The question of which impact assessment method to use
Once an LCA inventory is complete — listing all the flows of materials, energy, and emissions associated with a product — it needs to be converted into environmental impact scores. This conversion is done using an impact assessment method, which provides the characterisation factors for each substance and impact category.
There are several established methods in use globally. Two of the most prominent are ReCiPe and the Environmental Footprint (EF) methodology. Root uses EF. Here’s why.
What is ReCiPe?
ReCiPe is a widely used impact assessment method developed by Dutch research institutes (RIVM, Radboud University, PRé Sustainability). It offers characterisation factors at two levels:
Midpoint — impact scores per environmental mechanism (e.g. kg CO₂e for climate change, kg SO₂e for acidification)
Endpoint — aggregated damage scores across three areas of protection: human health, ecosystem quality, and resource scarcity
ReCiPe has been popular in academic LCA and in some industry applications, particularly in Europe and the Netherlands.
What is the Environmental Footprint (EF) methodology?
The Environmental Footprint (EF) methodology was developed by the European Commission as part of its Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) and Organisation Environmental Footprint (OEF) frameworks. It defines:
A specific set of 16 impact categories with recommended characterisation methods for each
A common framework applicable across all product types and sectors in the EU
Regular updates aligned with the latest scientific consensus and EU policy priorities
Why Root chose EF over ReCiPe
1. It is the EU regulatory standard
The EF methodology is the framework mandated (or strongly recommended) by EU sustainability regulations including CSRD, the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR), and the EU Taxonomy. Using EF means Root’s outputs are directly aligned with what European regulators expect.
2. It is designed for corporate and product reporting
ReCiPe was developed primarily as an academic and consultancy tool. EF was specifically designed for standardised, comparable reporting at scale — exactly what Root’s users need.
3. It provides a common basis for benchmarking
Because EF is a shared standard across the EU, companies using Root can compare their footprints with industry benchmarks, sector averages, and competitor disclosures on a like-for-like basis. ReCiPe results vary depending on which version and perspective (hierarchist, egalitarian, individualist) is chosen, making comparability harder.
4. It covers all 16 impact categories systematically
EF defines characterisation methods for all 16 environmental impact categories in a single coherent framework. ReCiPe covers a similar set but with different category definitions and some methodological differences that make direct comparison difficult.
5. It underpins the Environmental Cost Indicator (ECI)
Root’s ECI — the €-per-product environmental metric — is built on EF normalisation and weighting factors. These come from the European Commission’s official EF datasets and are regularly updated as EU science and policy evolves.
Key differences between EF and ReCiPe
Dimension | Environmental Footprint (EF) | ReCiPe |
Developer | European Commission | Dutch academic consortium |
Primary use | Regulatory reporting, corporate footprinting | Academic LCA, consultancy |
Regulatory alignment | EU-mandated (CSRD, PEF, OEF) | Not regulatory |
Normalisation & weighting | Yes — EU-defined | Yes — but multiple perspectives |
Update cycle | Regular EU Commission updates | Less frequent |
Comparability | High — single standard | Moderate — version/perspective dependent |
Impact categories | 16 (EF 3.1) | 18 midpoint / 3 endpoint |
What this means for Root users
Your footprint results are directly aligned with EU regulatory requirements — no conversion or methodology adjustment needed for CSRD reporting
The 16 impact categories in your dashboards correspond exactly to the EF 3.1 category set
The ECI metric (€ value) is calculated using official EF normalisation and weighting factors from the European Commission
If you receive LCA studies from consultants using ReCiPe, expect some numerical differences — this is a methodology difference, not an error in either study
FAQ
Is EF recognised globally, or only in Europe?
EF is primarily a European standard and is most directly applicable to EU regulatory reporting. Outside Europe, other methods (e.g. TRACI in North America, Impact World+ globally) may be used. Root’s focus on EF reflects its primary user base and the EU’s global influence on sustainability reporting standards.
Will Root ever support multiple impact assessment methods?
Root currently standardises on EF for consistency and regulatory alignment. Supporting multiple methods would allow results to diverge based on methodological choices, making benchmarking and external reporting less reliable. If your specific use case requires a different method, contact Root’s LCA team to discuss.
What version of EF does Root use?
Root uses EF 3.1, the current version of the Environmental Footprint methodology as published by the European Commission. Updates to the EF method are tracked and incorporated into Root’s calculations as they are released.