Building product manufacturers are increasingly navigating a market where sustainability is a key differentiator. Stakeholders including architects, builders, and developers are increasingly designing low carbon (and even net zero buildings), and hence now demand transparency about product environmental impacts. In practice, this means that manufacturers designing environmentally friendly products are expected to back up their claims with data.

An Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) provides a standardised way to do this. EPDs essentially serve as a “report card” or “nutrition label” for a product’s environmental footprint, summarising the impacts quantified via a life-cycle assessment (LCA).

With green building certifications like LEED, BREEAM, IGBC, etc. rewarding the use of products with EPDs, manufacturers see a clear business case: products with verified EPDs can earn clients points toward certifications and are often favored in procurement. Moreover, quantifying environmental impacts in an EPD shows a commitment to sustainability, enhancing a company’s brand and even attracting eco-conscious investors. In some cases, the EPD development process itself drives operational improvements and cost savings.

Saint-Gobain in India notes that buyers and specifiers “increasingly demand transparency” on environmental impact, pushing manufacturers to adopt EPDs as a credible disclosure tool. Indian manufacturers pursue EPDs not only to align with domestic green building movements but also to meet stringent carbon regulations in export markets. The demand stems from project clients seeking sustainable materials, regulatory shifts toward low-carbon requirements, and corporate sustainability goals.

Regulatory shifts are making EPDs essential rather than optional. In the EU, the Green Deal and Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) require manufacturers to quantify product carbon footprints, especially for exports. The UK’s proposed "Part Z" legislation emphasises embodied carbon reporting, reinforcing the need for transparent LCA data. In the UAE and Middle East, major infrastructure projects are mandating EPDs for material selection. Additionally, governments and corporations increasingly link EPD-backed data to procurement preferences, making environmental transparency a business imperative.

As a result, manufacturers are investing in LCA expertise and tools to “bring an EPD to life” - translating their product’s raw materials, energy use, and emissions into a verified declaration that meets customer expectations while future-proofing against evolving regulations.

Before diving into the step-by-step process of conducting a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and creating an Environmental Product Declaration (EPD), it’s essential to establish a baseline understanding of a few fundamental concepts. These five key concepts form the backbone of the LCA/EPD process, ensuring that the analysis is consistent, comparable, and credible. By grasping these foundations, practitioners can better navigate the LCA journey and adhere to the standards required for a robust EPD.

A programme operator is an independent organisation that administers and supervises EPD programs (for example, EPD International or BRE in the UK). These operators are responsible for managing the entire EPD process – from developing or approving the PCR used, to overseeing third-party verification, and finally to registering and publishing the completed EPD. In essence, the programme operator acts as the gatekeeper of quality and credibility for EPDs. They ensure each EPD complies with ISO 14025 (the standard for Type III environmental declarations) and the relevant PCR, and they only publish EPDs that have been independently verified for accuracy. Working with an established programme operator gives stakeholders confidence that an EPD has been through rigorous checks and adheres to international norms.

PCRs are standardised guidelines that specify how to conduct an LCA for a particular product group. They establish consistent calculation rules, data requirements, impact categories, and reporting formats for products within the same category. Following a relevant PCR ensures that any EPD for a product type is developed using the same methodology as others in that category, which in turn guarantees that EPD results are comparable across different manufacturers.

In LCA, the functional unit is the quantified description of the product’s function or service against which all impacts are measured. It provides a reference point so that all data collected (inputs and outputs) are normalised to a common basis. By defining what exactly is being measured (e.g. “1 square meter of flooring for 1 year of use” or “one 500-ml beverage bottle serving its contents”), the functional unit ensures that LCA results are comparable. When comparing different products or scenarios, using an equivalent functional unit is critical so that each alternative fulfills the same function, enabling an apples-to-apples comparison of environmental impacts.

The “system boundary” in an LCA defines which life cycle stages and processes are included in the study. Two common boundary conditions are cradle-to-gate and cradle-to-grave. A cradle-to-gate assessment covers the product’s life from resource extraction (the “cradle”) up to the point it leaves the factory (the “gate”), typically encompassing raw material acquisition and production stages. This boundary is often used in industries where materials are supplied to manufacturers for further processing or integration into larger products.

