Unharmonized methodological and data choices in life cycle assessments (LCAs) and product carbon footprints (PCFs) often compromise the comparability of results and decision-making. This limits the effectiveness of LCA and PCF calculations in steering the development and selection of products and materials with lower environmental impacts. While sector-specific guidance for the railway industry does exist, current frameworks are not solely focused on PCF calculation and do not address the implementation or data exchange via a digital platform, as exemplified by initiatives such as the Catena-X PCF guideline for the automotive sector. To address these gaps, this study analyzes current LCA and PCF practices in the railway sector and compares them with leading PCF guidelines and standards. The study identifies methodological approaches within the railway industry, explores opportunities for harmonization with cross-sectoral standards, and highlights railway-specific issues that remain insufficiently addressed in existing guidelines. The results of the review show several conflicts in methodological approaches between Environmental Product Declarations, scientific LCAs, and established standards and guidelines. Furthermore, the main contributions to global warming potential in the railway sector stem from the use stage and the infrastructure related to rolling stock, whereas prominent PCF guidelines such as Catena-X and Pathfinder recommend a cradle-to-gate perspective. Building on these findings, the study provides initial recommendations for the development of a harmonized PCF calculation in a digital platform context, e.g., regarding the robust modeling and documentation of the use stage.
Weise et al. (Thu,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: