Evaluating the Environmental Sustainability of Alternative Ways to Produce Benzene, Toluene, and Xylene.

The petrochemical industry can reduce its environmental impacts by moving from fossil resources to alternative carbon feedstocks. Biomass and plastic waste-based production pathways have recently been developed for benzene, toluene, and xylene (BTX). This study evaluates the environmental impacts of these novel BTX pathways at a commercial and future (2050) scale, combining traditional life cycle assessment with absolute environmental sustainability assessment using the planetary boundary concept. We show that plastic waste-based BTX has lower environmental impacts than fossil BTX, including a 12% decrease in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Biomass-based BTX shows greater GHG emission reductions (42%), but it causes increased freshwater consumption and eutrophication. Toward 2050, GHG emission reductions become 75 and 107% for plastic waste and biobased production, respectively, compared to current fossil-BTX production. When comparing alternative uses of plastic waste, BTX production has larger climate benefits than waste incineration with energy recovery with a GHG benefit of 1.1 kg CO2-equiv/kg plastic waste. For biomass (glycerol)-based BTX production, other uses of glycerol are favorable over BTX production. While alternative BTX production pathways can decrease environmental impacts, they still transgress multiple planetary boundaries. Further impact reduction efforts are thus required, such as using other types of (waste) biomass, increasing carbon recycling, and abatement of end-of-life emissions.

Life cycle thinking for the assessment of waste and circular economy policy: status and perspectives from the EU example.

Life cycle thinking methods such as life cycle assessment (LCA) and costing (LCC) were originally developed to assess the performance of products and services (business-making decisions). However, they are increasingly deployed to support policy-making along the entire policy cycle, including via impact assessment (IA) of different policy options. These applications are associated with a number of challenges, mainly related to the dynamic and prospective nature of policy IA, typically forward-looking into 10-20 years ahead. This requires the application of prospective scenario analyses to develop the baseline scenario, reflecting the 'do nothing' into the future (business-as-usual), and the alternative scenarios, reflecting the consequences incurred by the implementation of the policy options under study. Such prospective and broadened boundary nature of policy IA challenges traditional LCA/LCC practices mostly based on retrospective, static scenarios and datasets. The present study provides an overview of recent IA studies supporting waste policy to show the state-of-the-art and the main challenges associated with the application of life cycle methods in IA, focusing on the most recent EU waste and circular economy policies. Moreover, since specific and transparent guidance on how to implement consistently these methods in policy IA is lacking, the study provides an initial guidance for application of life cycle thinking in IA drawing upon the knowledge obtained conducting waste policy IA studies. Key challenges in the field are still to be addressed, and might inspire further research to improve the application of life cycle thinking to policy assessment.

Multiple criteria decision analysis to support the design of safe and sustainable chemicals and materials.

The development of safe and sustainable chemicals and materials is essential to achieve the Zero-Pollution Ambition for a Toxic Free Environment stated in the EU Green Deal. For that, criteria need to be defined and considered since early stage of development. A Safe and Sustainable by Design (SSbD) framework is proposed in an EU Recommendation suggesting the assessment of multiple safety and sustainability aspects of chemicals and materials leaving open how the evaluation and selection of the preferable option should be done. This paper presents a proposal with different options for the use of multiattribute aggregation in an evaluation procedure for the SSbD assessment of chemicals and materials. This proposal is based on i) a review of the literature focusing on Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) application in the SSbD context (i.e. applications considering simultaneously safety and sustainability attributes) and ii) the definition of requisites for MCDA to be applied to the SSBD framework. In the latter, an absolute rather than a relative assessment is preferred as it should be possible for an organization developing a new chemical or material to assess if it is SSbD, without needing to obtain data on all of its possible competitors. Moreover, rank-reversals caused by the introduction of other options are avoided, i.e., assessments of one alternative that depends on other alternatives being assessed simultaneously are not the most adequate. Different options for the aggregation of attributes at different levels are discussed as well as for the consideration of data quality in the evaluation procedure. Regardless the approach selected, the use of multiattribute aggregation does not rule out a richer dashboard presenting not only the overall aggregate result, but also the results obtained in other levels of the hierarchy. Such complementary information is important to understand the strengths and weaknesses that an aggregate result might hide.

The potential of emerging bio-based products to reduce environmental impacts.