In contrast, a cradle-to-grave assessment spans the product’s entire life cycle from cradle all the way through customer use and end-of-life disposal (the “grave”), aiming to include all stages and processes in the product’s life.

Depending on the study scope, system boundaries can also extend beyond cradle-to-grave, incorporating cradle-to-cradle approaches that emphasize material recovery and reuse, minimising waste and environmental impact.

Every product goes through several distinct phases in its life cycle, each of which can be assessed for environmental impact. These typically include raw material extraction, manufacturing (and processing), distribution and transportation, the use phase, and end-of-life (which could involve disposal, recycling, or reuse).

Each life cycle stage can contribute different types and magnitudes of impacts. For instance, material extraction and production might contribute heavily to carbon emissions and resource depletion, the use phase might bring energy consumption or emissions during operation, and the end-of-life stage can add impacts from waste processing or recycling. In the context of EPDs, impacts are often reported broken down by life cycle stage or module (especially in construction product EPDs following standards like EN 15804).

This stage-by-stage breakdown is valuable because it highlights when in a product’s life cycle the most significant environmental impacts occur, helping manufacturers and users identify improvement opportunities at specific stages.

Understanding these key concepts provides a solid foundation for navigating the LCA-to-EPD journey. With this knowledge in place, we can now explore the step-by-step process of conducting an LCA and ultimately publishing an EPD that meets industry standards and regulatory expectations.

The process of developing an Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) from a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is highly structured and requires a thorough understanding of key concepts. A well-defined approach ensures consistency, accuracy, and compliance with international standards such as ISO 14040, ISO 14044, and ISO 14025. The following steps outline the essential phases in this journey, providing a roadmap to efficiently translate product data into a credible, third-party verified EPD.

Every Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) begins with a well-defined goal and audience definition, establishing the foundation for a credible analysis. Practitioners must specify the purpose of the LCA study and its intended audience—whether it’s internal R&D teams, regulators, or customers. This choice impacts methodology, review requirements, and whether an external verification is needed. For example, if the study supports comparative assertions for public communication, ISO standards mandate an independent review for fairness and scientific rigor. Clearly defining the goal and audience upfront ensures the LCA aligns with these expectations.

The scope definition sets the system boundaries and functional unit, which determine what is included in the study. The functional unit quantifies the product’s function and serves as the reference for all data normalisation. For example, it could be “1 square meter of installed roofing material with a 50-year service life” or “1 kg of product at the factory gate.”

The system boundaries define the life-cycle stages considered—ranging from cradle-to-gate (raw material extraction through manufacturing) to cradle-to-grave (including use and end-of-life disposal). Construction product EPDs often follow EN 15804, which specifies different lifecycle modules such as A1-A3 (production), A4-A5 (construction), B (use), and C (end-of-life). Assumptions about boundaries—such as use scenarios or disposal methods—must be clearly documented to ensure transparency.

An early priority in LCA planning is PCR and Program Operator selection. Product Category Rules (PCRs) act as standardised LCA methodologies for specific product types, ensuring consistency and comparability across EPDs. A PCR specifies the system boundaries, required impact categories, allocation rules, and reporting conventions. Selecting the right PCR and engaging with an EPD Program Operator (PO) early in the process is essential. The Program Operator administers the EPD process, ensures compliance with ISO 14025, and verifies that the declaration meets industry standards. Early engagement with the PO helps prevent costly revisions and ensures alignment with the appropriate PCR. Many best-practice guides recommend selecting the EPD program and PCR as the first steps in any EPD project.

By clearly defining the goal, audience, scope, system boundaries, functional unit, and PCR alignment, LCA practitioners create a structured roadmap, ensuring compliance with ISO 14040/14044 and ISO 14025.

Once the goal and scope are defined, the next phase is data collection for the life-cycle inventory (LCI). This step involves gathering detailed information on all the inputs and outputs associated with the product system, as defined by the system boundaries. In practice, that means collecting data on materials, energy use, emissions, and waste for every relevant process. A best practice is to work closely with product manufacturers and suppliers to obtain measured or recorded data (often called primary data) for processes under their control – this improves accuracy and representativeness. According to EPD development guides, manufacturers should start by collecting all information needed for the LCI, including raw material inputs, resource consumption, and waste generation for the product​. The exact data requirements will be guided by the PCR and system boundaries (for example, a cradle-to-gate study will focus on production data, whereas a cradle-to-grave study also needs use-phase and disposal data).

