s intention is to place robust data in the public domain for use in product life-cycle studies. Such data must be representative in terms of technological, geographical, and time-related scope. As association of plastics manufacturers in Europe, the scope of PlasticsEurope is the current European production of polymers and precursors.

This leaves the question why a technology mix is reported. When sourcing polymers (or any other commodity material for that matter), specifiers and purchasers effectively draw on a »pool«, i.e. a variety of suppliers. This is because they may purchase from traders and/or switch suppliers at any time, e.g. based on pricing. Further, plastics are compound materials: aside from the polymers as such, various additives are introduced in the compounding and conversion steps which leads to a further »blending« of supply chains. As a consequence, when conducting product life cycle assessment studies for plastics applications, a distinction between specific polymer producers is usually neither possible nor relevant. Just like an electricity mix based on a variety of fuels is relevant for consumers connected to the grid, PlasticsEurope Eco-profiles are held to the best representation of the European polymer production technology mix.

Aside from representativeness considerations, reporting industry averages also enables PlasticsEurope to meet the external demand for such information, while at the same time respecting the companies’ need for confidentiality of their own data on quantities of energy and raw materials used in their processes.

Furthermore, PlasticsEurope encourages environmental improvements in manufacturing through benchmarking. One of the objectives of the PlasticsEurope Eco-profile programme is to facilitate internal company benchmarking that can lead to a reduction in environmental impact. Eco-profiles enable member companies to compare themselves against the European average and to target environmental improvements against a standard ‘benchmark’.

[PlasticsEurope Eco-profile Methodology Document: sections 1.1.1, 2.3.2]

While a unit process database structure may offer transparency and versatility, PlasticsEurope had good reasons for deciding against this approach. On the one hand, transparency is limited by confidentiality to protect industry's business interests, because the unit process approach may disclose product formulations and other sensitive information. On the other hand, versatility is limited by industrial reality, because the free recombination of processes along a production or supply chain is actually neither feasible nor desirable: unit processes based on horizontal averages from different technologies may show unrealistic input and output flows; sites located in different regions or operating incompatible technologies may not be connected into practicable supply chains; and integrated production sites offer synergies that are not represented by stringing together unit processes.

[PlasticsEurope Eco-profile Methodology Document: sections 3.1.4, 3.7.1]

The scope of PlasticsEurope as an association is the production of polymers and reactive precursors, not the compounding and conversion into plastics and (semi) fabricated products. While the PlasticsEurope Eco-profiles Methodology does allow for conversion or recycling processes to be examined, this requires the initiative of other federations, such as the European Plastics Converters (EuPC) and the European Plastics Recyclers (EuPR).

[PlasticsEurope Eco-profile Methodology Document: section 2.3.2]

PlasticsEurope’s Eco-profiles represent European polymer production averages. If you need data for a different region, please check out the respective industry federation for applicable programmes and datasets, for instance ACC Plastics Division for the US and PACIA for Australia. Due to the integrated nature of production systems in each region, transferring life cycle inventory data is not as straightforward as, for instance, swapping out electricity mixes and hence should be handled with utmost care.

[PlasticsEurope Eco-profile Methodology Document: sections 1.2.2, 3.1.4, 3.3.6]

No, you do not need to add the figures. Each Eco-profile is a stand-alone dataset comprising the whole chain up to the reported product, a so-called »cradle-to-gate« approach.

[PlasticsEurope Eco-profile Methodology Document: section 3.1.2]

Each Eco-profile LCI dataset has its own system boundary. In some cases, polymer producers are fully integrated, i.e. produce the monomer or precursors as well, in other cases, they purchase the monomer or precursors from third parties which also supply to other users. As a consequence, the technology mix changes when comparing polymer and monomer. It is important to realise that depending on where the system boundaries are set in the interconnected chemical and plastics industry with its various technologies and supply chains, the results will differ.

No. In order to compare the performance of different materials, the whole life cycle and the effects of relevant life cycle parameters must be considered in view of a defined functional unit. Comparisons cannot be made at the level of polymers, because polymers can be used in very different applications. Since Eco-profiles refer to a quantity of 1 kg the given polymer, they are not functionally equivalent, but rather building blocks for life cycle studies.

[PlasticsEurope Eco-profile Methodology Document: section 5.2.5]

In many cases it may be possible to construct a viable life cycle inventory proxy from building blocks of upstream processes and expert estimates. Due to the different and very specific production technologies, however, this requires a lot of expertise and experience. Please contact the Programme Manager under the Eco-profile hotline for more information.

[PlasticsEurope Eco-profile Methodology Document: section 3.1.4]

PlasticsEurope has an interest to provide stakeholders with transparent and verifiable Eco-profile datasets. To this aim, the profile programme management has been installed involving several independent parties: the methodology is transparently defined, peer reviewed and publicly available; the data collection and calculations are conducted by independent external consultants; the procedures and results are internally reviewed by a multidisciplinary expert group involving several member companies (competing on markets); and the data, procedures, and results are externally reviewed by the independent programme manager in accordance with best practices, such as the ILCD Handbook.

