Product Carbon Footprint
Its future effects threat natural systems as we know them, and this directly takes hold on society; humans are undoubtedly part of an environment, and hence, our activities are not an exception: resource availability, economic activity, and human wellbeing may have important affections.
Some years ago, as a reaction to the climate change threats, two main strategies arise to try to minimise the affection to human and natural systems: adaptation and mitigation. Adaptation to climate change entails all the activities that modify human systems in order to decrease direct affection and risks to human activities and health. On the other side, climate change mitigation focuses on minimizing the carbon towards flows to the atmosphere, considering both reduction of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) and enhancing carbon sinks which capture carbon from the atmosphere.
When talking about mitigation measures and routes, is critical to determine on what strategies the actions will be more effective. Different organisations focus on the determination of models and statistics at global level. Nevertheless, other strategies (and methodologies) are focused on higher detailed systems, like companies, organisations, products and persons. In this regard, one of the most recognized methodologies is Carbon Footprint (CF) methodology.
This methodology aims at accounting GHG, relying on quantification, monitoring, reporting and verification of GHG emissions and/or removals. This is performed under the umbrella of different internationally recognised methodological frames, likewise ISO standards, GHG protocol, and PAS. The implementation of these methodological frames enhances the environmental integrity of GHG accounting, allows the development and implementations of GHG management strategies, and facilitates the ability to track performance and progress in the reduction of GHG emissions and /or GHG removals.
The calculation of the CF can be performed from a product basis perspective, or from an organization basis perspective. In the case of the Organizational Carbon Footprint (OCF), its main aim is to quantify the GHG emissions during an established period, reporting the results in t CO2 eq per year at the studied organisation. OCF allows the company to identify the main hotspots, and hence giving light how to cut GHG emissions ensuring that the efforts made to this cutting are significantly effective. Couple to that, yearly calculations allow to compare the results of obtained against different periods, and hence, track the evolution of the GHG emissions cuts. The calculation of the Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) is divided into three main parts (scopes), which entail different aspects of the company; Scope 1 covers direct emissions from the company (end of pipe emissions: operational emissions, transport from vehicles owned by the organization, and other kinds of direct emissions). Scope 2 covers direct emissions from energy consumption of the company. Scope 3 considers upstream emissions, like those coming from purchased goods, indirect emissions from transport and energy consumed, and travels, among others.
On the other side, Product Carbon Footprint (PCF) aims at determining the emissions from a product, based on a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) perspective, which covers from the raw materials extraction to the end of life. Similarities with LCA are not only meant to be those related to the steps considered in the study; the phases of the study are common for both studies: Goal and scope, LCI, Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) and Interpretation of the results. The whole study, in line with the LCA perspective, is based and built on the Functional Unit (FU), which relates the function of the process and a quantitative reference flux. This will be determining for the LCI, and results will be related to this value.
Regarding the opportunities of the PCF outputs, they are in line with both LCA and (OCF): The hotspot identification delivers an assessment of which are the main inputs, outputs or steps within a process from which most important potential environmental impacts are generated. Coupled to that, comparative assessment is also another powerful output which is delivered on PFC; this time, in difference to OCF, the comparison is performed among products, determining hence their environmental performance.
In conclusion, Carbon Footprint is able to give an extra added value to the products of an organization, or to the organization itself, due to the powerful outputs they deliver. Climate change mitigation is increasingly demanded by clients and from general public, and PCF, OCF and LCA are methodologies which are designed to guide on finding solutions to identify, quantify and cut environmental impacts. Nowadays these efforts are being more and more valuated by public systems and organisations, customers and final users, and standing out in environmental performance, is related on standing out in market development.
At knoell, our LCA team is dedicated to helping you highlight your business's environmental insights and stand out.