The current debate on the sustainability of bio-based products questions the environmental benefits of replacing fossil- by bio-resources. Here, we analyze the environmental trade-offs of 98 emerging bio-based materials compared to their fossil counterparts, reported in 130 studies. Although greenhouse gas life cycle emissions for emerging bio-based products are on average 45% lower (-52 to -37%; 95% confidence interval), we found a large variation between individual bio-based products with none of them reaching net-zero emissions. Grouped in product categories, reductions in greenhouse gas emissions ranged from 19% (-52 to 35%) for bioadhesives to 73% (-84 to -54%) for biorefinery products. In terms of other environmental impacts, we found evidence for an increase in eutrophication (369%; 163 to 737%), indicating that environmental trade-offs should not be overlooked. Our findings imply that the environmental sustainability of bio-based products should be evaluated on an individual product basis and that more radical product developments are required to reach climate-neutral targets.

Life Cycle Assessment support to environmental ambitions of EU policies and the Sustainable Development Goals.

The European Green Deal and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) ask for a more holistic approach to production and consumption along value chains. The role of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) in supporting policy design and monitoring is then pivotal to achieving policy ambitions. This paper explores the potential support of LCA to EU (European Union) policies and the SDGs, considering also the Planetary Boundaries (PBs) framework. The assessment focuses on (a) the relationship between LCA, the SDGs, and the European Green Deal; (b) the potential use of LCA in support of the monitoring of SDG12 and the environmental impacts of production and consumption; and (c) the relevance of an absolute sustainability dimension, including the integration of the PBs framework in EU policy and the SDGs. Results highlight that the interlinkages between LCA, EU policy, SDGs, and the PBs can be classified as existing, missing, or existing depending on the LCA framework. In general, LCA was identified to strengthen and further enable EU policies toward achieving the SDGs while remaining within the physical limits of the planet. This is because LCA can be a pivotal method to quantify and assess environmental impacts of value chains and consumption patterns, enabling the evaluation of their implication on environment-related SDGs and assessing them against the PBs. The example of the Consumption Footprint highlights that the concept and Life Cycle Impact Assessment method of an LCA framework can determine the linkage among EU policy, SDGs, and the PBs. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2022;18:1221-1232. © 2022 The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC).

Grown and thrown: Exploring approaches to estimate food waste in EU countries.

National studies on food waste quantification in EU countries present highly discrepant results due to the different quantification approaches adopted. The European Commission has published a delegated act establishing a common methodology and minimum quality requirements for the uniform measurement of food waste generated in Member States. Nevertheless, as EU countries are at different levels of development and implementation of national strategies for food waste quantification, there is a need to develop a harmonized modelling system that enables the estimation of food waste generated by Member States to assess the amounts reported by each country. The aim of this paper is to fulfil this need by presenting two modelling approaches to estimate food waste in EU countries. One approach is based on Material Flow Analysis (MFA) and combines statistical information on the production and trade of food products with food waste coefficients. The other approach is based on the estimation of food waste based on waste statistics. Three EU countries are used to illustrate the two approaches and compare the results obtained thereby. Food waste estimates from waste statistics are generally lower than those obtained using MFA, in particular at the early stages of the food chain. The MFA model presented in this article is the first of its kind developed to estimate food waste across Member States in a consistent way and through time. Crucially, this could support the definition of a baseline and binding targets to reduce food waste across the EU, as announced in the EU Farm to Fork Strategy.

No time to waste: assessing the performance of food waste prevention actions.

As a result of the growing awareness of the need to prevent food waste, several initiatives have been launched in the last few years to reduce food waste generated across the food supply chain. However, the evaluation of food waste prevention interventions is still at an early stage of development and appropriate methods to assess their effectiveness are missing, hampering the identification of best practices amongst existing initiatives and the prioritisation of those that are most promising. To address such needs and provide a common approach to consistently assess the performance of food waste prevention initiatives, the European Commission Joint Research Centre has developed an evaluation framework for food waste prevention actions. The framework supports the EU Platform on Food Losses and Food Waste, which has been established to identify best practices and share knowledge on food waste prevention initiatives. Additionally, a food waste prevention calculator, based on life cycle thinking, has been developed to support such an evaluation by a consistent assessment of the environmental and economic benefits of such initiatives, and the identification of potential trade-offs at early design stages. The main goal of this paper is to present the evaluation framework and the calculator developed, critically discussing how future initiatives should be designed, monitored and reported, to ensure sufficient and relevant data is made available to enable their proper assessment. Crucially, this would enable practitioners and decision makers to evaluate the success of existing initiatives and give priority to the implementation of the best performing ones.

