LCA METHODOLOGY V 1.0 – COACH PRODUCT IMPACT CALCULATOR
Methodology Document Purpose
Coach is dedicated to understanding and improving its products' life cycle
environmental impacts which is why it commissioned WSP to develop atool to calculate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and waste metrics byapplying the life cycle assessment (LCA) to the new Coachtopia line ofsustainability-focused leather goods (LG), footwear (FW), and ready-towear (RTW) apparel. The tool can interpret a Bill of Materials (BOM)
which contains all the materials needed to manufacture the product, apply
representative emission factors from leading environmental impact
databases in combination with assumptions specific to the product category
for transport, use and end-of-life (EOL), and provide the carbon and waste
footprint per unit product. Items in the Coachtopia line are designed tomaximize the use of recycled and factory scrap materials, thereby reducing

the emissions and waste footprints of the products. The tool is therefore
built to compare environmental impact differences between Coachtopia
products and hypothetical baseline products made from virgin materials,
providing insights that are intended to be shared both within Coach to
inform design decisions and externally to provide information on theproducts’ impacts to the company's stakeholders. The tool can identify
GHG emission hot spots of products’ life cycle stages and analyze options
to reduce the GHG impact, such as switching to lower carbon intensity
materials and analyzing material circularity options.
This methodology is undergoing critical review by a panel of three
independent experts.

System Boundary and Data Sources
The system starts with raw material extraction and refinement alongside
recycled material processing, and continues through manufacturing,distribution and retail, use, and disposal (also called a cradle-to-grave
system boundary). The manufacturing step covers specifically clothing
production, all previous steps such as refinement of virgin and recycledmaterials into textile goods are part of the raw material extraction andprocessing step. Table 1 provides an overview of the life cycle stages, asummary of calculation methods and data sources, assumptions andincluded or excluded processes. It is divided into one column for GHG
emissions and one column for the waste calculations.

chain's sustainability, from which specific material and manufacturing
impacts were sourced. ecoinvent is a well-established life cycle inventory
database, and version 3.8 was used in the tool. Further complimentarysources were used in specific instances, Table 2 gives a complete overview
of the data sources and what they were used for. The model applies therecycled content approach, in line with the background data. In this context,
burdens associated with processing an outgoing material into a ready-to-use
secondary material are not included – only the outgoing transportation to
the recycling facility. For the upstream and input materials, the processingof end-of-waste materials into ready-to-use secondary materials areincluded. Coachtopia products contain recycled materials for keycomponents. The baseline of comparison is a hypothetical product,
assuming Coachtopia products have been manufactured using virginmaterials instead of recycled materials. As such, the only difference is theTwo databases were used to source background data on GHG emissions for
inputs to the systems, while waste calculations were performed directly on
the material flows between life cycle stages. Higg is a technology platformthat helps consumer goods companies measure and improve their supply

April 2023

Page 1/5

WSP USA
1300 SW 5th Ave 31st Floor
Portland, OR 97201

sourcing of raw materials, whereas manufacturing, distribution, use andend-of-life remain the same.
Table 1: The life cycle stages of the assessed products.
StageStepRaw Material
SupplyData sources
Higg MSI
ecoinvent
Supplier data
US eGRID

Transport
Product

Data sources
ecoinvent
Manufacturing
Data sources
Higg FEM
Munasinghe,
Druckman, &Dissanayake(2021)

Life Cycle GHG Emissions
The extraction, production, and treatment of virgin, non-renewable and renewable primary and secondary materials
and energy. These materials and semi-finished goods are processed on site to prepare them for transport to themanufacturing site. Note that packaging materials for the raw materials and semi-finished goods were not consideredin this study.
A specific kind of recycled leather produced using leather scraps is included in Coachtopia product line. Based onLCA studies provided by the suppliers, WSP re-evaluated the impacts of the materials in a new model that wasconsistent with the system boundaries and assumptions of the Coach tool. For a series of recycled resin andpolyethylene components no off-the-shelf background processes were applicable. As such, they were modelled basedon the material composition of the components. Furthermore, three kinds of NFC tags to track the Coach products
were modeled, also based on material composition.
Transportation of the raw materials and semi-finished goods to the manufacturing site. The specific locations ofsuppliers and the manufacturing sites was used to calculate transport distances. It was assumed that truck transport
took place to the closest port, followed by sea shipping to the closest port of the factory, and last-mile delivery bytruck.
Manufacturing of apparel products through the consumption of ancillary materials, processed raw materials andenergy. Manufacturing burdens are allocated based on the number of products manufactured at the facility. No
distinction could be made between different kinds of products, as such the impact per unit does not differentiate
between different kinds of products. The waste from manufacturing was estimated by the difference between the grossmaterials weight in the BOM and the final product weight. Information on the types of packaging used for theproducts was provided by Coach.
The emission factors for the manufacturing step is retrieved from the Higg FEM database, which contains primarydata from the Coach suppliers that manufacture the applicable products. One exception to the Higg FEM database wasmade for RTW products, which did not have supplier data in the FEM database. After a literature review, results froma meta-review was adopted (Munasinghe, Druckman, & Dissanayake, 2021) in the form of 0.32 kg CO2e per kg ofmanufactured product (proxied for all RTW based on findings for cotton t-shirts).