Below are key categories of data to collect:

Collecting high-quality data is often the most time-consuming part of an LCA, but it is critical for accuracy. Manufacturers should use site-specific measurements wherever possible (for example, actual utility bills for energy, or purchasing records for material amounts). When primary data isn’t available for certain upstream processes, reliable secondary data from LCA databases or literature can be used (e.g. industry-average data for raw material production, or regional grid electricity mixes). In all cases, the data’s quality (technological representativeness, temporal age, geographic match, etc.) should meet the requirements set out in the scope/PCR. It’s good practice to perform checks on the collected data to ensure completeness and consistency. For example, doing a simple mass balance – confirming that the total mass of outputs (products + waste + emissions) from a process equals the mass of inputs – can catch errors or omissions​. Similarly, energy balances or stoichiometric checks (for chemical processes) help validate that inputs and outputs are accounted for properly. WorldSteel’s LCA methodology, for instance, explicitly requires mass and elemental balance checks as part of data validation. Another best practice is to document any assumptions or estimates made during data collection. Sometimes a manufacturer might not have exact data for a minor ingredient or a specific emission, so an estimate or proxy from literature is used. Such cases should be noted (with rationale) in the LCA report. This transparency is important for the third-party review later and for any reader to understand the data’s limitations. Overall, the inventory phase should strive to capture all relevant flows as defined in the scope, or explain any exclusions. By the end of this phase, the practitioner will have a compiled LCI – essentially a ledger of all inputs (materials, energy) and outputs (emissions, waste, products) per the functional unit. This inventory is the basis for the next phase, where these flows are translated into environmental impact potentials.

With a completed inventory of flows, the LCA moves into the impact assessment phase. Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) is where the raw inventory data (tons of CO₂, kg of sulfate emitted, MJ of energy, etc.) is processed through impact characterisation models to evaluate potential environmental impacts. It’s crucial to select an LCIA methodology (set of impact categories and calculation factors) appropriate to the product category and the information needs of the EPD audience. In many cases, the PCR or program operator will specify the required impact assessment method to ensure consistency. For example, construction product EPDs following EN 15804+A2 will use a specific set of indicators (such as global warming potential, ozone depletion, acidification, eutrophication, photochemical ozone creation, resource depletion, water use, etc.), whereas a North American PCR might require TRACI indicators (like smog, ecotoxicity, etc.).

At minimum, most EPD-oriented LCAs will include the classic mid-point impact categories. Common examples are Global Warming Potential (GWP) (often reported in kg CO₂-equivalent), Acidification Potential (e.g. kg SO₂-equivalent), Eutrophication Potential (kg phosphate or nitrogen-equivalent), Photochemical Ozone Creation Potential (smog formation, usually kg NMVOC or equivalent), Ozone Depletion Potential (kg CFC-11 equivalent), and Resource Depletion indicators (which can be split into depletion of abiotic resources – fossil fuels in MJ, mineral extraction in kg Sb-eq, etc.)​. These categories translate a multitude of emissions into a few understandable impact metrics. For instance, the LCIA method will convert methane and nitrous oxide emissions into CO₂-equivalents and sum them to get the total GWP. It’s important that the chosen method’s impact factors are current and in line with regulations or standards (for example, using IPCC’s latest 100-year GWP factors for climate change). Sometimes additional impact categories or inventory metrics are required by PCRs – such as reporting total energy consumption, water use, or waste generation in the EPD – so the LCA practitioner should include those as well if needed. No matter the categories, consistency is key: all products in the category should use the same LCIA basis so their EPD results are comparable​. Typically, weighting or aggregation of different impacts into a single score is not done in EPDs, as ISO 14044 prohibits weighted single scores for comparative assertions intended for the public. The focus is on reporting each impact category result separately and accurately.

