When people say "EPD," they almost always mean Type III. But the ISO 14020 series defines three types of environmental label, and the differences between them matter — particularly when a regulation or tender specifies "Type III with third-party verification" and you want to confirm what that excludes.
The three types at a glance
Type I — Eco-labels (ISO 14024)
Pass/fail labels awarded by a third-party body when a product meets a defined set of criteria. The EU Ecolabel, Nordic Swan, Blue Angel, and Green Seal are examples. The label says "this product meets the standard." It doesn't disclose the underlying impact numbers.
What it's good for: consumer-facing communication where a binary signal is the point.
Why it doesn't count as an EPD: it reports a verdict, not data. Specifiers and procurement officers can't compare two Type I products on, say, GWP — the numbers aren't disclosed.
Type II — Self-declared environmental claims (ISO 14021)
Claims made by a manufacturer about their own product — "made from 50% recycled content," "biodegradable," "carbon-neutral." No external verification is required. The standard sets honesty requirements but doesn't compel disclosure of the methodology behind the claim.
What it's good for: simple marketing claims where verification cost would be disproportionate.
Why it doesn't count as an EPD: there's no third party in the loop, no standardised methodology, and no comparable data. Specifiers and regulators won't accept it as evidence.
Type III — Environmental Product Declarations (ISO 14025) This is the one
A standardised, quantitative, third-party-verified declaration. Follows a Product Category Rule (PCR) that defines which impacts to report, over which life-cycle stages, using which methodology. The numbers in a Type III EPD are comparable to other Type III EPDs published under the same PCR.
What it's good for: regulatory compliance, public procurement, customer-mandated sustainability evidence, green-building certification, supply-chain transparency.
Why it's the standard: the combination of a PCR (defines what to measure), an LCA model (does the measuring), and a verifier (checks the work) is what makes the numbers in one EPD comparable to the numbers in another. Type III is the only one of the three with that property.
Where the confusion comes from
Three things create regular confusion in conversations about EPDs:
- "Industry-wide" vs "product-specific" Type III EPDs. Industry-wide EPDs report average data for a category of products (e.g. "concrete in Europe"). Product-specific EPDs report data for a single product from a single manufacturer. Both are technically Type III, but most modern regulations — particularly California's Buy Clean and LEED v5 — require product-specific declarations.
- Eco-labels with EPD-like data attached. Some Type I eco-labels publish underlying data alongside the label. This is helpful but doesn't make the label a Type III EPD; the data has not been independently verified to the EN 15804/ISO 21930 standards that procurement systems reference.
- Carbon labels. A product carbon footprint (PCF, ISO 14067) is sometimes described as "an EPD for carbon." It's not. A PCF covers GHGs only; a Type III EPD covers multiple impact categories. The methodology is related but distinct.
What "third-party verified" actually means
For a Type III EPD, "third-party verified" means an accredited verifier — one approved by the Program Operator — reviews the LCA model, the data inputs, the PCR conformance, and the draft declaration; raises comments; and signs off on the final document. The verifier cannot be:
- An employee of the manufacturer
- A subcontractor of the LCA consultant who built the model
- Anyone who has consulted on the same product in the previous 24 months
Independence is the single feature that distinguishes a Type III EPD from a Type II self-declaration. Without it, the document loses its standing in regulated procurement and certification contexts.
The summary: if a regulation or tender mentions "EPD" without specifying a type, assume Type III with third-party verification. That's the document procurement systems are designed around. Type I and Type II have their place — but not where comparable, audited product data is the requirement.