An Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) is a standardized document that quantifies a product’s environmental impact across its lifecycle. EPDs follow ISO 14025 standards, require third-party verification, and provide directly comparable data across products in the same category. They’re the kind of document that lets a procurement professional answer “which of these two products has lower carbon impact?” with actual numbers rather than marketing language.
EPDs have been common in construction product specification for years (LEED requires them for many product categories), and they’re increasingly relevant in packaging, foodservice, and consumer products as sustainability procurement matures.
For procurement professionals, sustainability managers, and anyone needing to evaluate substantive product sustainability claims, knowing how to read an EPD is an important skill. The information is dense and the format takes some learning, but once you understand the structure, EPDs let you compare products on actual environmental data rather than vague marketing claims.
This is a working guide to EPDs — what they contain, how to read each section, what the metrics mean, how to compare products, and what to watch out for.
What an EPD actually is
An EPD has specific defining characteristics:
Standardized. EPDs follow ISO 14025 and category-specific Product Category Rules (PCRs). Different products in the same category use the same methodology, making them directly comparable. A flooring EPD and a packaging EPD might have different exact metrics, but two flooring products’ EPDs use the same metrics.
Third-party verified. Independent verification programs (Underwriters Laboratories, NSF, Building Research Establishment, Norwegian EPD Foundation, others) verify EPDs before publication. The verification process checks the underlying lifecycle analysis methodology and the data quality.
Lifecycle-based. EPDs analyze the product’s environmental impact from raw material extraction through end-of-life. The “cradle-to-grave” or “cradle-to-gate” scope is specified explicitly in the document.
Transparent. EPDs disclose methodology, data sources, assumptions, and limitations. The document allows informed users to understand how the numbers were generated.
Numerical. EPDs present quantitative results in specific units. Statements like “low environmental impact” don’t appear; instead, specific numbers like “carbon footprint of 1.84 kg CO2-equivalent per functional unit” do.
The structure of an EPD
Most EPDs follow a similar structure:
Section 1: General Information. The basic identification — product name, manufacturer, EPD validity period, certifying body, product category rules referenced.
Section 2: Product Description. What the product is, including material composition, intended use, performance characteristics. Functional unit definition (the reference for which environmental impacts are calculated — e.g., “1 square meter of flooring for 50 years of use”).
Section 3: Lifecycle Information. Scope of the analysis (cradle-to-gate, cradle-to-grave), system boundaries, allocation methods, data sources.
Section 4: Environmental Impact Results. The actual numerical results across multiple impact categories. This is the heart of the EPD.
Section 5: Additional Information. Quality and durability information, end-of-life handling, sustainability commitments.
Section 6: References. Standards used, methodology documents, supporting literature.
For procurement decisions, sections 3 and 4 are the most informative. Section 3 tells you what’s included; section 4 gives you the comparison numbers.
The environmental impact categories
Standard EPDs report results across multiple environmental impact categories. The typical set:
Global Warming Potential (GWP). Climate change impact, measured in kg CO2-equivalent. Includes all greenhouse gases weighted by their warming impact. The most commonly-cited metric for “carbon footprint.”
Ozone Depletion Potential (ODP). Impact on the ozone layer. Less relevant for most modern products since CFC use has been phased out. Often shows as very small numbers.
Acidification Potential (AP). Contribution to acid rain. Measured in kg SO2-equivalent or kg H+ ions equivalent. Industrial processes contribute significantly to this.
Eutrophication Potential (EP). Contribution to over-fertilization of water bodies (algal blooms). Agricultural and industrial chemical use are major contributors. Measured in kg N or kg P equivalent.
Photochemical Ozone Creation Potential (POCP). Smog formation. Measured in kg C2H4 equivalent. Volatile organic compound emissions are key contributors.
Abiotic Depletion Potential (ADP). Depletion of mineral and fossil resources. Measured in kg Sb equivalent for minerals and MJ for fossil fuels.
Total Primary Energy. Total energy consumed across the lifecycle. Renewable vs. non-renewable energy often reported separately.
Water Use. Water consumption across the lifecycle. Measured in cubic meters.
Waste Production. Hazardous and non-hazardous waste produced. Measured in kg.
Different EPDs may include additional categories specific to particular product types. The above list is the common core.
What the numbers mean in practice
Reading specific numbers requires context. Some practical interpretations:
Global Warming Potential (kg CO2-eq) examples:
- 1 kg of polyethylene plastic: ~1.5-2.5 kg CO2-eq depending on production
- 1 kg of PLA from corn: ~0.8-1.5 kg CO2-eq
- 1 kg of paper: ~1.0-1.5 kg CO2-eq for virgin paper, ~0.3-0.6 kg CO2-eq for recycled paper
- 1 kg of aluminum (virgin): ~10-12 kg CO2-eq
- 1 kg of steel (virgin): ~2-3 kg CO2-eq
- 1 kg of beef production: ~25-30 kg CO2-eq
- 1 kg of plant-based protein: ~1-3 kg CO2-eq
These are rough reference points; specific products vary based on production location, energy mix, and processing methods.