A technical challenge in LCA is how to deal with processes that produce multiple valuable outputs (co-products). For example, a cow produces both beef and leather as co-products, or a chemical process might yield a main product and a by-product that is sold. ISO 14044 provides a preferred hierarchy to handle such multi-output processes. The first recommendation is to avoid allocation altogether if possible​. Avoiding allocation can be done by sub-dividing the process or expanding system boundaries. Subdivision means separating the process into smaller sub-processes each dedicated to a single product, if you can obtain data at that resolution. System expansion means expanding the analysis to include additional functions – effectively giving credit for the by-product by accounting for the fact that it displaces another product in the market. (For instance, if a process produces electricity as a by-product, one could subtract the impacts of producing the same amount of electricity from the grid, crediting the system for that co-product.) In many cases, however, neither subdivision nor system expansion is fully applicable, and some form of allocation is necessary​. When allocation cannot be avoided, ISO 14044 (and ISO 14049 guidance) says to allocate inputs/outputs in proportion to underlying physical relationships wherever feasible​. This means finding a physical basis that causally relates to how the burdens are generated. Common physical bases are mass or energy content of the products: for example, allocating on a mass basis (each product receives a share of impacts proportional to its fraction of the total mass output) or an energy content basis (useful for fuels). If a physical relationship doesn’t adequately reflect the reality or significance (e.g., two co-products have very different economic values or functions that mass alone doesn’t capture), then allocation by another relationship like economic value can be used​. Economic allocation assigns impacts based on the relative market value of each co-product – essentially, more burden goes to the product that has higher economic worth (on the rationale that the process is run largely to produce the more valuable output). Some PCRs provide specific allocation rules – for instance, a PCR might require economic allocation if one product’s value is more than, say, 10 times the other​, or specify mass-based allocation for certain industries to ensure consistency. The LCA report should document whichever allocation method is used and justify it. Because allocation choices can significantly affect results, it’s considered best practice to conduct a sensitivity analysis on allocation​. This means re-calculating results using an alternative allocation method (e.g., if you chose mass, try economic as a test) to see how much the outcomes change. If the differences are large, the LCA practitioner will need to explain this and it will be noted in the EPD so readers understand the uncertainty. Following the ISO hierarchy (avoid allocation if possible, then physical, then other) and being transparent ensures the LCA maintains technical rigor and the results are credible for all stakeholders​.

Another important scoping detail that carries into the inventory and impact phases is the cut-off criteria for including or excluding processes. Cut-off criteria are essentially rules that define what is too minor to bother including in the LCA. They help manage effort by ignoring flows that have negligible contribution. According to ISO 14040/44, cut-off criteria can be based on a percentage of mass, energy, or environmental relevance​. A typical example (and one used in many standards like EN 15804) is: each individual flow that is excluded must be <1% of the total mass or energy of the inputs, and collectively all excluded flows must account for <5% of the total mass/energy and <5% of any key impact category​. In practice, this might mean if your product has a tiny component (say a label or a screw) that is less than 1% of the product mass and expected to contribute ≪1% to impacts, you could decide to omit it to streamline the study. The cut-off thresholds (1%/5% or similar) ensure that these omissions remain truly insignificant to the outcome. It’s important to apply cut-off rules before starting impact assessment and to document them in the scope. Moreover, any excluded processes or flows should be justified and discussed in the report​. For instance, if you exclude a certain ingredient due to cut-off, you should state that explicitly and perhaps qualitatively confirm it wouldn’t change the results (sometimes a proxy calculation or literature reference is used to verify that an excluded flow really is negligible). This transparency is required by the standards – the ISO guidance emphasizes that omitted processes need to be reported and their potential influence assessed​. By defining and respecting cut-off criteria, the LCA maintains completeness while focusing effort on what materially affects the results.

After conducting the inventory and impact assessment, the LCA enters the interpretation phase. Interpretation is where all the results are analysed, checked, and placed in context to ensure they support robust conclusions and decision-making.

According to ISO 14044, the interpretation phase encompasses three main elements: identifying significant issues in the results, evaluating the study (for completeness, sensitivity, consistency), and drawing conclusions and recommendations consistent with the goal of the study​.

In practical terms, this means the LCA practitioner will look at the impact assessment results and figure out what drives the impacts – for example, determining which processes or life-cycle stages contribute most to each impact category (often called a “hotspot analysis”). They might discover, for instance, that the raw material extraction phase is responsible for 80% of the product’s GWP, or that the use phase dominates water consumption. These findings are the “significant issues” that need to be reported.

The practitioner will also check that all goals and scope requirements have been met: a completeness check verifies that all relevant processes and impacts identified in the scope are included (no unexpected gaps), and a consistency check confirms that methodological choices (allocation, system boundaries, data quality) were applied consistently throughout the study​.

