ASTM E3027-23

Standard Guide for Making Sustainability-Related Chemical Selection Decisions in the Life-Cycle of Products

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 This guide outlines sustainability factors for manufacturers to consider when comparing alternative chemicals or ingredients across the life cycle of a product.  
4.2 Methods exist for the evaluation of chemical hazards for product-chemical pairs. These methods are referenced in several regulatory, non-regulatory, and green building schemes and should be conducted as part of an analysis of this type.
Note 1: Evaluation methods include, but are not limited to, Clean Production Action’s GreenScreen for Safer Chemicals,5 The United States Environmental Protection Agency’s Design for the Environment (DfE) Alternatives Assessment Criteria for Hazards Evaluation (Safer Choice) methodology and the National Academy of Sciences’ A Framework to Guide Selection of Chemical Alternatives.8 Regulatory schemes include laws such as the Safer Consumer Products Rule9 in California or the Registration, Evaluation, and Authorization of Chemicals (REACH)10 regulations in Europe. Green building schemes include the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)11 system by the USGBC, which references these indirectly through third-party certifications. However, neither these assessment tools nor the various schemes that reference them have set guidance for using the data in making decisions on which products and ingredients are ultimately the most sustainable.  
4.3 Similarly, many tools exist for measuring economic viability, such as value-models and cost analysis. There are also many tools and techniques for measuring social acceptance of products such as sales trends, voice of the customer and many other types of surveys.  
4.4 This guide acknowledges the need for determining a baseline for comparing the performance (environmental, economic, and social) of an existing product-chemical pair in a product with the possible/potential alternatives. As such, when using this guide, companies shall use the same study boundaries for the original baseline case and for all alternat...
SCOPE
1.1 This guide covers sustainability factors for product manufacturers to consider when comparing alternative chemicals or ingredients across the life cycle of a product. Such an analysis could be used in product development, answering customer inquiries, or replying to regulatory requests, among others.  
1.2 This guide integrates many of the principles of green chemistry and green engineering in evaluating the factors across the social (including human health), economic, and ecological attributes in the use of a particular material and potential alternatives in a particular product.  
1.3 This guide provides an outline for the contents of a report of the results of the analysis, including an executive summary, detailed report, and retrospective.  
1.4 This guide does not provide guidance on how to perform chemical risk assessment, alternatives assessment, life-cycle assessment, or economic analysis, or how the alternatives decision-making framework will be completed.  
1.5 This guide does not suggest in what order the social, ecological, or economic attributes of sustainability should be evaluated or which one is most important. This is a decision of the company performing the decision-making evaluation.  
1.6 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.7 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

General Information

• Status: Published
• Publication Date: 31-Oct-2023
• ICS: 13.020.60 - Product life-cycles
• Technical Committee: E60 - Sustainability
• Drafting Committee: E60.80 - General Sustainability Standards

Relations

• Replaces: ASTM E3027-18a - Standard Guide for Making Sustainability-Related Chemical Selection Decisions in the Life-Cycle of Products
• Effective Date: 01-Nov-2023
• Referred By: ASTM E3341-22 - Standard Guide for General Principles of Resilience
• Effective Date: 01-Nov-2023
• Referred By: ASTM E3182-20 - Standard Practice for Preparing an Occupant Exposure Screening Report (OESR) for Substances in Installed Building Products
• Effective Date: 01-Nov-2023

Overview

ASTM E3027-23: Standard Guide for Making Sustainability-Related Chemical Selection Decisions in the Life-Cycle of Products provides an organized framework for manufacturers to consider sustainability factors when selecting chemicals or ingredients throughout the life cycle of a product. This guide promotes informed, consistent, and holistic decision-making that takes into account ecological, social, and economic considerations. Drawing from established principles of green chemistry and green engineering, the standard aids organizations in aligning their product development and responses to regulatory or customer inquiries with sustainability best practices.

Key Topics

• Holistic Life-Cycle Analysis: The standard emphasizes evaluating chemical alternatives at all stages, including raw material acquisition, transport, manufacturing, use, and end-of-life processing.
• Three Pillars of Sustainability: Decisions are guided by the assessment of:
  • Environmental/ecological impacts (resource consumption, emissions, waste, recyclability)
  • Social factors (worker safety, community impact, stakeholder engagement)
  • Economic considerations (costs, operational impacts, market acceptability)
• Use of Established Frameworks: References to tools and assessment methods such as Clean Production Action’s GreenScreen for Safer Chemicals and the US EPA Safer Choice program help ensure consistency and reliability in hazard evaluation.
• Baseline and Comparison: Manufacturers are required to set clear system boundaries and maintain consistent comparison criteria across baseline and alternative options.
• Stakeholder Input: The guide encourages engagement with both internal and external stakeholders to capture social impacts and gather market intelligence.
• Reporting Structure: Outlines reporting requirements, including executive summaries, detailed analyses, and retrospectives for continuous improvement.