Partial Life Cycle Waste
Waste generated during raw material
extraction, processing and packing and thentransported to the manufacturing facility was
not considered.

Waste generated on the factory floor during
cutting, sewing, skiving, and similar processes
was included.

Wastes not associated with manufacturing ofspecific products, such as from factory
offices, meals, and general operations, wereexcluded.
Packaging waste from incoming raw materials
was excluded.

The reuse of scrap leather from previous Coach product systems is accounted for, arriving with no burden. The scrap
leather from the Coachtopia manufacturing is accounted for and conservatively assumed to be landfilled.

April 2023

Page 2/5

WSP USA
1300 SW 5th Ave 31st Floor
Portland, OR 97201

StageStep
InboundTransport
Data sources
ecoinvent

EnergyDistribution

Data sources
EIA
eGRID
EPA

Life Cycle GHG Emissions
All possible transportation paths between the manufacturers and the distribution centers (DCs) have been identified,
which was accounted for in the mode of transportation. The transportation distances are weighted based on thecontribution share of manufacturing facilities to total supply and the share of products stored at the DC. Air freight isconsidered for this transportation stage as it is expected that initial production runs will require quicker transportation
for the stores to receive the products in time for the Coachtopia line launch. As such, 25% of transportation from DC
to RS was made with air freight instead of sea shipping.
There is a potential of double counting packaging weights for transport as packaging material weights may be listed
both in the packaging matrix of the tool and the BOMs. It is an uncertainty with a conservative result.
The energy consumption of the facilities is estimated using data by the US Energy Information Administration,
specifically the 2018 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (EIA, 2022), together with the floor area ofthe specific distribution center. eGRID and natural gas emission factors from the US Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) were applied to the energy consumption. These sources were also applied for international sites,
climate zones were considered to select the appropriate energy consumption estimates.
In this version of the tool it was assumed that all the products stored in the distribution center share the energy
burdens equally, based on volume. Two calculation approaches were used, depending on data availability. Quantity
share of Coachtopia products at the center was used if data was available, followed by the estimated floor area shareoccupied by Coachtopia if volume data was not available.

Outgoing
Transport1
Data sources
ecoinventPartial Life Cycle Waste

Bulk packaging of the finished products wereassumed to be discarded at the distribution
centers. Eg: It was assumed that the pellets
used in the bulk packing used only once
The difference betweeen the outer packaging
and the inner packaging was considered waste
at this stage.

The products at distribution centers are repackaged as they arrive in bulk and then are further distributed to retailstores in lower quantities. For this version of the tool, two out of four distribution centers were included.
Transport of the product from the distribution center to the retail store as well as transport from distribution center for
e-commerce. Roughly about 70% of all products are sold via e-commerce and the remaining 30% are sent to retail.
Similarly to the inbound transportation, the transportation distances are calculated based on the share of products
stored at a specific DC and the share of products in a given retail store. Specific transport distances were calculated
based on distribution center and retail store locations.
Transport from the distribution center to e-commerce customers was covered. E-commerce data was collected basedon the average Coach data available, and it was assumed that most common e-commerce transactions are made using
air transport and truck transport. The average distances transported are 135 km and 1418 km, respectively. This wascalculated based on total amount of shipped packages and total distance transported. 67% of products were assumed
to be sold through e-commerce, with 33% going through retail stores.

1Emissions from transportation after manufacturing were calculated using the tool for the Coachtopia launch as 76 MT CO2e. Carbon offsets and inset credits
were purchased to reduce emissions from transportation after manufacturing to effectively 0 MT CO2e.