Additionally, a sensitivity analysis is usually performed as part of interpretation – varying key assumptions or data inputs to see if the conclusions hold steady. For example, if an assumption was made about transportation distance, the analyst might test a shorter or longer distance to see if the overall conclusions change.

If the study is comparative or intended to support public claims, an uncertainty analysis might be done to statistically quantify confidence in the results. All these evaluations strengthen the study by highlighting how reliable the results are and where any limitations lie. The ISO framework expects the interpretation to lead to conclusions and, if appropriate, recommendations​. In the context of an EPD, the “recommendations” are usually internal (e.g., suggestions for the manufacturer on where improvements could reduce impacts) because the published EPD itself is neutral and doesn’t include improvement recommendations to avoid looking like comparative assertions.

Nonetheless, the manufacturer can use the interpretation findings to drive environmental improvements in product design or supply chain, which is a key benefit of doing the LCA in the first place.

A crucial part of ensuring validity is having the LCA study reviewed by independent experts. ISO 14044 requires a critical review by a qualified external reviewer (or a review panel) for studies that will be used for comparative assertions disclosed to the public. EPDs fall into this category of external communication, and ISO 14025 (the standard for Type III environmental declarations) makes third-party verification a mandatory step.

This internal report documents the goal, scope, inventory data, assumptions, impact results, and interpretation in detail​. It should include everything the verifier or a critical review panel would need to scrutinise the study. Best practice is to have this report ready for the verifier, who will review both the LCA report and the draft EPD.

With LCA results interpreted and reviewed, the next step is to prepare the public-facing Environmental Product Declaration. An EPD is a standardised report that summarises the product’s LCA results and related information in a clear format.

Program operators usually provide an EPD template or PCR guidance on the format. Key contents of a Type III EPD include: a description of the product and its intended application, the declared/functional unit and reference service life (if applicable), the system boundaries and life-cycle stages considered, a list of exclusion or cut-off rules, the LCA results for each impact category (typically in a tabular form, broken down by life-cycle stage modules), additional environmental information (e.g., content of recycled materials, if required by PCR), and the references to the PCR and underlying LCA report.

All mandatory information per ISO 14025 must be present​ – this includes administrative details like the EPD owner, date of issue and validity, PCR identification, and the verifier’s name and signature. The tone of the EPD is technical but non-comparative; it presents results but does not judge them as good or bad. When drafting the EPD, it’s important to ensure traceability to the LCA data – every number in the EPD (like a carbon footprint value) should be backed by the LCA calculation.

The EPD text should also explain any special assumptions or scenarios. For instance, if a use-phase scenario was modeled (say, a floor covering cleaned with a certain frequency), the EPD should describe that scenario so readers understand the context of the results. Consistency with the PCR is crucial: the PCR provides an outline for the EPD, and following it guarantees that anyone reading EPDs of similar products can find the information in a familiar format and trust that the same rules were followed.

Before publication, the third-party verifier will perform a final review of the EPD document to check that it aligns with the verified LCA and PCR requirements​

After the EPD is drafted, organisations or independent verifiers (approved by the program operator) evaluate the LCA report and the EPD to issue a verification statement. This step is essentially the implementation of the critical review.

The verifier ensures that the data and results in the EPD are accurate representations of the LCA, and that the document meets the format and content requirements of ISO 14025 and the PCR.

Without third-party sign-off, an EPD cannot be published as a formal Type III declaration in most programs​. In fact, EPDs must be third-party verified through a program operator operating under ISO 14025​ – this is what gives an EPD its credibility and distinguishes it from an unverified life-cycle study.

Once the verifier is satisfied (often after a few iterations of feedback and corrections), they provide a verification certificate or stamp which is included in the EPD. At this point, the final EPD is ready to be released. The manufacturer or LCA consultant submits the verified EPD to the program operator for official registration and publication.

The program operator conducts a final administrative check and then publishes the EPD to a public directory (for example, via an online EPD library or the program’s website) so that anyone can access it​. Publication is the last step of the LCA-to-EPD journey – the EPD becomes a public, third-party verified document that the company can use in marketing, compliance, or for earning green building credits.

Published EPDs are typically valid for a set period (commonly five years) before they expire and need updating​. This ensures that over time, the data gets refreshed and any changes in the product or background data are captured in a new EPD.