Applications

ASTM E3027-23 is valuable for organizations seeking to:

• Develop Sustainable Products: Integrate sustainability into product development by comparing chemical alternatives with a multi-attribute approach.
• Support Regulatory and Customer Responses: Prepare comprehensive, sustainability-focused reports for regulatory submissions or customer queries.
• Meet Green Building and Certification Standards: Align with frameworks referenced in schemes like LEED, Safer Consumer Products Rule (California), and European REACH.
• Drive Corporate Social Responsibility: Address workforce safety, fair labor practices, and community impacts throughout the product life cycle.
• Promote Circular Economy Goals: Consider end-of-life options such as recyclability, biodegradability, and take-back programs when selecting chemicals or materials.
• Facilitate Transparent Decision-Making: Establish clear documentation and justifications for chemical selection, including the identification and mitigation of data gaps.

Related Standards

• ASTM E2114: Terminology for Sustainability, providing definitions essential to understanding and implementation.
• NSF/ANSI Standard 61: Guidelines for evaluating the health effects of water system components.
• US EPA Safer Choice (DfE) Criteria: Hazard evaluation methods recognized by regulators.
• Clean Production Action’s GreenScreen for Safer Chemicals: Benchmark for chemical hazard assessment.
• LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design): Uses third-party certifications for sustainable construction.
• California Safer Consumer Products Rule: Regulatory scheme for chemical alternatives assessment.
• REACH (Registration, Evaluation, and Authorization of Chemicals - EU): European framework for chemical safety.

---

Keywords: sustainability, chemical selection, life-cycle assessment, alternatives assessment, green chemistry, green engineering, product development, regulatory compliance, ecological impact, economic evaluation, social responsibility, ASTM E3027-23

Standards Content (Sample)

