Comparative Analysis of LCA Based Domestic and International Regulations of Carbon Emissions Accounting Methodologies
LCAに基づく国内・国際炭素排出会計手法の比較分析 (AI 翻訳)
Dream Oh, Sueng Hoon Lee, Dae Yong Kim, Yong Un Ban
🤖 gxceed AI 要約
日本語
本研究はEU PEF、GHGプロトコル、PAS 2050、韓国EPDといった製品炭素フットプリント（PCF）手法をISO 14044/14067に基づき比較。感度分析ではデータベースの違いだけで最大90%の乖離が生じることを示し、EU PEFの厳格な要求（機能単位、DQR、報告形式）が他の原則主義的手法と対照的であることを明らかにした。韓国EPDにはPEF型の品質管理と検証強化、国家LCI DBの拡張が求められる。
English
This study compares LCA-based domestic and international PCF accounting regulations including EU PEF, GHG Protocol, PAS 2050, and Korea EPD. A sensitivity analysis reveals that differences in background LCI databases alone can cause deviations up to 90%. EU PEF sets strictest requirements with concrete functional units, DQR, and standardized reporting, while other schemes remain principle-based. For Korea EPD, priorities include adopting PEF-type quality management, tightening verification, and expanding the national LCI DB for international alignment.
Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.
📝 gxceed 編集解説 — Why this matters
日本のGX文脈において
日本企業がEU市場で製品CFPを開示する際、本論文が示す手法間の乖離（最大90%）は重要な警告となる。日本のSuMPOやカーボンフットプリント制度の改善にも、EU PEFの厳格なデータ品質管理（DQR）や機能単位の具体化が参考になる。
In the global GX context
The paper provides empirical evidence of significant discrepancies (up to 90%) among major carbon footprint accounting schemes, highlighting the urgent need for global harmonization. For practitioners adopting ISSB or CSRD, the findings underscore that data quality and methodological consistency are critical for reliable disclosure and avoiding greenwashing accusations.
👥 読者別の含意
🔬研究者:Demonstrates how LCI database choice disproportionately affects PCF results, warranting further research on normalization and sensitivity analysis across standards.
🏢実務担当者:Highlights the need for careful selection and documentation of LCA methodology and background data to ensure comparability and acceptance in global markets.
🏛政策担当者:Supports arguments for adopting stricter, more prescriptive standards (like EU PEF) to reduce uncertainty and enhance credibility of carbon claims.
📄 Abstract（原文）
With tightening climate targets, internationally consistent product carbon footprint (PCF) accounting based on ISO 14044 and ISO 14067 is critical. This study compares LCA-based domestic and international regulations, evaluating the EU Product Environmental Footprint (PEF), GHG Protocol, PAS 2050, and the Korea EPD scheme. Analysis reveals that EU PEF sets the strictest requirements through concrete functional units, data quality ratings (DQR), and standardized reporting, while other schemes remain principle-based. A sensitivity analysis varying only the background LCI database under identical conditions shows large deviations, including underestimations up to 90%. These results indicate that differences in cut-off criteria, impact selection, and verification directly influence outcomes via data management practices. For the Korea EPD, priorities include adopting PEF-type quality management, tightening verification, and expanding the national LCI DB for international alignment. Improving the national database is essential for domestic industries to navigate global regulations and ensure environmental claims are recognized without technical discrepancies.
🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース
- semanticscholar https://doi.org/10.14251/crisisonomy.2026.22.2.255first seen 2026-05-06 00:47:06
gxceed は公開メタデータに基づく研究支援データセットです。要約・翻訳・解説は AI 支援で生成されています。 最終的な解釈・検証は利用者が原典資料に基づいて行うことを前提とします。