In summary, going from LCA to EPD involves a structured, standards-driven process. By following the phases of goal and scope definition, inventory data collection, impact assessment, and results interpretation – and by integrating PCR guidelines, industry best practices, and external review at each step – manufacturers and LCA practitioners can ensure the resulting EPD is robust, transparent, and aligned with international standards (ISO 14040/14044 for the LCA and ISO 14025/EN 15804 for the EPD). This not only instills confidence in the accuracy of the declared environmental impacts, but also helps the EPD serve its purpose as a fair and credible communication tool for sustainable products.

Developing an Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) is a complex process requiring attention to detail, adherence to evolving standards, and strategic decision-making. While following best practices can lead to a seamless process, several common pitfalls can compromise the credibility and accuracy of an EPD. This section highlights key challenges that we actively help our clients navigate, ensuring they avoid missteps and create robust, compliant, and valuable EPDs.

Challenge: PCRs and complementary PCRs (cPCRs) frequently change, introducing new requirements that can significantly impact an EPD. Failing to work with the most up-to-date PCR can lead to inconsistencies, compliance issues, and potential rejection of the EPD.

Case Example: One of our clients, a manufacturer of wood-based products, initially used an outdated PCR when preparing their EPD. They also overlooked an essential cPCR that contained new requirements for reporting and impact calculations. As a result, their LCA did not align with the latest industry expectations, affecting the validity of their results.

The cPCR introduced additional reporting requirements that were absent in the previous PCR. These included new impact categories, changes in allocation rules, and updated content declaration formats. Without incorporating these elements, the EPD risked misrepresenting the product’s environmental impact and failing to meet verification standards.

For example, the updated cPCR required the inclusion of Particulate Matter Formation Potential (PMFP) and Land Use Impacts—impact categories that were previously not mandated. Additionally, the allocation rules were revised, requiring manufacturers to distribute environmental burdens based on mass rather than economic value, affecting products with high-value co-products. The content declaration format also changed, specifying that manufacturers must report recycled content percentages separately for pre-consumer and post-consumer materials, rather than aggregating them into a single recycled content figure.

By not adhering to these updates, the original EPD draft lacked critical impact categories, used outdated allocation methods, and failed to meet the transparency requirements for material composition. These discrepancies would have resulted in a failed verification review, requiring time-consuming corrections and rework.

How We Addressed It: We guided the client through the selection of the correct, updated PCR and ensured compliance with the relevant cPCR based on their product type and UN CPC code. By making these adjustments, their EPD became compliant with current regulations, improving its credibility and accuracy. Additionally, we helped them establish a process for monitoring future PCR updates to ensure long-term compliance.

Key Takeaway: Always verify that you are using the most recent PCR and incorporate relevant cPCRs. Engage with a Program Operator early in the process to confirm compliance with the latest requirements. Having a system in place to track PCR updates helps prevent costly rework.

Challenge: Many manufacturers use materials from sustainable or recycled sources but lack proper documentation to verify these claims. This can lead to delays in EPD verification and missed opportunities for recognising environmental benefits.

Case Example: A client using sustainably sourced and recycled wood materials could not provide the necessary documentation to support their claims. As a result, their verification process stalled, delaying EPD publication.

During the verification stage, auditors required proof that the wood used in production was from responsibly managed forests or contained a specific percentage of recycled content. However, the manufacturer lacked certificates or supplier attestations to substantiate these claims. Without documentation, the sustainability attributes could not be included in the EPD, reducing its value for green building certifications and sustainable procurement.

How We Addressed It: We advised the client to obtain relevant Chain of Custody certifications such as FSC (Forest Stewardship Council) or recycled content certifications. These documents provided verifiable proof that their materials were responsibly sourced or made from secondary materials, allowing them to accurately claim sustainability benefits. Additionally, we worked with them to establish a document management system to track and store sustainability credentials for future use.

Key Takeaway: Ensure that you have all necessary documentation for any sustainability claims before starting the EPD process. Certifications like FSC, PEFC, or recycled content verification streamline the review and validation process. Proactively gathering supporting documents prevents verification delays and ensures that sustainability attributes can be formally recognised.