This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the
Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.
Designation: E3027 − 23
Standard Guide for
Making Sustainability-Related Chemical Selection Decisions
in the Life-Cycle of Products
This standard is issued under the fixed designation E3027; the number immediately following the designation indicates the year of
original adoption or, in the case of revision, the year of last revision. A number in parentheses indicates the year of last reapproval. A
superscript epsilon (´) indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval.
1. Scope 2. Referenced Documents
1.1 This guide covers sustainability factors for product 2.1 ASTM Standards:
manufacturers to consider when comparing alternative chemi- E2114 Terminology for Sustainability
cals or ingredients across the life cycle of a product. Such an
2.2 NSF/ANSI Standard:
analysis could be used in product development, answering
NSF/ANSI Standard 61: Drinking water system compo-
customer inquiries, or replying to regulatory requests, among
nents – Health effects
others.
2.3 Other Standards:
1.2 This guide integrates many of the principles of green
US EPA Design for the Environment (DfE) Alternatives
chemistry and green engineering in evaluating the factors
Assessment Criteria for Hazard Evaluation
across the social (including human health), economic, and
Clean Production Action GreenScreen for Safer Chemicals
ecological attributes in the use of a particular material and
potential alternatives in a particular product. 3. Terminology
3.1 Definitions: For definitions related to sustainability not
1.3 This guide provides an outline for the contents of a
report of the results of the analysis, including an executive defined within this guide, refer to Terminology E2114.
3.2 Definitions of Terms Specific to This Standard:
summary, detailed report, and retrospective.
3.2.1 alternatives decision-making framework, n—process
1.4 This guide does not provide guidance on how to perform
by which the alternatives are evaluated in any product life-
chemical risk assessment, alternatives assessment, life-cycle
cycle stage with the goal of creating a product with an
assessment, or economic analysis, or how the alternatives
improved or less impactful result.
decision-making framework will be completed.
3.2.2 assessment, alternative, n—the activity of comparing
1.5 This guide does not suggest in what order the social,
the existing material and the material identified as a possible
ecological, or economic attributes of sustainability should be
alternate.
evaluated or which one is most important. This is a decision of
3.2.3 confidential business information, n—business details
the company performing the decision-making evaluation.
including, but not limited to financial data, business
1.6 This standard does not purport to address all of the
relationships, product ingredients, or manufacturing processes
safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the
that are unique to and held as proprietary to an organization.
responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appro-
3.2.3.1 Discussion—Confidential business information may
priate safety, health, and environmental practices and deter-
also be referred to as trade secret information, especially as it
mine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.
relates to product formulation and manufacturing processes.
1.7 This international standard was developed in accor-
dance with internationally recognized principles on standard-
ization established in the Decision on Principles for the
For referenced ASTM standards, visit the ASTM website, www.astm.org, or
Development of International Standards, Guides and Recom-
contact ASTM Customer Service at [e-mail]. For Annual Book of ASTM
mendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical
Standards volume information, refer to the standard’s Document Summary page on
the ASTM website.
Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.
Available from NSF International, P.O. Box 130140, 789 N. Dixboro Rd., Ann
Arbor, MI 48105, http://www.nsf.org.
Available from US EPA, Safer Choice Program, Office of Pollution Prevention
This guide is under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee E60 on Sustainability & Toxics, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Mail Code 7406-M, Washington, DC,
and is the direct responsibility of Subcommittee E60.80 on General Sustainability http://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-01/documents/aa_criteria_v2.pdf.
Standards. Safer Choice is the new name for EPA’s Design for the Environment Program.
Current edition approved Nov. 1, 2023. Published December 2023. Originally GreenScreen is available from and a registered trademark of Clean Production
approved in 2015. Last previous edition approved in 2018 as E3027 – 18a. DOI: Action, 1310 Broadway, Suite 101, Somerville, MA 02144, http://
10.1520/E3027-23. www.greenscreenchemicals.org/method/method-documents.
Copyright © ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. United States
E3027 − 23
3.2.4 data gap, n—lack of information, quantitative data, 3.2.11 life-cycle, n—the stages of a product or process
modeled data, or estimations based upon read-across evidence defined as: (1) the raw material production or acquisition stage,
used to determine the relative impact measure of an ingredient,
(2) the material transport stage, (3) the manufacturing stage
process, or product. (which includes transportation to the point of sale), (4) the use
stage, and (5) the end-of-life stage.
3.2.5 economic assessment, n—assessment which takes ac-
count of internal and external costs and benefits relative to the
3.2.12 manufacturing stage, n—the segment of the life-
organization, generally those that can be valued in monetary
cycle under the responsibility of the manufacturer, including
terms.
activities such as formulation and production, through the
3.2.5.1 Discussion—This could include a comparative cost
transport of the final product to the point of purchase.
