Product Carbon Footprint, LCA and EPD: A Guide for 2026

A customer asked you for a product carbon footprint. Or a retailer wanted an EPD. Or a public procurement required a life cycle assessment. One of these three terms appears in the email, sometimes all mixed together, and you need to decide what to order. This guide distinguishes PCF, LCA and EPD from each other, covers the regulatory and customer pressure driving the requests, walks through the process steps, and helps you choose the right scope without over- or under-ordering. After reading, you will know what to order, how long it takes, and what it requires from you.

What we are talking about: three terms that are often confused

Product Carbon Footprint (PCF), Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) are different things, even though they are related. The confusion is common because in everyday language all three can be called “environmental data” or “emissions accounting.”

PCF is a single number: how many greenhouse gas emissions a product causes over its life cycle, expressed in CO2 equivalents. The standard is typically ISO 14067:2018. PCF can be calculated and communicated without external verification.

LCA is a broader analysis covering multiple environmental impact categories: climate change, acidification, eutrophication, ozone depletion, fossil resource use, and others. The standards are ISO 14040 and ISO 14044. LCA is a method, not a final product. Its results are used as the basis for both PCF and EPD.

EPD is a third-party verified product declaration based on LCA and following product category-specific calculation rules (PCR). The standards are ISO 14025 and, for construction products, EN 15804. An EPD is always published in a programme operator’s database where it is publicly searchable.

The relationship is hierarchical. PCF is a subset of LCA (climate impact only). EPD is an LCA that has been taken through a standardised process and externally verified. This means that all three can be produced from the same data collection, but the workload and cost increase incrementally: PCF → LCA → EPD.

Why product emissions data is being requested right now

Three sources of pressure are driving requests simultaneously, and they reinforce each other.

Customers and the value chain. A large B2B customer is calculating its own Scope 3 footprint and needs product-level data from its suppliers. Spend-based estimates for purchased goods are no longer sufficient when a company wants to target reduction actions. Customers who have set SBTi targets are demanding increasingly precise information from their suppliers, because achieving their own target requires reducing value chain emissions.

Regulation. CSRD and ESRS are directing large companies to report emissions across the entire value chain. The Finnish building code requires carbon footprint disclosure for new buildings from the start of 2026, shifting pressure to building product manufacturers. The EU Taxonomy directs finance towards low-emission products. CBAM (Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism) applies to imports of certain product categories from outside the EU and requires product-level emissions data.

Procurement. Public procurement is increasingly favouring low-carbon criteria, and large private buyers are doing the same. Scoring can favour suppliers with an EPD or documented PCF. A growing number of tenders include a requirement for an environmental declaration or product carbon footprint, sometimes as a mandatory eligibility criterion, sometimes as a scored additional factor.

When a request arrives, the question is usually not “do we want to do this” but “at what scope and to which standard.” Manufacturers who already have documentation in place gain time and contracts over competitors who are starting from scratch after receiving a request.

Product Carbon Footprint (PCF) and ISO 14067 in brief

PCF states the greenhouse gas emissions of one unit of product in CO2 equivalents. The unit can be a kilogram of product, a finished component, a square metre of coating, or a single use, depending on what is being compared.

ISO 14067 defines the calculation requirements. The key concepts are functional unit (what the emission is related to), system boundary (which life cycle stages are included: cradle-to-gate, cradle-to-grave) and allocation rules (how emissions are divided when the same process produces multiple products). The standard also guides the treatment of biogenic carbon, land use change considerations, and data quality assessment.

PCF is sufficient when:

A customer needs the product’s emissions data for their Scope 3 calculation.
A single comparable number is needed for marketing or sales materials.
The aim is to identify the main emission drivers and target reduction actions.
Internally, you need to know which products in the portfolio carry the heaviest load and where product development resources should be directed.

PCF’s strength is that it is precise, relatively lightweight, and supports decision-making. The weakness is that it only covers climate impact. Nutrient loading of water bodies or resource consumption, for example, remains invisible.

Read a more detailed process description in the article ISO 14067 Process in Practice.

LCA, when carbon footprint alone is not enough

LCA measures multiple environmental impacts using the same method. Typical impact categories include climate change (GWP), acidification (AP), eutrophication (EP), ozone depletion (ODP), photochemical ozone formation (POCP) and fossil resource use (ADP). An LCA conducted according to EN 15804 also reports water and energy consumption as well as waste flows.

LCA is the right choice when:

EPD is the goal (EPD always requires LCA as its basis).
Product development wants to avoid trade-offs where reducing climate impact shifts the burden to, for example, water bodies or resource consumption.
A customer or regulation asks for an environmental profile broader than a single CO2 figure.
Two product options need to be compared comprehensively, since a carbon footprint alone can give a misleading picture if one option shifts the burden to other impact categories.

Data requirements are greater than for PCF, but the same data collection serves both. In practice, a PCF is also obtained automatically alongside an LCA project. The difference shows more in impact assessment modelling and interpretation of results than in the data collection itself.

LCA is also the mandatory basis for EPD. If you already know that an EPD will be needed later, it makes sense to do the LCA now. It avoids repeating work that would otherwise need to be done again.

The comparison between PCF and LCA is covered in more detail in its own article: PCF vs LCA.

EPD, a third-party verified environmental declaration

An EPD is a standardised report in which a product’s LCA results are presented in a prescribed format and verified by an accredited independent party. The standards:

ISO 14025 sets the general rules for environmental declarations (Type III environmental declaration).
EN 15804 is the European standard for EPDs for construction products.
PCR (Product Category Rules) define the product group-specific rules. The same PCR ensures that all EPDs in the same product category are comparable.

An EPD is published in a programme operator’s database, such as EPD International or RTS EPD. The validity period is typically 5 years, after which the EPD is updated or expires.

EPD is needed when:

The product is sold for construction, where designers need documented data for building-level emissions calculations.
A customer or procurement specifically requires a verified environmental declaration.
A comparable document usable in marketing is needed.
The product is sold to multiple customers who are all asking for different types of emissions data, and an EPD answers the majority of questions in one go.

EPD’s advantage over PCF is threefold: comparability (same PCR for all), credibility (independently verified), and discoverability (publicly searchable from a registry). The disadvantages are higher cost and a longer timeline.

The fundamentals of EPD are covered in the article EPD: What It Is and Why It Is Requested.

How to choose the right option: PCF, LCA or EPD

Situation	Recommendation
Customer needs the product’s CO2 figure for Scope 3	PCF (ISO 14067)
Product development wants to avoid shifting environmental burden between categories	LCA
Public construction project requests an environmental declaration	EPD (EN 15804)
Retailer requires an environmental declaration on the product sheet	EPD (ISO 14025 or EN 15804)
Multiple customers are requesting reports of varying scope	LCA, from which PCF or EPD is produced as needed
No PCR exists for the product category	PCF or LCA, until a PCR is published
Single B2B sales material or tender	PCF (fast and cost-effective)
Product is sold to large property investors or public projects	EPD (in practice a prerequisite)

The comparison table is useful, but the decision often comes down to one question put to the customer: which standard-based report do you want? If the answer is ISO 14067, PCF is sufficient. If the answer is EN 15804 or ISO 14025, it is an EPD. If the answer is a vague “life cycle assessment,” it is generally LCA.

A second useful question is: will the result be used publicly or internally? For internal use, PCF without verification is often sufficient. For public comparison, a verified PCF at minimum, or preferably an EPD, is needed.

A third clarification: who is the end user? If the user is a designer, contractor or public buyer, it is almost always an EPD. If the user is the customer-supplier’s sustainability manager collecting Scope 3 data, PCF is usually sufficient.

The decision tree between carbon footprint and EPD is covered separately: Carbon Footprint or EPD.

The process in practice: what the calculation requires from you

A typical product-level calculation follows the same stages regardless of the standard.

1. Goal and scope. Agreement on which product, which functional unit, and which system boundary to use for the calculation. At this stage it is also decided whether ISO 14067, ISO 14040/14044, or EN 15804 will be applied.

2. Data collection. The product recipe (bill of materials), manufacturing energy consumption, transportation, packaging, waste. Where necessary, data from suppliers. This is the longest stage and requires the most time from the client.

