> ## Documentation Index > Fetch the complete documentation index at: https://docs.greenzero.eu/llms.txt > Use this file to discover all available pages before exploring further. # Screening LCA > Requirements for creating simplified product life‑cycle assessments (LCAs) for determining environmental costs – Cosmetics sector **Version:** V2025‑02‑28‑SLCA ## 1.1 Introduction Preparing a standard‑compliant LCA in accordance with ISO 14040/44 is often complex and associated with high effort. Many companies shy away from this because access to data is difficult and extensive documentation requirements exist. As a result, the potential of LCA as an analysis instrument often remains unused. A pragmatic solution is offered by the *Screening‑LCA*, a simplified LCA that enables an initial assessment of a product's environmental impacts. GREENZERO provides a methodological description (separate document) that defines minimum requirements and methodological specifications in order to ensure a structured and comparable Screening‑LCA. Although it is not standardised, the Screening‑LCA follows clear methodological principles to provide a reliable basis for sustainable decisions. Its main goal is to identify hotspots in the product life cycle, reveal environmental potentials, and evaluate the need or necessity for a full LCA. In the long term, it can contribute to further development towards a standard‑compliant LCA and help companies systematically reduce their environmental impacts. The following sections give an overview of the requirements for the Screening‑LCA (cosmetics sector). A detailed description of the Screening‑LCA is provided in a methodological document. A Screening‑LCA is not yet a standardised term or process. The preparation of simplified LCAs can be carried out in accordance with the core LCA standard ISO 14040/44 and other standards, but indicates that, for the sake of simplification, compliance with all aspects of the standards is deliberately waived. The results of Screening‑LCAs are therefore only of limited significance and can generally not be used for further comparative analyses or external communication without additional validation. The statements made in this document are based on considerations by GREENZERO and do not claim completeness or conformity with any other standard. **Here is a comparison between Screening vs. Scientfic Life Cycle Assessment:** | **Category** | **Screening LCA** | **Scientific LCA** | | :----------------------------------------------------- | :-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | :------------------------------------------------------------------------ | | **Goal / Result** | Detailed scan of individual products for environmental cost calculation and hotspotting | Precise analysis of environmental impact and costs of individual products | | **ISO Compliance (14040/44)** | Based on standards | Yes | | **Data Collection** | LCAP software or Excel | LCAP software or Excel | | **Mapping** | LCA consultant | LCA consultant | | **No. of Raw Materials Included** | Up to 20 (note: \~) | Up to 30 (note: \~) | | **More Raw Materials Possible** | Yes (extra cost) | Yes (extra cost) | | **Use of LCA Database** | Limited preset by GREENZERO | e.g., Ecoinvent (more optional) | | **Proxy**\* Design w/ Primary Data (from Manufacturer) | No | Optional\* | | **Proxy**\* Design w/ Secondary Data (Literature) | No | Optional\* | | **Cut-off Criteria** | 5% | 0.1% | | **Hotspotting Possible** | Yes | Yes | | **Result Report** | Simple report (optionally detailed report for review) | Simple report (optionally detailed report for review) | | **Result Presentation** | Optional\* | Optional\* | | **Consultation on Results** | Optional\* | Optional\* | | **Critical Review by Third Parties** | No | Optional\* | | **Effort** | \~4 h incl. plausibility check (plus LCAP onboarding) | 5–8+ person-days | | **Communication Option** | Internal, B2B, optionally claim | Claim & seal | ## 1.2 General Information and Scope of Application | Aspect | Description | Minimum | Optional | | ----------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------ | | \*\*The reasons for carrying out the study \*\* | Conducting a Screening‑LCA for a cosmetic product (e.g. shampoo) to determine potential environmental impacts and associated environmental costs. | Execution of a Screening‑LCA for the product. | Detailed analysis progressing towards a full LCA. | | **Intended application** | Use the results as a decision basis for deeper analyses (e.g. certification according to GREENZERO v1.11). Results are not published or made accessible to third parties. | Internal use by product manufacturers **and third parties which have explicit permission**. | Optional publication for external stakeholders (when a full LCA exists). | | **Target audience** | Internal: primary addressees are product manufacturers as well as **third parties which have explicit permission**, B2B. | Manufacturers and retail partners. | – | ## 1.3 Standards and Guidelines for LCA Calculation | Aspect | Description | Minimum | Optional | | ----------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | **Standards used** | Mandatory standard and core requirement: ISO 14040/14044. | Oriented towards ISO standards. | Full conformity with ISO standards. | | **Guidelines or Product Category Rules (PCRs)** | GREENZERO requirements – cosmetics sector (separate document); Eco‑Beauty Score (status: under review). | GREENZERO requirements, cosmetics sector. | Use of the latest version of relevant PCRs or guidelines (e.g. Eco‑Beauty Score). Future adjustments to new standards. | | **Critical review** | No critical review planned for Screening‑LCAs. | Internal quality assurance. | External review. | | **Type of report** | See GREENZERO template example. | Internal report for manufacturers. | Extended reporting with critical review. | ## 1.4 Impact Assessment Method and Impact Categories | Aspect | Description | Minimum | Optional | | ------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------- | | **Mandatory method with impact categories** | ReCiPe 2016, hierarchist perspective (Huijbregts et al., 2017). | Use of the ReCiPe 2016 method. | Comparison with other methods possible. | | **Impact categories** | Climate change, eutrophication, acidification, summer smog, ozone depletion, land use, water use. | Assessment of the eight minimum impact categories. | Expansion to additional categories. | | **Environmental‑cost standard** | Environmental Cost Assessment (CE Delft 2021). | Application of the specified method. | Future adjustments to new standards. | ## 1.5 Product System | Aspect | Description | Minimum | Optional | | ------------------------------ | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------- | | **Product system** | Cosmetic product on the shelf (e.g. shampoo) including ingredients and primary and secondary packaging. The product system includes raw‑material extraction and transport (for ingredients and packaging), product manufacturing, inbound and outbound logistics, and the end‑of‑life of the product packaging. | Consideration of all relevant processes of the product system (see "Description"). | Analysis of alternative packaging/ingredients. | | **Accounting/functional unit** | One product on the shelf (including ingredients and primary and secondary packaging). Reference flow: one sales unit (e.g. 200 ml shampoo). | Compliance with the functional unit. | – | ## 1.6 System Boundaries, Data Collection, Quality and Exchange **Description:** Cradle‑to‑grave: raw‑material procurement, manufacturing, packaging, transport, end‑of‑life of packaging. Use by consumers and storage are not considered. **Minimum Requirements:** * Consideration of the defined system boundaries **Optional Extensions:** * Inclusion of the use phase possible * Expansion to additional processes possible (e.g. end‑of‑life of ingredients) Data relate to the raw materials and Ingredient used in a product. **Examples:** * Material type and quantity (e.g. 200 g PET for a bottle) * Chemical composition of ingredients (Bill of Materials, e.g. 5% surfactants in shampoo) * Origin of raw materials (e.g. sustainably sourced palm oil from country X) **Minimum Requirements:** * 100% use of complete primary data for material type and quantity (packaging) and chemical composition of ingredients (product) required * Comprehensive list of all primary data sources used **Optional Extensions:** * High share of primary data for further material‑ and ingredient‑related data * Supplement with detailed secondary data Data describe specific processes within the production chain. **Examples:** * Energy consumption (e.g. 500 kWh electricity for a production facility) * Water consumption (e.g. 100 litres water per product) * Emissions (e.g. CO₂ emissions of a factory) * Waste quantities (e.g. 2 kg plastic waste per batch) **Minimum Requirements:** * 100% primary data for production (electricity, heat, water) required * Comprehensive list of all primary data sources used **Optional Extensions:** * High share of further process‑related primary data desirable * Further differentiation by processes Data provide information on logistics and transport within the supply chain. **Examples:** * Transport distances (e.g. 500 km by truck from manufacturer to warehouse) * Transport modes (e.g. ship, rail, truck) * Fuel consumption and emissions (e.g. 50 litres diesel per 100 km) **Minimum Requirements:** * 50% primary data for transport routes along the supply chain * Supplier‑specific data desirable * Comprehensive list of all primary data sources used **Optional Extensions:** * High share of further transport‑related primary data desirable * Further differentiation by processes Direct information from manufacturing partners for material/energy flows (BOM, production, logistics). **Minimum:** * Direct exchange with manufacturers * Comprehensive list of all primary data sources used **Optional:** Supplement by specific studies Use of LCA databases (e.g. ecoinvent 3.9). **Minimum:** * Use of recognised data sources (see methodological documentation) * Comprehensive list of all secondary data sources used **Optional:** Comparison of different databases | Aspect | Primary Data | Secondary Data | Minimum | Optional | | --------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------ | -------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | **Temporal Reference Limits** | Most recent data, not older than two years for primary data. | Not older than five years. | Compliance with temporal requirements (for primary)/ Use of the latest available data. | For primary data: Update after project end

For secondary data: Sensitivity analysis for older data | | **Geographical Reference Limits** | Consideration of country‑specific primary data. | Consideration of location‑specific secondary data. | For primary data: Use of country‑specific average values

For secondary data: Use of continental average values | For primary data:
Use of manufacturer‑specific average values

For secondary data: Use of country‑specific average values | Mass‑based cut‑off criteria of 5.0% (use of proxies). **Minimum Requirements:** * Documentation of cut‑off criteria * Use of proxies when applying cut‑off criteria (see methodological documentation) **Optional Extensions:** * Further sensitivity analyses ## 1.7 Methods of Data Collection and Calculation | Aspect | Description | Minimum Requirements | Optional Extensions | | ------------------------------ | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------- | | **Specific calculation rules** | • End‑of‑life rules: cut‑off criteria for evaluating waste treatment and recycling
• Allocation: allocation rules and corresponding standards
• Handling of biogenic carbon (0/0 static approach) | Compliance with the defined calculation rules (see methodological documentation) | Adaptation to new developments possible |