LCA and carbon footprint verification

Reviewing how a company can evaluate the environmental impacts of their products or materials.

by Nicola Pichel-Juan

Many organisations in the footwear supply chain will routinely conduct carbon footprint or lifecycle assessment (LCA) studies to understand the environmental impacts of their products or materials. These analyses can be used to identify opportunities to reduce environmental impacts, to compare the impacts of different products, or to understand the impact of potential changes such as material substitutions (for example, replacing a virgin material with a recycled option) or changes to supply chains.

A carbon footprint study focuses on the global warming potential (GWP) of a product, whereas an LCA will consider a wider range of environmental impacts. The process followed to complete both types of study is essentially the same – the difference is in the results reported. A product carbon footprint will only report the GWP of a product expressed as a mass of CO2e. An LCA study will also report values for other impacts, such as acidification, water depletion, eutrophication, ecological toxicity and particulate matter.

Confidence in results

Once the carbon footprint or LCA study has been completed (whether internally or by an external organisation), the company may choose to seek an independent and impartial verification or review of the study and its findings. This would certainly be recommended if the results are shared with customers, consumers or the wider public (for instance, by publishing them on the company’s website). An independent verification or review provides the following benefits:

• gives the company confidence in the findings of the study
• creates trust with customers and consumers
• avoids accusations of ‘greenwashing’
• builds credibility in the marketplace
• improves the overall quality of the study by taking into account any feedback received.

Verification and review options

All reviews should follow recognised international standards. The relevant standard to use will be determined by the methodology used for the original study as shown in table 1.

Table 1: Relevant standards
Type of study	Methodology used to conduct the study	Standard for verification
Product carbon footprint	ISO 14067:2018 – ‘Greenhouse gases. Carbon footprint of products. Requirements and guidelines for quantification’.	ISO 14604-3:2019 – ‘Greenhouse gases. Specification with guidance for the verification and validation of greenhouse gas statements’.
Lifecycle assessment	ISO 14040:2006 – ‘Environmental Management. Life cycle assessment. Principles and framework’. ISO 14044:2006 – ‘Environmental management. Lifecycle assessment. Requirements and guidelines’.	ISO 14071:2024 – ‘Environmental management. Life cycle assessment. Critical review processes and reviewer competencies’. Additional requirements and guidelines to ISO 14044:2006.

While there are similarities between the two standards, their intended aims and outcomes are quite different as explained below.

ISO 14064-3:2019 focuses on ensuring that the data used in the study is truthful and correct, that the carbon footprint has been calculated properly, and that the resulting greenhouse gas statement is truthful. The output of the verification is an opinion statement that can then be used as evidence that the carbon footprint value has been independently verified.

An LCA critical review carried out to ISO 14071:2024 has a much greater focus on the methodology that has been used to conduct the study. The process is intended to ensure the following:

• the methods used to carry out the LCA are consistent with ISO 14040 and ISO 14044
• the methods which are selected to conduct the LCA are both scientifically and technically valid
• the data used are appropriate and reasonable in relation to the goal of the study
• the interpretations reflect the limitations identified and the goal of the study
• the study report is transparent and the details are consistent.

The outputs of the critical review process are a critical review report and a critical review statement, both of which are completed in line with the requirements detailed in ISO 14071:2024.

The report will detail any editorial, technical or general comments and queries that the reviewer may have. There will then be an opportunity for those comments to be addressed by the originating company, with their feedback to the comments also being captured in the report. This can be an iterative process with multiple rounds of reviews and comments being completed until the final report is concluded. At this point, the critical review statement will be issued to interested parties.

Publishing Data

This article was originally published on page 14 of the May 2025 issue of SATRA Bulletin.

Other articles from this issue »

---