Environmental impacts of household appliances in Europe and scenarios for their impact reduction.

Assessing the environmental impact due to consumption of goods and services is a pivotal step towards achieving the sustainable development goal related to responsible production and consumption (i.e. SDG 12). Household appliances plays a crucial role and should be assessed in a systemic manner, namely considering all life cycle stages, technological efficiency, and affluence aspects. The present study assess the impact of such household appliances used in Europe, and tests scenarios of potential impact reduction at various scales. Life cycle assessment is applied to 14 different household appliances (ranging from dishwashers to television devices) selected to build a set of representative products, based on their economic value and diffusion in households in Europe. Related impacts are calculated with the Environmental Footprint method for calculating a Consumer Footprint "appliances" for the baseline year 2010. A number of scenarios encompassing eco-solutions on a technical level, changes in consumption pattern, behavioral changes, as well as the combination of all these aspects are run to estimate the Consumer Footprint related to household appliances for the year 2030, compared against this baseline scenario. The baseline Consumer Footprint is confirming the importance of the use phase in leading the impacts in almost all impact categories. Testing different scenarios concludes that there is a reduction of the impact for most of the categories (with up to 67% for the ozone depletion potential, and still around 35% for the global warming potential), while two of the here examined impact categories (i.e. land-use and mineral resource depletion) show an overall potential that is even negative - i.e. the results of all scenarios are higher than the ones of the 2010 baseline scenario. The increase in purchase and use of such appliances may offset energy efficiency benefits in some of the examined categories. Hence, the assessment of sustainability of appliances consumption should always include several scales, from the efficiency of the products (micro scale), to the improvement of the energy mix (meso scale), up to accounting for socio-economic drivers and patterns of consumption affecting the overall appliances stock (macro scale).

Biodiversity Assessment of Value Chains: State of the Art and Emerging Challenges.

The consumption of materials and products is one of the drivers of biodiversity loss, which in turn affects ecosystem functioning and has socio-economic consequences worldwide. Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a reference methodology for appraising the environmental impacts of products along their value chains. Currently, a generally accepted life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) framework for assessing biodiversity impacts is lacking. The existing LCIA models present weaknesses in terms of the impact drivers considered, geographical coverage, as well as the indicators and metrics adopted. Sound ecological indicators and metrics need to be integrated in order to better assess the impacts of value chains on biodiversity on a global, regional, and local scale. This review analyses studies which, using a life cycle perspective, assess the impacts of products' and services' value chains on biodiversity. We identify and discuss promising synergies between the studies which look beyond the life cycle context, and apply other biodiversity metrics. Our results highlight that the existing metrics of biodiversity impact assessment in LCA are poor at capturing the complexities of biodiversity. There are operational models at the midpoint level that expand on the assessed dimensions of biodiversity (e.g., ecosystem structure), and the drivers of biodiversity loss (e.g., assessment of species exploitation), but efforts are required to fully include these models in the LCA framework. In the business domain, many initiatives are developing frameworks to assess impacts on biodiversity. Many approaches make use of LCIA methods and input-output databases. However, these are generally coupled with other biodiversity metrics. This shows that the current LCA framework is not yet sufficient to support decision-making based on different sets of biodiversity indicators. Ecosystem accounting may provide important ecological information for both the inventory and the impact assessment stages of LCA, helping to disentangle the relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem services. Looking beyond the LCA domain can lead us to new ways of advancing the coverage of biodiversity impacts, in a way that increases the relevance of LCA across a wider range of areas. Future work should assess the indicators provided in various policy contexts.

Development of a bioeconomy monitoring framework for the European Union: An integrative and collaborative approach.