study of production, material, and end-product costs of two or
3.2.13 product-chemical pair, n—specific chemical ingredi-
more ingredients, production methods, or products.
ent or material that is being evaluated in a specific product and
3.2.6 exposure, n—contact with a chemical, biological, or
use application.
physical agent by an ecosystem or living organism, and the
3.2.14 read-across evidence, n—data that is inferred from a
duration and level of intensity of that contact.
chemical that is similar in structure to the chemical being
3.2.7 feasibility, n—overall ability of an alternative to be
considered that can be used to fill data gaps.
used based on human and ecological safety profiles,
economics, performance, social benefits, compliance with 3.2.15 risk, n—the probability or chance of harmful effects
regulatory requirements, and consumer acceptance.
to human or ecological health resulting from exposure to a
stressor including any physical, chemical, or biological entity
3.2.8 green chemistry and green engineering, n—the phi-
that can induce an adverse response.
losophy of chemical research and design that encourages
creating products and processes that minimize the use or 3.2.15.1 Discussion—Risk is a function of hazard and ex-
generation, or both, of hazardous substances, hazardous pro- posure and therefore actions that impact either will impact risk.
cess conditions, resources, energy, wastes, and water through-
3.2.16 risk, residual, n—potential danger that is theoreti-
out the product life-cycle.
cally possible after taking safety measures or precautions, or
3.2.8.1 Discussion—Green chemistry and green engineering
both, to minimize exposure to a stressor, such as a chemical,
are often referenced separately. Refer to Green Chemistry:
biological, or other agent.
Theory and Practice and “Design through the Twelve Prin-
3.2.17 sensitive subpopulation, n—a subset of the general
ciples of Green Engineering” for a more detailed discussion of
both. population that is more likely to endure negative physiological
impacts from exposure to a hazard than the average individual.
3.2.9 hazard, n—a source of potential harm or damage to
life, health, property, or environment due to exposure to a
3.2.17.1 Discussion—Examples of affected subsets may in-
substance.
clude but are not limited to the elderly, children, or pregnant
3.2.10 impact, n—an effect, which can be positive or nega-
women.
tive.
3.2.18 stressor, n—a chemical, physical or biological agent
that causes stress to an organism.
3.2.10.1 Discussion—An impact can be across more than
one aspect of sustainability. However, any specific impact
3.2.19 sustainability attributes, n—characteristics and their
should be addressed consistently within the analysis.
related effects that identify economic, social, health, and
3.2.10.2 impact, environmental, n—changes on ecosystems
ecologic factors for consideration at each stage of the life-
or living organisms, other than humans, attributed to a
cycle.
chemical, biological, or physical interaction.
3.2.20 use stage, n—the period between when a product is
3.2.10.3 impact, human health, n—changes to the health or
placed into service until it reaches the end of its useful life.
well-being of a group of individuals or the entire population
attributed to a chemical, biological, or physical interaction.
4. Significance and Use
3.2.10.4 impacts, social, n—effects of an activity on the
4.1 This guide outlines sustainability factors for manufac-
well-being of a group of individuals, families, community, or
turers to consider when comparing alternative chemicals or
other social group.
ingredients across the life cycle of a product.
(1) Discussion—In the context of sustainability, observed
changes in social well-being result from actions made by one
4.2 Methods exist for the evaluation of chemical hazards for
or more groups that make up society as a whole. Impacts can
product-chemical pairs. These methods are referenced in sev-
be positive (better), negative (worse), or neutral (no effect).
eral regulatory, non-regulatory, and green building schemes
and should be conducted as part of an analysis of this type.
NOTE 1—Evaluation methods include, but are not limited to, Clean
Production Action’s GreenScreen for Safer Chemicals, The United States
Anastas, P. and Warner, J., Green Chemistry: Theory and Practice, Oxford
Environmental Protection Agency’s Design for the Environment (DfE)
University Press, 1998.
Alternatives Assessment Criteria for Hazards Evaluation (Safer Choice)
Anastas, P.T., and Zimmerman, J.B., “Design through the Twelve Principles of
Green Engineering,” Env. Sci. and Tech., 37, 5, 94A-101A, 2003. methodology and the National Academy of Sciences’ A Framework to
E3027 − 23
Guide Selection of Chemical Alternatives. Regulatory schemes include
most relevant of human health impacts for employees, users,
laws such as the Safer Consumer Products Rule in California or the
and other pertinent individuals. An example of such a risk
Registration, Evaluation, and Authorization of Chemicals (REACH)
assessment is NSF/ANSI Standard 61: Drinking Water System
regulations in Europe. Green building schemes include the Leadership in
Components – Health Effects for potable water systems and
Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) system by the USGBC,
applications, though many other assessment methods exist for
which references these indirectly through third-party certifications.
However, neither these assessment tools nor the various schemes that
other industries.
reference them have set guidance for using the data in making decisions
5.1.1.2 Risk should be considered at each of the stages of
on which products and ingredients are ultimately the most sustainable.
the life-cycle as factors such as exposure and hazard may differ
4.3 Similarly, many tools exist for measuring economic
in each stage.
viability, such as value-models and cost analysis. There are
5.1.2 Social considerations include applicable regulations
also many tools and techniques for measuring social accep-
related to labor, worker health and safety, and other related