[PlasticsEurope Eco-profile Methodology Document: sections 1.1, 1.2]

During data collection and modelling the independent external consultant will conduct plausibility and completeness checks, for instance, by calculating mass and energy balances. In addition, the independent external reviewer will verify the data quality indicators, such as technological, temporal, and geographical representativeness, completeness, precision, and methodological consistency in accordance with best practices, such as the ILCD Handbook.

[PlasticsEurope Eco-profile Methodology Document: sections 3.3, 5.1]

There is not a single (e.g. European average) electricity mix underpinning Eco-profiles. Rather, each production site participating in the data collection will be modelled with its own specific national grid mix or individual on-site electricity supply. The results from each site will be weighed with the respective production tonnage, then figured into the European polymer production average. As a consequence, for any given Eco-profile the resulting tonnage-weighed average depends on the locations of the participating sites. This appropriately reflects industrial production patterns.

[PlasticsEurope Eco-profile Methodology Document: sections 3.3.6, 5.1]

Yes, the Eco-profile methodology is aligned with ISO standards 14040–44, 14025 and the ILCD Handbook of the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre.

[PlasticsEurope Eco-profile Methodology Document: section 1.6]

Where allocation is not avoidable, the PlasticsEurope Eco-profile Methodology stipulates a fundamental allocation philosophy, aimed at informed and transparent choices which represent the industrial reality. Ultimately, however, this remains a subjective decision. Therefore the chosen allocation method and its rationale shall be recorded in the Eco-profile report, supported by a sensitivity analysis to illustrate the variability in results where necessary.

[PlasticsEurope Eco-profile Methodology Document: section 3.7.2]

Feedstock energy is a concept in addition to the input/output tables of the Life Cycle Inventory methodology; it is meant to facilitate the interpretation of resource use. Since the backbone of polymers is generally hydrocarbon chains, the plastics industry defines feedstock energy as the portion of resource input that ends up in the polymer rather than being used as a fuel. Feedstock energy is given as the energy equivalent of these organic input materials, which can be either non-renewable (fossil) or renewable (biogenic). It is important to note that the concept can be applied to other materials and industries in a similar way, by assigning an energy equivalent to, for instance, minerals and metals.

[PlasticsEurope Eco-profile Methodology Document: section 3.8.3]

PlasticsEurope’s Eco-profiles and EPDs use a selection of validated life cycle impact categories which are sufficiently reliable to support business decisions: for example, ADP, GWP, AP, EP, ODP, POCP. The calculation of each is based on specific scientific guidelines and assessment factors and fully in line with best practices, such as the ILCD Handbook.

[PlasticsEurope Eco-profile Methodology Document: sections 4.1, 4.2]

Differences in impact indicators, in particular for categories sensitive to trace substances, are often due to the degree of detail in the underlying LCI data. Eco-profile datasets from 2005 and earlier provided a somewhat lower level of detail, e.g. reporting unspecified substance groups. Commercial databases, when importing Eco-profiles, may have made assumptions to close data gaps. Especially, impact categories such as toxicity are very sensitive to such inventory items. Further to the above, the electricity grid mixes used may be different. Whereas Eco-profiles appropriately use a weighted average, e.g. French plastics production with French electricity, some commercial databases use a European average grid mix. This may distort the results somewhat, especially for toxicity indicators sensitive to trace pollutants from lignite-fired power plants. Consequently, PlasticsEurope is working towards harmonised background datasets for all Eco-profile datasets to enhance consistency and to create a level playing field.

Due to innovation and continuous improvement of production technologies in the plastics industry, the key performance indicators reflect the changes in the years since the previous update. It is important to note that the Eco-profile methodology remains compatible with earlier editions. All changes will be commented upon in the Eco-profile reports.

[PlasticsEurope Eco-profile Methodology Document: sections 5.1.3, 5.2.2]

The Programme Manager and qualified consultants intermittently check the Eco-profile database for necessary updates. The criteria are age of dataset, data quality, and request for updates. In any case, the validation of an Eco-profile expires after 3 years – after this period, a revalidation review shall be conducted. Note that the expected temporal validity of an Eco-profile, based on progress in technology and investment, cycles can be much longer, for example 10 years. Hence Eco-profiles may be revalidated without major changes where the current technology mix is still represented.

[PlasticsEurope Eco-profile Methodology Document: section 1.4.3]

If you are an experienced LCA practitioner and capable of managing large-scale data collection campaigns, in order to be recognised as an eligible service provider you will need to undergo a pre-qualification. Please contact the Programme Manager under the Eco-profile hotline for more information.

[PlasticsEurope Eco-profile Methodology Document: sections 1.3.2, 5.1.2]