1.1 本指南概述了产品制造商在产品生命周期内比较替代化学品或成分时应考虑的可持续性因素。此类分析可用于产品开发、回答客户咨询或回复监管要求等。 1.2 本指南整合了绿色化学和绿色工程的许多原则，用于评估特定材料和特定产品中潜在替代品的使用中的社会（包括人类健康）、经济和生态属性的因素。 1.3 本指南概述了分析结果报告的内容，包括执行摘要、详细报告和回顾。 1.4 本指南不提供如何进行化学风险评估、替代品评估、生命周期评估或经济分析的指导，也不提供如何完成替代品决策框架的指导。 1.5 本指南未建议以何种顺序评估可持续性的社会、生态或经济属性，或哪一个最重要。这是执行决策评估的公司的决策。 1.6 本标准并非旨在解决与其使用相关的所有安全问题（如有）。本标准的用户有责任在使用前制定适当的安全、健康和环境实践，并确定监管限制的适用性。 1.7 本国际标准是根据世界贸易组织技术性贸易壁垒（TBT）委员会发布的《关于制定国际标准、指南和建议的原则的决定》中确立的国际公认标准化原则制定的。 ====意义和用途====== 4.1 本指南概述了制造商在产品生命周期内比较替代化学品或成分时应考虑的可持续性因素。 4.2 现有产品化学品对化学危害评估方法。这些方法在一些监管、非- 监管和绿色建筑方案，并应作为此类分析的一部分进行。 注1: 评估方法包括但不限于清洁生产行动的安全化学品绿屏， 5. 美国环境保护局的环境设计（DtE）替代方案危险评估（安全选择）方法的评估标准和美国国家科学院的 指导化学替代品选择的框架。 8. 监管模式包括以下法律: 更安全的消费品规则 9 在加利福尼亚州或 化学品的注册、评估和授权 （REACh） 10 欧洲法规。绿色建筑模式包括 能源与环境设计领导力（LEED） 11 USGBC通过第三方认证间接引用这些信息。然而，无论是这些评估工具还是引用它们的各种模式，都没有为在决定哪些产品和成分最终是最可持续的时使用数据提供指导。 4.3 同样，存在许多衡量经济可行性的工具，如价值模型和成本分析。还有许多工具和技术用于衡量产品的社会接受度，如销售趋势、客户声音和许多其他类型的调查。 4.4 本指南承认需要确定基线，以比较产品中现有产品化学对与可能/潜在替代品的性能（环境、经济和社会）。因此，在使用本指南时，公司应对原始基线案例和所有正在评估的备选方案使用相同的研究边界。此外，在可行的情况下，还应将相同的评估工具用于所分析的所有选项。 4.5 可持续性是一个非常全面和包容的概念。因此，许多因素跨越了可持续性的所有三个属性。虽然在本指南中可能会以一种方式分配因子，但在执行此分析时，用户可以自行决定将其分配到他们认为合适的任何属性。 然而，为了便于比较，用户应在所有分析中始终进行分类。 4.6 本指南的结构使每个生命周期阶段（即，原材料获取、原材料运输、制造、使用和寿命终止）的影响都被整体考虑为可持续性的每个属性（即，社会、经济和生态）。本指南的用户还可能希望在进入下一个生命周期阶段之前，通过考虑与每个生命周期阶段的可持续性所有三个属性（例如，社会、经济和生态）相关的影响，采取另一种方法。 这种替代方法可以从不同的角度来确定每个生命周期阶段中影响较大的领域。

1.1 This guide outlines 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. ====== 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 schemas 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 (DtE) 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 schemas include laws such as the Safer Consumer Products Rule 9 in California or the Registration, Evaluation, and Authorization of Chemicals (REACh) 10 regulations in Europe. Green building schemas 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 schemas 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.