April 2023

Page 3/5

WSP USA
1300 SW 5th Ave 31st Floor
Portland, OR 97201

StageStep
EnergyRetailData sources
EIAeGRID

Use
Data sources
Cotton Inc (2016)
ecoinventUse
End-oflife

DisposalLife Cycle GHG Emissions
Energy consumed by the retail stores. The energy burdens are allocated based on the average number of units in thestore. If this data was not available, the Coachtopia floor area share was estimated.
The energy consumption of the stores facilities is estimated using data by the US Energy Information Administration(EIA), specifically the 2018 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (EIA, 2022), together with the floorarea with the store and share of Coachtopia products at the location. Emissions & Generation Resource Integrated
Database (eGRID) and natural gas emission factors from the EPA were applied to the energy consumption. Thesesources were also applied for international sites and climate zones were considered to select the appropriate energy
consumption estimates.
The transportation of products purchased at the retail store to the home of the customer was not considered.
Use phase emission factors were estimated based on the care instructions provided by Coach to the customer. No
significant care practices were identified for footwear or leather goods. Coach typically recommends leather care forits products, yet the appropriate care for Coachtopia products and the recycled leather is still being evaluated and wasthus excluded in this study.
For ready-to-wear average washing and drying practices were assumed for t-shirts and casual collared t-shirts. Basedon data from Cotton Inc (2016) assumptions for washing and drying cycles with energy, water, and detergent
consumption was calculated. These impacts were allocated based on a typical wash load size of 4.04 kg and a drying
load size of 4.13 kg. The same average product weight (225 grams for a t-shirt and 275 grams for a casual collared tshirt) in the Cotton Inc study was considered in this study. As such the RTW use burdens are equal for all items,
regardless of individual product weight. Furthermore, washer and dryer efficiencies were selected based on common
statistics from American home appliance manufacturers. For this phase, ecoinvent processes were used as no
applicable datasets were available with the Higgs databases.
Product is disposed of. It was conservatively assumed that all products were sent to landfill, for which EPA emission
factors were applied. These factors do not include transport to the landfill site, per EPA documentation.

Partial Life Cycle Waste
The difference betweeen the outer packaging
and the inner packaging was considered waste
at this stage

Final packing of the product is considered aswaste at the final stage.
The product packaging in the case of
ecommerce becomes waste in the use stage
and is considered. Extra packaging for
mailing in ecommerce was not considered.
All auxiliary waste (like detergents, etc) fromthe use phase were excluded.

The complete weight of the discarded product.

Data sources
EPA (2020)

Infrastructure and capital goods are not included for modelled processes dueto their small contribution to the overall impact balanced with the timerequied to collect these data. Some data sources, such as ecoinvent, include
the impacts of depreciable capital.

April 2023

Page 4/5

WSP USA
1300 SW 5th Ave 31st Floor
Portland, OR 97201

References
Cotton Inc. (2016). LCA Update of Cotton Fiber and Fabric Life Cycle Inventory. Retrieved from https://resource.cottoninc.com/LCA/2016-LCA-Full-ReportUpdate.pdf
EIA. (2022). 2018 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey final results. Retrieved from https://www.eia.gov/consumption/commercial/
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2020). Documentation for Greenhouse Gas Emission and Energy Factors used in the Waste Reduction
Model (WARM). WARM Version 15, November 2020 Update. Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery (February 2016).
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2023). Emissions & Generation Resource Integrated Database (eGRID), 2021. Washington, DC: Officeof Atmospheric Protection, Clean Air Markets Division. Available from EPA’s eGRID web site: https://www.epa.gov/egrid.
Confidential supplier. (2023). Personal communication regarding LCA studies and confidential data, January 2023.
Confidential supplier (2022). Personal communication regarding LCA studies and confidential data, August 2022.
Higg, n.d. Materials Sustainability Index (Higg MSI). Retrieved from: https://howtohigg.org/higg-msi/
Higg, n.d. Facility Environment Module (Higg FEM) Retrieved from: https://howtohigg.org/fem-user-selection/
Munasinghe, P., Druckman, A., & Dissanayake, D. (2021). A systematic review of the life cycle inventory of clothing. Journal of Cleaner Production Volume320.
Wernet, G., Bauer, C., Steubing, B., Reinhard, J., Moreno-Ruiz, E., and Weidema, B. (2016). The ecoinvent database version 3 (part I): overview andmethodology. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, [online] 21(9), pp.1218–1230. Available at: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11367016-1087-8
Table 2: The databases and references sourced for the tool and for what application they are used.
Database / reference
Higg (n.d.) MSI
Higg (n.d.) FEM
ecoinvent (Wernet et al., 2016)
US eGRID (EPA, 2023)
EPA (2020)
Confidential suppliers (2022, 2023) ofrecycled leather
Munasinghe, Druckman, & Dissanayake(2021)

April 2023

Source forMaterial (textile, leather, hardware) emissions
Manufacturing facility emissions
Electricity in use phase, transportation, chemicals. Used as background data for WSP modelling of NFC
tags, recycled leather and plastic.
Electricity-related emissions for distribution centers and retail stores.
Landfilling
Activity and emission data for manufacturing of recycled leather
Manufacturing burdens for RTW

Page 5/5

WSP USA
1300 SW 5th Ave 31st Floor
Portland, OR 97201