3. Modelling and calculation. Data is entered into LCA software and linked to emissions factor databases (Ecoinvent, GaBi). The consultant does this work, but choices (e.g. allocation, assumptions) are reviewed with the client.

4. Results and report. Impacts are calculated, main emission drivers are identified, and the report is written in the format required by the standard. The report also documents data quality and assumptions so that the result is reproducible.

5. Verification (if required). Mandatory for EPD, not mandatory for PCF, but increasingly required by clients. The verifier reviews the report, raises comments and ultimately approves it. This stage typically takes 4–8 weeks.

Timeline is typically 6–12 weeks for PCF and 16–24 weeks for EPD from preparation to publication. The bottleneck is almost always data collection from suppliers. Their response speed determines the pace of the entire project.

Cost varies according to the complexity of the product and data availability. A simple PCF is less expensive than a verified EPD, which also involves fees from the programme operator and verifier. Request a cost range for your specific situation, as figures vary significantly by product type and how homogeneous a portfolio is being covered.

What is required from you in practice:

One person who knows the product’s manufacturing and can answer detailed questions.
Access to the recipe, energy measurements, and contact details of key suppliers.
Time for review meetings (typically 2–4 meetings during the project).

For most manufacturers, the data is not ready to hand. The product recipe is usually available, but supplier emissions, transport chains, and the allocation of energy measurements to specific products require collection work. We do not expect the material to be fully prepared in advance. We handle the majority of collection and coordination. What we need from you is access to systems and a person who knows the product’s manufacturing and can answer detailed questions.

Frequently asked questions

What is the difference between PCF and LCA?

PCF measures only climate impact (in CO2 equivalents); LCA measures multiple environmental impact categories using the same method. PCF is in practice a subset of LCA. The standards are ISO 14067 (PCF) and ISO 14040/14044 (LCA).

Do I need an EPD, or is a carbon footprint enough?

If a customer needs a figure for their own Scope 3 calculation, PCF is sufficient. If the product is a construction product, the requirement comes from public procurement, or the requirement is for an “environmental declaration,” an EPD is needed. In ambiguous cases, ask the customer which standard-based report they want.

What is ISO 14067 and how does it differ from ISO 14040?

ISO 14067 is the standard for product carbon footprints, which limits the calculation to climate impact. It is based on the general life cycle assessment methodology of ISO 14040/14044, but refines GWP calculation, biogenic carbon treatment, and allocation rules specifically for carbon footprint use.

How long does calculating a product carbon footprint take?

PCF typically takes 6–12 weeks; EPD 10–20 weeks including verification and publication. Data collection from suppliers is generally the bottleneck.

Can the carbon footprint be calculated in-house, or is a consultant needed?

It can be calculated in-house if the organisation has LCA expertise, appropriate software, and time. Most manufacturers do not have these, and in that case a consultant is a faster and more reliable route. A consultant also brings standard interpretations and methodological choices, which are the most common sources of errors.

Must a PCF or EPD be externally verified?

For EPD, third-party verification is mandatory. For PCF it is not mandatory, but clients (customers, procurement, regulation) are increasingly requiring it. Verification raises the credibility of the figure and reduces subsequent questions.

How long is a product carbon footprint or EPD valid?

PCF describes the situation at the time of calculation and the agreed period (typically one calendar year of production). The result remains valid as long as recipes, manufacturing processes, and supply chains remain essentially unchanged. An EPD has a formal validity period, typically 5 years.

What if our product is simple, is a quick estimate enough?

For simple products (few raw materials, short supply chain) the calculation can indeed be completed faster and more cost-effectively. ISO 14067 still applies, however. Its requirements are not bypassed because the product is simple. A rough internal estimate can be a useful starting point, but any figure provided to a customer must comply with the standard.

Does your product need a carbon footprint or an EPD?

We collect the data on your behalf, challenge the figures, and deliver a report that withstands scrutiny from customers and verifiers. No calculator, just completed work. Send us the customer’s original request and we will interpret what is actually required.

Request a quote · Learn about the service