tance of products such as sales trends, voice of the customer
factors.
and many other types of surveys.
5.1.3 A list of social considerations of the alternatives
should be created for each life-cycle stage taking into consid-
4.4 This guide acknowledges the need for determining a
eration stakeholders, corporate culture, and social norms of the
baseline for comparing the performance (environmental,
market.
economic, and social) of an existing product-chemical pair in a
product with the possible/potential alternatives. As such, when
NOTE 2—The list of social sustainability factors will differ from one
using this guide, companies shall use the same study bound-
company to another as corporate culture/values are never identical. A
aries for the original baseline case and for all alternative company participating in a specific market space can define for itself what
social considerations matter but in some manner internal and external
options under assessment. Further, when feasible, the same
health impacts must be considered.
assessment tools should also be used for all options being
5.1.4 Social sustainability factors of importance will differ
analyzed.
from product to product and in various stages of the product
4.5 Sustainability is a very holistic and encompassing con-
life-cycle.
cept. As such, many factors cross all three attributes of
5.1.5 Identification of some of the social sustainability
sustainability. While factors may be assigned one way in this
factors that are of importance may be accomplished via one of
guide, it is recognized the user has discretion to assign them to
many methods, such as through internal and external stake-
whatever attribute(s) they deem appropriate when performing
holder feedback including the community, voice of the
this analysis. However, the user should consistently categorize
customer, or many sales/marketing tools discussed in market-
among all analyses for the purpose of easy comparison.
ing texts. Those undertaking this analysis should obtain feed-
4.6 This guide is structured such that the impacts of each
back from internal and external stakeholders at each stage of
life cycle stage (that is, raw material acquisition, raw material
the life-cycle as input to the assessment.
transport, manufacturing, use, and end of life) are considered in
5.1.6 While there are many sustainability issues to consider,
their entirety for each attribute of sustainability (that is, social,
one that can significantly impact social factors is raw material
economic, and ecological). Users of this guide also may wish
availability. Sustainability inherently requires the consider-
to take an alternative approach by considering the impacts
ations of ensuring that raw material availability for the needs of
associated with all three attributes of sustainability (for
future generations is met.
example, social, economic, and ecological) for each life cycle
5.2 Considerations of Social Sustainable Factors at the Raw
stage before moving on to the next life cycle stage. This
Material Acquisition Stage:
alternate approach may provide a different perspective regard-
5.2.1 While social considerations impact many groups of
ing identifying areas of high impact within each life cycle
individuals, at this stage they will revolve disproportionately
stage.
around the worker. Such sustainability factors may include
wages, safety and health of workers, child-labor, slave labor,
5. Social Considerations
worker benefits, labor practices, the politics of domestic versus
5.1 General:
foreign sourcing, and other labor-centric issues.
5.1.1 This section provides guidance on choosing the social
5.2.1.1 Worker health and safety should include items such
sustainability factors that may be used as input into the
as access to personal protective equipment, availability of
alternatives decision making.
emergency care, as well as safe management of materials as
5.1.1.1 The alternatives assessment should be used as input
dictated by risk of exposure and potential impacts.
into a risk assessment or risk assessments to determine the
5.2.2 Socio-political conditions in which raw materials are
most commonly acquired, including extraction, mining, or
harvest, may be an additional consideration. Areas with issues
A Framework to Guide Selection of Chemical Alternatives, The National
Academies Press, Washington DC, 2014.
such as human rights concerns, oppressive regimes, and known
California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4.5, Chapter 55, https://
areas of terrorist activity should be considerations in determin-
dtsc.ca.gov/scp/safer-consumer-products-regulations/
10 ing a material’s viability to any corporation.
Registration, Evaluation and Authorization of Chemicals (REACH), The
European Chemicals Agency, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/
5.3 Social Considerations at the Material Transport Stage:
?uri=CELEX:02006R1907-20140822.
5.3.1 Safe management of raw materials and wastes should
Version 4 available from United States Green Building Council (USGBC),
http://www.usgbc.org/leed#v4. be a consideration in the evaluation at the transport stage of a
E3027 − 23
raw material to protect workers and the general public. Raw product or components are factors that may be important, as
materials posing health (that is, toxicity) or physical (for well as the availability of take-back programs.
example, flammability or corrosiveness) risks should be evalu- 5.6.4 The conditions under which the final disposition
ated in the assessment. processes occur and their impact upon the health of employees
and nearby community in this stage, as well as the fair
5.3.2 Additional considerations may involve transport
method(s). For example, access to markets, transport treatment of employees, should be considered.
connectivity, safety of method and other factors are important
6. Economic Considerations
considerations as an organization considers how to transport
raw materials to production facilities.
6.1 General:
6.1.1 Economic considerations include adherence to all
5.4 Social Considerations of the Manuf
...