The EU Bioeconomy Strategy, updated in 2018, in its Action Plan pledges an EU-wide, internationally coherent monitoring system to track economic, environmental and social progress towards a sustainable bioeconomy. This paper presents the approach taken by the European Commission's (EC) Joint Research Centre (JRC) to develop such a system. To accomplish this, we capitalise on (1) the experiences of existing indicator frameworks; (2) stakeholder knowledge and expectations; and (3) national experiences and expertise. This approach is taken to ensure coherence with other bioeconomy-related European monitoring frameworks, the usefulness for decision-making and consistency with national and international initiatives to monitor the bioeconomy. We develop a conceptual framework, based on the definition of a sustainable bioeconomy as stated in the Strategy, for a holistic analysis of the trends in the bioeconomy sectors, following the three pillars of sustainability (economy, society and environment). From this conceptual framework, we derive an implementation framework that aims to highlight the synergies and trade-offs across the five objectives of the Bioeconomy Strategy in a coherent way. The EU Bioeconomy Monitoring System will be publicly available on the web platform of the EC Knowledge Centre for Bioeconomy.

Sustainability of food waste biorefinery: A review on valorisation pathways, techno-economic constraints, and environmental assessment.

The need to increase circularity of industrial systems to address limited resources availability and climate change has triggered the development of the food waste biorefinery concept. However, for the development of future sustainable industrial processes focused on the valorisation of food waste, critical aspects such as (i) the technical feasibility of the processes at industrial scale, (ii) the analysis of their techno-economic potential, including available quantities of waste, and (iii) a life cycle-based environmental assessment of benefits and burdens need to be considered. The goal of this review is to provide an overview of food waste valorisation pathways and to analyse to which extent these aspects have been considered in the literature. Although a plethora of food waste valorisation pathways exist, they are mainly developed at lab-scale. Further research is necessary to assess upscaled performance, feedstock security, and economic and environmental assessment of food waste valorisation processes.

Unveiling the potential for an efficient use of nitrogen along the food supply and consumption chain.

Ensuring global food security is one of the challenges of our society. Nitrogen availability is key for food production, while contributing to different environmental impacts. This paper aims firstly to assess nitrogen flows and to highlight hotspots of inefficient use of nitrogen along the European food chain, excluding primary production. Secondly, it aims to analyse the potential for reducing the identified inefficiencies and increase nitrogen circularity. A baseline and three scenarios-reflecting waste targets reported in EU legislation and technological improvements- are analysed. Results highlighted a potential to reduce reactive nitrogen emissions up to more than 45%. However, this would imply the conversion of reactive nitrogen in molecular nitrogen, such as urea, before re-entering in the food chain. Techniques to harvest reactive nitrogen directly from urine and wastewater are considered promising to increase nitrogen use efficiency along the food chain.

Environmental sustainability of European production and consumption assessed against planetary boundaries.

The planetary boundaries (PBs) represent a well-known concept, which helps identify whether production and consumption systems are environmentally sustainable in absolute terms, namely compared to the Earth's ecological limits and carrying capacity. In this study, the impacts of production and consumption of the European Union in 2010 were assessed by means of life cycle assessment (LCA)-based indicators and compared with the PBs. Five different perspectives were adopted for assessing the impacts: a production perspective (EU Domestic Footprint) and four distinct consumption perspectives, resulting from alternative modelling approaches including both top-down (input-output LCA) and bottom-up (process-based LCA). Life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) results were assessed against LCIA-based PBs, which adapted the PBs framework to the LCIA indicators and metrics of the Environmental Footprint method (EF). Global environmental impacts transgressed several LCIA-based PBs. When assessing the overall environmental impacts of EU consumption compared to the global LCIA-based PBs, impacts of EU consumption related to climate change, particulate matter, land use and mineral resources were close or already transgressed the global boundaries. The EU, with less than 10% of the world population, was close to transgress the global ecological limits. Moreover, when downscaling the global PBs and comparing the impacts per capita for an average EU citizen and a global one, the LCIA-PBs were significantly transgressed in many impact categories. The results are affected by uncertainty mainly due to: (a) the intrinsic uncertainties of the different LCA modelling approaches and indicators; (b) the uncertainties in estimating LCIA-based PBs, due to the difficulties in identifying limits for the Earth's processes and referring them to LCIA metrics. The results may anyway be used to define benchmarks and policy targets to ensure that consumption and production in Europe remains within safe ecological boundaries, as well as to understand the magnitude of the effort needed to reduce the impacts.

Accounting for the dissipation of abiotic resources in LCA: Status, key challenges and potential way forward.

The concept of resources or materials dissipation after their use in the technosphere has been increasingly considered in life-cycle based studies, applying Substance and Material Flow Analysis (SFA and MFA), Input-Output Analysis, and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). However, there is currently no common understanding of what a dissipative flow is. This article first reviews 45 publications to describe the status of resource dissipation in life-cycle based studies, discussing how resource dissipation is usually defined, which temporal perspective is considered, which compartments of dissipation are distinguished, and which approaches (including the implementation of parameters) are considered to assess resource dissipation in a system. Moreover, this article proposes a comprehensive definition of resource dissipation, building from the literature review and focusing on abiotic resources. It then discusses this definition with respect to its potential implementation in LCA considering today's existing Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) datasets and best practices. Overall it shows that the LCA framework may be well suited to assess abiotic resource dissipation. In particular i) the compartments of dissipation usually considered in the literature are covered in LCA, and ii) LCI databases could be a source of information to be further used to quantify a set of flows defined as "dissipative", as commonly considered in SFA/MFA studies. However, major challenges are still faced before any potential routine implementation in LCA. The article accordingly discusses the potential way forward in the short-term (development and test of possible approaches), mid-term (towards satisfactory robustness, and consensus) and long-term (large-scale changes of LCI databases).

Characterizing honey bee exposure and effects from pesticides for chemical prioritization and life cycle assessment.

Agricultural pesticides are key contributors to pollinator decline worldwide. However, methods for quantifying impacts associated with pollinator exposure to pesticides are currently missing in comparative risk screening, chemical substitution and prioritization, and life cycle impact assessment methods. To address this gap, we developed a method for quantifying pesticide field exposure and ecotoxicity effects of honey bees as most economically important pollinator species worldwide. We defined bee intake and dermal contact fractions representing respectively oral and dermal exposure per unit mass applied, and tested our model on two pesticides applied to oilseed rape. Our results show that exposure varies between types of forager bees, with highest dermal contact fraction of 59 ppm in nectar foragers for lambda-cyhalothrin (insecticide), and highest oral intake fractions of 32 and 190 ppm in nectar foragers for boscalid (fungicide) and lambda-cyhalothrin, respectively. Hive oral exposure is up to 115 times higher than forager oral exposure. Combining exposure with effect estimates yields impacts, which are three orders of magnitude higher for the insecticide. Overall, nectar foragers are the most affected forager type for both pesticides, dominated by oral exposure. Our framework constitutes an important step toward integrating pollinator impacts in chemical substitution and life cycle impact assessment, and should be expanded to cover all relevant pesticide-crop combinations.

Out of sight out of mind? A life cycle-based environmental assessment of goods traded by the European Union.

Ensuring responsible production and consumption is one of the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to which the European Union (EU) has committed. An increasing body of literature has demonstrated that global trade flows are key contributors to the environmental impacts of consumption. Indeed, very often developed countries import fuels and other resources from developing ones, displacing a large share of environmental burdens related to consumption of goods outside their boundaries. This paper has a triple goal. Firstly, it assesses the environmental impacts of traded goods with a bottom-up approach, adopting life cycle assessment (LCA) and identifying hotspots related to EU consumption. Secondly, it analyses the extent to which the trade of goods is contributing to the environmental impacts of EU apparent consumption. Finally, it compares the contribution of environmental impact of EU traded goods against overall global impacts. Forty representative products imported or exported by the EU were selected based on their relevance in mass and economic value according to official trade statistics. LCA was applied to these products using the EU Environmental Footprint method. The results were then upscaled in order to be representative of the entire impact of traded goods in the EU. Overall, consumption in the EU resulted to cause considerable environmental impacts outside EU boundaries and impacts of imports and exports were mostly associated with few products groups, which either were traded in large quantities (e.g. "Fuels and mineral oils") or had a high impact intensity compared to the others (e.g. "Pulp of wood and other cellulosic material" for land use).

Methodological review and detailed guidance for the life cycle interpretation phase.

Life cycle interpretation is the fourth and last phase of life cycle assessment (LCA). Being a "pivot" phase linking all other phases and the conclusions and recommendations from an LCA study, it represents a challenging task for practitioners, who miss harmonized guidelines that are sufficiently complete, detailed, and practical to conduct its different steps effectively. Here, we aim to bridge this gap. We review available literature describing the life cycle interpretation phase, including standards, LCA books, technical reports, and relevant scientific literature. On this basis, we evaluate and clarify the definition and purposes of the interpretation phase and propose an array of methods supporting its conduct in LCA practice. The five steps of interpretation defined in ISO 14040-44 are proposed to be reorganized around a framework that offers a more pragmatic approach to interpretation. It orders the steps as follows: (i) completeness check, (ii) consistency check, (iii) sensitivity check, (iv) identification of significant issues, and (v) conclusions, limitations, and recommendations. We provide toolboxes, consisting of methods and procedures supporting the analyses, computations, points to evaluate or check, and reflective processes for each of these steps. All methods are succinctly discussed with relevant referencing for further details of their applications. This proposed framework, substantiated with the large variety of methods, is envisioned to help LCA practitioners increase the relevance of their interpretation and the soundness of their conclusions and recommendations. It is a first step toward a more comprehensive and harmonized LCA practice to improve the reliability and credibility of LCA studies.

Environmental impacts of household consumption in Europe: Comparing process-based LCA and environmentally extended input-output analysis.

The environmental impacts generated by household consumption are generally calculated through footprints, allocating the supply-chain impacts to the final consumers. This study compares the result of the Consumer Footprint indicator, aimed at assessing the impacts of household consumption in Europe, calculated with the two standard approaches usually implemented for footprint calculations: (i) a bottom-up approach, based on process-Life cycle assessment of a set of products and services representing household consumption, and (ii) a top-down approach, based on environmentally extended input-output tables (EXIOBASE 3). Environmental impacts are calculated considering 14 environmental impact categories out of the 16 included in the EF2017 impact assessment method. Both footprints show similar total values regarding climate change, freshwater eutrophication and fossil resource use, but in the meantime very large differences (more than a factor 2) regarding particulate matter, photochemical ozone formation, land use and mineral resource use. The exclusion of services in the bottom-up approach can explain only to some extent these differences. However, the two approaches converge in identifying food as the main driver of impact in most of the impact categories considered (with a generally lower contribution in top-down compared to bottom-up). Housing and mobility are relevant as well for some impact categories (e.g. particulate matter and fossil resource depletion). Some substances are identified as hotspot by both approaches, e.g. the emission of NH3 to air (for acidification and terrestrial eutrophication), of NOx to air (for acidification, marine and terrestrial eutrophication, and, to some extent, photochemical ozone formation), of P to water and to soil (for freshwater eutrophication) and of fossil CO2 to air (for climate change). Significant differences at the inventory side are key drivers for the differences in total impacts. These include: (i) differences in the intensity of emissions, (ii) differences in the coverage of elementary flows, (iii) differences in the level of detail relative to elementary flows. Overall, the key converging results from both approaches (in particular regarding most contributing areas of consumption and substances) can be considered as a robust basis to support the definition of policies aimed at reducing the environmental footprint of household consumption in Europe.

The consumer footprint: Monitoring sustainable development goal 12 with process-based life cycle assessment.

Sustainable and responsible production and consumption are at the heart of sustainable development, explicitly mentioned as one of the sustainable development goals (SDG12). Life cycle assessment, with its integrated holistic approach, is considered a reference method for the assessment of the environmental impact of production and consumption. This paper presents a study on the environmental impacts of final consumption in Europe in five areas of consumption: food, mobility, housing, household goods, and appliances. Based on the selection of a set of representative products to meet food, mobility, housing, and other consumers' needs, environmental impacts of products are assessed over their full life cycle: from raw material extraction to production, distribution, use, and end-of-life phase. Life cycle inventories of representative products are multiplied by consumption statistics to assess the impact of an average European citizen in 2010 and 2015. Impacts are assessed considering the sixteen impact categories of the Environmental Footprint method. Results reveal that food is the most relevant area of consumption driving environmental impacts. Use phase is the most important life cycle stage for many impact categories, especially for the areas of consumption housing, mobility, and appliances. For the areas of consumption food and household goods, the most important life cycle phase is related to upstream processes, which corresponds to agricultural activities for food and manufacturing of products components for household goods. Apart from the results, the paper includes a detailed discussion on further methodological improvements and research needs to make use of the Consumer Footprint as an indicator for monitoring SDG 12 and for supporting sustainable production and consumption policies.