Functional unit considerations:
The comparison only works if you compare on the same functional unit. Comparing “1 kg of plastic” to “1 kg of paper” tells you about per-mass impact; comparing “1 cup providing 16 oz beverage service” to “1 cup providing 16 oz beverage service” tells you about per-function impact.
For foodware, functional unit matters because thinner products use less material per cup. A 280 gsm paper cup vs. a 320 gsm paper cup represent different masses (and therefore different absolute impacts) but serve the same function.
How to compare two products with EPDs
The comparison process:
Step 1: Verify the EPDs use the same Product Category Rules (PCR). Different PCRs for the same product category can produce different results. The PCR is identified in the EPD.
Step 2: Verify the functional units match. Both products should use the same functional unit (e.g., both per kg, both per square meter, both per service unit).
Step 3: Verify the lifecycle scope matches. Both should be cradle-to-gate, or both cradle-to-grave. Comparing a cradle-to-gate EPD against a cradle-to-grave EPD is misleading.
Step 4: Compare the impact category results. Direct comparison of GWP, AP, EP, etc. between the two products.
Step 5: Consider variability. EPDs have inherent variability from data sources and assumptions. Differences within 10-15% may not be operationally meaningful; differences of 30%+ are likely real.
Step 6: Look at trade-offs. A product with lower GWP might have higher water use or higher eutrophication. Procurement decisions involve weighing multiple categories.
For most procurement decisions, GWP (carbon footprint) is the headline metric. Acidification and eutrophication matter for industrial processes. Water use matters for water-intensive products and regions.
Common red flags in EPDs
Some patterns suggest EPDs that don’t deliver useful information:
Red flag 1: No third-party verification noted. Self-declared “EPDs” without verification are essentially marketing documents. Real EPDs always identify the certifying body.
Red flag 2: Cradle-to-gate only, when grave matters. For products where end-of-life impacts are significant (disposable foodware, plastic packaging), a cradle-to-gate EPD misses key data. Look for cradle-to-grave scope.
Red flag 3: Old PCR references. Product Category Rules update over time. EPDs based on outdated PCRs may not reflect current methodology. Recent PCRs typically improve assumptions.
Red flag 4: Vague data sources. EPDs that don’t specify where their input data came from are harder to validate. Major databases (Ecoinvent, GaBi, USLCI) provide standardized data inputs.
Red flag 5: Comparison with unrelated benchmarks. Some EPDs include comparisons that aren’t truly apples-to-apples (e.g., comparing their PLA product to a generic petroleum plastic baseline that’s not the same kind of product). Apples-to-apples comparison within the same product category is more useful.
Red flag 6: Outdated factory data. EPDs based on production data from many years ago may not reflect current production. Recent data (within 3-5 years) is more relevant.
EPDs in foodware procurement
For compostable foodware specifically, EPDs are increasingly available but less universal than for construction products. The state of the category in 2025:
Products with EPDs:
– Major compostable foodware brands (World Centric, Eco-Products, Vegware) increasingly publish EPDs for primary product lines
– Some bagasse manufacturers publish EPDs
– Some compostable plastic (PLA, PHA) manufacturers publish material-level EPDs
Products without EPDs:
– Many smaller compostable foodware manufacturers
– Specialty items and custom-printed products
– Items from smaller geographic markets
What EPDs reveal about compostable products:
For PLA-based products specifically, EPDs typically show:
– Lower GWP than equivalent petroleum plastic (typically 30-50% lower)
– Similar or slightly higher water use (depending on agricultural inputs)
– Lower abiotic depletion potential (renewable feedstock vs. fossil)
– Variable acidification and eutrophication depending on agricultural practices
For paper-based products:
– Lower GWP than plastic for virgin paper (and significantly lower for recycled)
– Higher water use than plastic (paper production is water-intensive)
– Lower abiotic depletion than plastic
For bagasse:
– Lower GWP than virgin paper (using agricultural byproduct as feedstock)
– Lower water use than virgin paper
– Significantly lower abiotic depletion than plastic
These are general patterns; specific products vary.
Using EPDs for procurement decisions
The practical procurement workflow:
Step 1: Identify candidate products. Multiple potential suppliers for the same product category.
Step 2: Request EPDs from each supplier. Reputable suppliers will provide them; suppliers who don’t have them or can’t provide them are signaling lower sustainability sophistication.
Step 3: Compare the EPDs. Use the comparison process above.
Step 4: Combine EPD analysis with other criteria. Price, functionality, supply chain reliability, certifications (BPI, FSC, etc.).
Step 5: Document the decision rationale. EPD-based procurement decisions provide documented sustainability rationale for audit and reporting purposes.
For LEED-certified buildings or facilities with formal sustainability commitments, the EPD documentation is often required for procurement justification.
When EPDs aren’t available
For product categories where EPDs aren’t widely available, alternative sustainability data sources:
Certifications. BPI compostability, FSC sustainably-sourced forestry, USDA BioPreferred, B Corp company-level. These don’t provide quantitative lifecycle data but indicate verified attributes.
Supplier sustainability reports. Annual sustainability reports from product suppliers often include carbon footprint and other environmental metrics, though typically less detailed than EPDs.
Industry studies and databases. Academic lifecycle analyses, industry association data, government databases (USLCI, etc.).
Engagement with supplier sustainability teams. Direct questions to sustainability-knowledgeable supplier contacts often surface useful information.
For categories without EPDs, the procurement decision uses available information plus reasonable assumptions about which products likely have lower environmental impact based on category-level knowledge.
EPDs and the carbon footprint conversation
For organizations tracking carbon footprint (Scope 3 emissions from purchased products), EPDs provide the data:
Scope 3 emissions reporting: Purchased products contribute to the buyer’s Scope 3 carbon footprint. EPDs provide the per-unit carbon footprint data for calculating total Scope 3 from purchases.
Annual carbon footprint reduction targets: Switching products to lower-EPD-impact alternatives reduces Scope 3 emissions. EPDs document the reduction.
Customer-facing carbon footprint claims: Brands marketing their carbon performance can reference specific product EPDs to substantiate claims.
For compostable food containers and other product categories where carbon performance matters, EPD-based procurement supports the broader carbon accounting work.
Industry-specific EPD considerations
Different industries have different EPD maturity:
Construction: Most mature category. LEED requires EPDs for many products. Available for nearly all major construction product categories.
Packaging: Growing category. EPDs available for many major packaging manufacturers. Compostable and bioplastic categories have growing coverage.
Foodservice: Earlier-stage category. Some leading suppliers publish EPDs; many smaller suppliers don’t.
Consumer products: Variable. Some categories (textiles, electronics) have growing EPD coverage; others remain rare.
Foods and beverages: EPD-equivalent documents exist (PEF – Product Environmental Footprint, used in EU) but are less standardized than construction EPDs.
For foodservice procurement specifically, EPDs are increasingly available from leading suppliers but still uncommon from the broader supply base. Expecting EPDs from every supplier is unrealistic; expecting them from major brands is reasonable.
Reading specific impact category results
Practical interpretation of common results:
Low GWP (under 1 kg CO2-eq per kg): Generally indicates low-carbon production. Common for: efficient paper from recycled fiber, some bagasse products, lower-input bioplastics.
Moderate GWP (1-5 kg CO2-eq per kg): Typical for most produced materials. Common for: virgin paper, most plastics, most agricultural products.
High GWP (5-20 kg CO2-eq per kg): Energy-intensive production. Common for: virgin aluminum, virgin steel, energy-intensive chemicals.
Very high GWP (above 20 kg CO2-eq per kg): Particularly carbon-intensive. Common for: beef production, some metals.
Negative GWP: Some bio-based products show negative GWP when biogenic carbon storage is counted. Indicates the product sequesters more carbon than its production emits.
These are reference points; actual product values vary.
What success looks like
For procurement teams developing EPD-fluent practice:
3 months in: Team can read EPDs and understand basic metrics. Comparisons between two similar products are routine.
6 months in: Team incorporates EPD review into procurement decisions where data is available. Suppliers know to provide EPDs when requested.
12 months in: EPD data feeds into Scope 3 carbon accounting. Sustainability reporting includes EPD-based product comparisons. Procurement decisions include sustainability criteria explicitly.
18-24 months in: Team has built a library of EPDs for key product categories. New supplier evaluations include EPD review as standard step.
The progression depends on the procurement team’s resources, the maturity of EPD availability in their product categories, and the organization’s broader sustainability commitments.
The pragmatic application
For most procurement professionals, EPDs are one input among many in product selection. The practical approach:
- Look for EPDs when major procurement decisions involve sustainability considerations
- Don’t require EPDs for every product category if availability is limited
- Use EPD data alongside certifications, supplier reliability, cost, and functional performance
- Document EPD-based reasoning for sustainability reporting and audit purposes
- Build EPD literacy over time as the category matures
For compostable cups and straws and the foodware category generally, EPD availability is improving year over year. Operations building EPD literacy now will be positioned to use the more comprehensive data available in 5 years.
The EPD framework isn’t a procurement silver bullet. It’s a tool — one of several — for making informed decisions about product environmental performance. Used well, it supports better procurement decisions and credible sustainability reporting. Used poorly, it becomes another compliance checkbox without operational impact.
The investment in EPD literacy pays back through better procurement decisions and stronger sustainability practice. The framework above is the working introduction; specific category expertise develops through repeated practice with actual EPDs in real procurement scenarios.