This document is not an ASTM standard and is intended only to provide the user of an ASTM standard an indication of what changes have been made to the previous version. Because
it may not be technically possible to adequately depict all changes accurately, ASTM recommends that users consult prior editions as appropriate. In all cases only the current version
of the standard as published by ASTM is to be considered the official document.
Designation: E3027 − 18a E3027 − 23
Standard Guide for
Making Sustainability-Related Chemical Selection Decisions
in the Life-Cycle of Products
This standard is issued under the fixed designation E3027; the number immediately following the designation indicates the year of
original adoption or, in the case of revision, the year of last revision. A number in parentheses indicates the year of last reapproval. A
superscript epsilon (´) indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval.
1. Scope
1.1 This guide outlinescovers sustainability factors for product manufacturers to consider when comparing alternative chemicals
or ingredients across the life cycle of a product. Such an analysis could be used in product development, answering customer
inquiries, or replying to regulatory requests, among others.
1.2 This guide integrates many of the principles of green chemistry and green engineering in evaluating the factors across the
social (including human health), economic, and ecological attributes in the use of a particular material and potential alternatives
in a particular product.
1.3 This guide provides an outline for the contents of a report of the results of the analysis, including an executive summary,
detailed report, and retrospective.
1.4 This guide does not provide guidance on how to perform chemical risk assessment, alternatives assessment, life-cycle
assessment, or economic analysis, or how the alternatives decision-making framework will be completed.
1.5 This guide does not suggest in what order the social, ecological, or economic attributes of sustainability should be evaluated
or which one is most important. This is a decision of the company performing the decision-making evaluation.
1.6 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility
of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of
regulatory limitations prior to use.
1.7 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization
established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued
by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.
2. Referenced Documents
2.1 ASTM Standard:Standards:
E2114 Terminology for Sustainability
2.2 NSF/ANSI Standard:
NSF/ANSI Standard 61: Drinking water system components–Healthcomponents – Health effects
This guide is under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee E60 on Sustainability and is the direct responsibility of Subcommittee E60.80 on General Sustainability
Standards.
Current edition approved April 1, 2018Nov. 1, 2023. Published April 2018December 2023. Originally approved in 2015. Last previous edition approved in 2018 as
E3027E3027 – 18a.-18. DOI: 10.1520/E3027-18A.10.1520/E3027-23.
For referenced ASTM standards, visit the ASTM website, www.astm.org, or contact ASTM Customer Service at [e-mail]. For Annual Book of ASTM Standards
volume information, refer to the standard’s Document Summary page on the ASTM website.
Available from NSF International, P.O. Box 130140, 789 N. Dixboro Rd., Ann Arbor, MI,MI 48105, http://www.nsf.org.
Copyright © ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. United States
E3027 − 23
2.3 Other Standards:
US EPA Design for the Environment (DfE) Alternatives Assessment Criteria for Hazard Evaluation
Clean Production Action GreenScreen for Safer Chemicals
3. Terminology
3.1 Definitions: For definitions related to sustainability not defined within this guide, refer to Terminology E2114.
3.2 Definitions of Terms Specific to This Standard:
3.2.1 alternatives decision-making framework, n—process by which the alternatives are evaluated in any product life-cycle
stage/phasestage with the goal of creating a product with an improved or less impactful result.
3.2.2 assessment, alternative, n—the activity of comparing the existing material and the material identified as a possible alternate.
3.2.3 confidential business information, n—business details including, but not limited to financial data, business relationships,
product ingredients, or manufacturing processes that are unique to and held as proprietary to an organization.
3.2.3.1 Discussion—
Confidential business information may also be referred to as trade secret information, especially as it relates to product formulation
and manufacturing processes.
3.2.4 data gap, n—lack of information, quantitative data, modeled data, or estimations based upon read-across evidence used to
determine the relative impact measure of an ingredient, process, or product.
3.2.5 economic assessment, n—assessment which takes account of internal and external costs and benefits relative to the
organization, generally those that can be valued in monetary terms.
3.2.5.1 Discussion—
This could include a comparative cost study of production, material, and end-product costs of two or more ingredients, production
methods, or products.
3.2.6 exposure, n—contact with a chemical, biological, or physical agent by an ecosystem or living organism, and the duration and
level of intensity of that contact.
3.2.7 feasibility, n—overall ability of an alternative to be used based on human and ecological safety profiles, economics,
performance, social benefits, compliance with regulatory requirements, and consumer acceptance.
3.2.8 green chemistry and green engineering, n—the philosophy of chemical research and design that encourages creating
products and processes that minimize the use or generation, or both, of hazardous substances, hazardous process conditions,
resources, energy, wastes, and water throughout the product life-cycle.
3.2.8.1 Discussion—
Green chemistry and green engineering are often referenced separately. Refer to Green Chemistry: Theory and Practice and
“Design through the Twelve Principles of Green Engineering” for a more detailed discussion of both.
3.2.9 hazard, n—a source of potential harm or damage to life, health, property, or environment due to exposure to a substance.