Selecting the Right Data Sets for Accurate LCA Modeling

Challenge: When direct matches for materials or processes are unavailable in LCA databases, selecting the wrong data sets can misrepresent environmental impacts, leading to inaccurate results.

Case Example: While modeling a complex pharmaceutical product, a client faced difficulties finding a precise match in LCA databases. Using an inappropriate proxy could have led to misleading impact assessments, potentially overstating or understating environmental impacts.

In this case, the pharmaceutical product contained specialised chemical compounds that were not present in existing datasets. The client initially selected a dataset for a general chemical product, but this did not accurately reflect the raw material extraction, manufacturing energy intensity, or waste treatment methods of the actual product.

How We Addressed It: We implemented a structured approach:

1. Use Proxy Data for Similar Products: Identifying a similar product in the database that closely matched the environmental characteristics, ensuring that the substitution was justifiable.
2. Create Custom Processes: Developing a custom life cycle process that reflects real-world manufacturing and emissions data by combining information from multiple relevant datasets.
3. Expert Input: Consulting subject matter experts to validate assumptions and refine proxy data selections, ensuring the best possible match for the missing data.

Key Takeaway: When faced with data gaps, consider proxy data, custom modeling, and expert validation to ensure accuracy in impact assessment. Avoid selecting default or generic data sets without evaluating their relevance to the specific product.

Challenge: LCA software tools can significantly streamline calculations and data analysis, but relying solely on technology without a solid understanding of the inputs can lead to misleading results. Some organisations mistakenly assume that using a well-known software automatically ensures accuracy and credibility.

Reality Check: If you have all the correct data inputs, technology can reduce effort by up to 80% - but without smart effort, expertise, and rigorous validation, even the best software will yield flawed results.

Industry Observation: Many organisations use software branding to establish credibility rather than ensuring that the underlying data and assumptions are accurate. This leads to false confidence in the results.

Key Takeaway: Technology should be seen as an enabler. LCA practitioners must combine cross-functional expertise, robust data validation, and smart modeling to derive meaningful results. Software alone does not make an LCA credible—its accuracy depends on the quality of the inputs.

Challenge: Some companies treat LCAs as a one-time assessment rather than an ongoing process that evolves with improvements in manufacturing, supply chains, and sustainability strategies.

Best Practice:

Key Takeaway: LCAs should be dynamic, regularly updated, and aligned with evolving business strategies to maximise sustainability benefits and regulatory compliance.

Avoiding these common pitfalls ensures a more efficient and credible EPD development process. Staying up to date with the latest PCRs and cPCRs helps maintain compliance and prevents inconsistencies. Proper documentation for sustainability claims streamlines verification and maximises the recognition of environmental benefits. Selecting appropriate data sets ensures accuracy when direct matches are unavailable, while leveraging technology effectively enhances efficiency but must be coupled with expert oversight. Finally, treating LCA as an evolving process rather than a one-time effort ensures continuous improvement, keeping assessments relevant as sustainability strategies and regulations change.

Developing an Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) requires a structured, standards-driven approach that integrates best practices in Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). From goal and scope definition to data collection, impact assessment, and interpretation, each phase demands technical expertise, regulatory compliance, and strategic decision-making.

Throughout this white paper, we have highlighted key challenges in navigating evolving PCRs, ensuring data accuracy, and maintaining transparency in environmental declarations. While expert judgment is critical to the accuracy and credibility of an LCA, technology can play a transformative role in simplifying data management, ensuring compliance, and streamlining verification.

At KarbonWise, we recognise that while LCA software can assist with calculations, expert oversight remains essential to ensure meaningful results. That’s why KarbonWise LCA is designed to combine technology with expert-driven insights, helping manufacturers and sustainability professionals create accurate, verifiable, and standards-compliant EPDs.

The KarbonWise LCA platform offers:

As regulatory landscapes evolve and market expectations for transparency grow, a streamlined, expert-supported LCA approach will be key to maintaining a competitive edge in sustainable product development. By addressing common pitfalls, keeping EPD data accurate, and leveraging the right technology, manufacturers can ensure their EPDs remain credible, compliant, and valuable for business growth.

A well-executed EPD is more than just a compliance document - it is a powerful tool for market positioning, sustainability leadership, and regulatory readiness. By embedding best practices and leveraging the right expertise, manufacturers can confidently communicate the environmental impact of their products, driving both business success and a more sustainable future.