3.2.10 impact, n—an effect, which can be positive or negative.
3.2.10.1 Discussion—
An impact can be across more than one aspect of sustainability. However, any specific impact should be addressed consistently
within the analysis.
3.2.10.2 impact, environmental, n—changes on ecosystems or living organisms, other than humans, attributed to a chemical,
biological, or physical interaction.
Available from US EPA, Safer Choice Program, Office of Pollution Prevention & Toxics, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Mail Code 7406-M, Washington, DC,
http://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-01/documents/aa_criteria_v2.pdf. Safer Choice is the new name for EPA’s Design for the Environment Program.
GreenScreen is available from and a registered trademark of Clean Production Action, 1310 Broadway, Suite 101, Somerville, MA 02144, http://
www.greenscreenchemicals.org/method/method-documents.
Anastas, P. and Warner, J., Green Chemistry: Theory and Practice, Oxford University Press, 1998.
Anastas, P.T., and Zimmerman, J.B., “Design through the Twelve Principles of Green Engineering,” Env. Sci. and Tech., 37, 5, 94A-101A, 2003.
E3027 − 23
3.2.10.3 impact, human health, n—changes to the health or well-being of a group of individuals or the entire population
attributed to a chemical, biological, or physical interaction.
3.2.10.4 impacts, social, n—effects of an activity on the well-being of a group of individuals, families, community, or other
social group.
(1) Discussion—In the context of sustainability, observed changes in social well-being result from actions made by one or more
groups that make up society as a whole. Impacts can be positive (better), negative (worse), or neutral (no effect).
3.2.10.5 Discussion—
In the context of sustainability, observed changes in social well-being result from actions made by one or more groups that make
up society as a whole. Impacts can be positive (better), negative (worse), or neutral (no effect).
3.2.11 life-cycle, n—the stages of a product or process defined as: (1) the raw material production or acquisition stage, (2) the
material transport stage, (3) the manufacturing stage (which includes transportation to the point of sale), (4) the use stage, and (5)
the end-of-life stage.
3.2.11.1 Discussion—
The terms stage and phase are used interchangeably. Additionally, the stages/phases defined in this guide may be changed by the
user for his/her needs. For example, the transport of a finished product to the point of purchase by the user may be included in
the use phase, the manufacturing stage, or its own stage/phase. This is completely acceptable within the parameters outlined for
the practice of life-cycle assessment (LCA), so long as they are addressed consistently across the analysis being performed.
3.2.12 manufacturing stage, n—the segment of the life-cycle under the responsibility of the manufacturer, including activities such
as formulation and production, through the transport of the final product to the point of purchase.
3.2.13 product-chemical pair, n—specific chemical ingredient or material that is being evaluated in a specific product and use
application.
3.2.14 read-across evidence, n—data that is inferred from a chemical that is similar in structure to the chemical being considered
that can be used to fill data gaps.
3.2.15 risk, n—the probability or chance of harmful effects to human or ecological health resulting from exposure to a stressor
including any physical, chemical, or biological entity that can induce an adverse response.
3.2.15.1 Discussion—
Risk is a function of hazard and exposure and therefore actions that impact either will impact risk.
3.2.16 risk, residual, n—potential danger that is theoretically possible after taking safety measures or precautions, or both, to
minimize exposure to a stressor, such as a chemical, biological, or other agent.
3.2.17 sensitive subpopulation, n—a subset of the general population that areis more likely to endure negative physiological
impacts from exposure to a hazard than the average individual.
3.2.17.1 Discussion—
Examples of affected subsets may include but are not limited to the elderly, children, or pregnant women.
3.2.18 stressor, n—a chemical, physical or biological agent that causes stress to an organism.
3.2.19 sustainability attributes, n—characteristics and their related effects that identify economic, social, health, and ecologic
factors for consideration at each phase/stagestage of the life-cycle.
3.2.20 use phase,stage, n—the use phase is the period in the product’s life-cycle from when it is received by the final end user
and period between when a product is placed into service until it reaches the end of its useful life.
4. Significance and Use
4.1 This guide outlines sustainability factors for manufacturers to consider when comparing alternative chemicals or ingredients
across the life cycle of a product.
E3027 − 23
4.2 Methods exist for the evaluation of chemical hazards for product-chemical pairs. These methods are referenced in several
regulatory, non-regulatory, and green building schemasschemes and should be conducted as part of an analysis of this type.
NOTE 1—Evaluation methods include, but are not limited to, Clean Production Action’s GreenScreen for Safer Chemicals, The United States
Environmental Protection Agency’s Design for the Environment (DtE)(DfE) Alternatives Assessment Criteria for Hazards Evaluation (Safer Choice)
methodology and the National Academy of Sciences’ A Framework to Guide Selection of Chemical Alternatives. Regulatory schemasschemes include
9 10
laws such as the Safer Consumer Products Rule in California or the Registration, Evaluation, and Authorization of Chemicals (REACh)(REACH)
regulations in Europe. Green building schemasschemes include the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) system by the USGBC,
which references these indirectly through third-party certifications. However, neither these assessment tools nor the various schemasschemes that
reference them have set guidance for using the data in making decisions on which products and ingredients are ultimately the most sustainable.
4.3 Similarly, many tools exist for measuring economic viability, such as value-models and cost analysis. There are also many
tools and techniques for measuring social acceptance of products such as sales trends, voice of the customer and many other types
of surveys.
4.4 This guide acknowledges the need for determining a baseline for comparing the performance (environmental, economic, and
social) of an existing product-chemical pair in a product with the possible/potential alternatives. As such, when using this guide,
companies shall use the same study boundaries for the original baseline case and for all alternative options under assessment.
Further, when feasible, the same assessment tools should also be used for all options being analyzed.
4.5 Sustainability is a very holistic and encompassing concept. As such, many factors cross all three attributes of sustainability.
While factors may be assigned one way in this guide, it is recognized the user has discretion to assign them to whatever attribute(s)
they deem appropriate when performing this analysis. However, the user should consistently categorize among all analyses for the
purpose of easy comparison.
4.6 This guide is structured such that the impacts of each life cycle stage (that is, raw material acquisition, raw material transport,
manufacturing, use, and end of life) are considered in their entirety for each attribute of sustainability (that is, social, economic,
and ecological). Users of this guide also may wish to take an alternative approach by considering the impacts associated with all
three attributes of sustainability (for example, social, economic, and ecological) for each life cycle stage before moving on to the
next life cycle stage. This alternate approach may provide a different perspective regarding identifying areas of high impact within
each life cycle stage.
5. Social Considerations
5.1 General:
5.1.1 This section provides guidance on choosing the social sustainability factors that may be used as input into the alternatives
decision making.
5.1.1.1 The alternatives assessment should be used as input into a risk assessment or risk assessments to determine the most
relevant of human health impacts for employees, users, and other pertinent individuals. An example of such a risk assessment is
NSF/ANSI Standard 61: Drinking Water System Components–HealthComponents – Health Effects for potable water systems and
applications, though many other assessment methods exist for other industries.
5.1.1.2 Risk should be considered at each of the stages of the life-cycle as factors such as exposure and hazard may differ in each
phase.stage.
5.1.2 Social considerations include applicable regulations related to labor, worker health and safety, and other related factors.
5.1.3 A list of social considerations of the alternatives should be created for each life-cycle stage taking into consideration
stakeholders, corporate culture, and social norms of the market.
A Framework to Guide Selection of Chemical Alternatives, The National Academies Press, Washington DC, 2014.
Calilfornia Assembly Bill 1879 – The Safer Consumer Product Act,California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4.5, Chapter 55, http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/
07-08/bill/asm/ab_1851-1900/ab_1879_bill_20080911_enrolled.html.https://dtsc.ca.gov/scp/safer-consumer-products-regulations/
Registration, Evaluation and Authorization of Chemicals (REACh),(REACH), The European Chemicals Agency, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/
?uri=CELEX:02006R1907-20140822.
Version 4 available from United States Green Building Council (USGBC), http://www.usgbc.org/leed#v4.
E3027 − 23
NOTE 2—The list of social sustainability factors will differ from one company to another as corporate culture/values are never identical. A company
participating in a specific market space can define for itself what social considerations matter but in some manner internal and external health impacts
must be considered.
5.1.4 Social sustainability factors of importance will differ from product to product and in various stages of the product life-cycle.
5.1.5 Identification of some of the social sustainability factors that are of importance may be accomplished via one of many
methods, such as through internal and external stakeholder feedback including the community, voice of the customer, or many
sales/marketing tools discussed in marketing texts. Those undertaking this analysis should obtain feedback from internal and
external stakeholders at each stage of the life-cycle as input to the assessment.
5.1.6 While there are many sustainability issues to consider, one that can significantly impact social factors is raw material
availability. Sustainability inherently requires the considerations of ensuring that raw material availability for the needs of future
generations is met.
5.2 Considerations of Social Sustainable Factors at the Raw Material Acquisition Stage:
5.2.1 While social considerations impact many groups of individuals, at this phasestage they will revolve disproportionately
around the worker. Such sustainability factors may include wages, safety and health of workers, child-labor, slave labor, worker
benefits, labor practices, the politics of domestic versus foreign sourcing, and other labor-centric issues.
5.2.1.1 Worker health and safety should include items such as access to personal protective equipment, availability of emergency
care, as well as safe management of materials as dictated by risk of exposure and potential impacts.
5.2.2 Socio-political conditions in which raw materials are most commonly acquired, including extraction, mining, or harvest, may
be an additional consideration. Areas with issues such as human rights concerns, oppressive regimes, and known areas of terrorist
activity should be considerations in determining a material’s viability to any corporation.
5.3 Social Considerations at the Material Transport Stage:
5.3.1 Safe management of raw materials and wastes should be a consideration in the evaluation at the transport stage of a raw
material to protect workers and the general public. Raw materials posing health (that is, toxicity) or physical (for example,
flammability or corrosiveness) risks should be evaluated in the assessment.
5.3.2 Additional considerations may involve transport method(s). For example, access to markets, transport connectivity, safety
of method and other factors are
...