Abstract
Purpose
A method to quantify the climate impact of products called product carbon footprint (PCF) has been gaining popularity in recent years. However, variations of this method have resulted in several competing standards to guide the carbon calculation process. The aim of the current paper was to compare PCF results when calculated according to the different standards.
Methods
The three leading PCF standards are Publicly Available Specification (PAS) 2050:2011, ISO.DIN 2 14067 and Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting Standard (PARS) 2011. These standards were compared conceptually, and a case study was performed in which the PCF of a poinsettia plant produced in Germany was calculated according to all three standards.
Results and discussion
The PCF results were 0.45–0.50, 0.53–0.58 and 0.53–0.59 kg carbon dioxide equivalent according to PAS 2050:2011, ISO.DIN 2 14067 and PARS 2011, respectively. According to all standards, the life cycle stage contributing the most greenhouse gases (GHGs) was the production of the poinsettia plant, and the single process with the highest emissions was the electricity use in the production. It was found that if nonrenewable fuels were used for heating instead of wood chips, then heating would be the highest GHG contributor—accounting for over 80 % of emissions of the total PCF.
Conclusions
A key finding was that both the production system used and the decisions taken by the person carrying out the PCF calculation result in greater differences in the PCF result than the use of different standards. Differences among the three standards could be harmonised by more specific cut-off rules and exclusion criteria with the publication of ISO.DIN 2 14067, as well as the development and use of product category rules.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Brécard D, Hlaimi B, Lucas S, Perraudeau Y, Salladarré F (2009) Determinants of demand for green products. An application to eco-label demand for fish in Europe. Ecol Econ 69(1):115–125
British Standards Institution (2011) PAS 2050:2011 Specification for the assessment of the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of goods and services. http://www.bsigroup.com/upload/Standards%20&%20Publications/Energy/PAS2050.pdf. Accessed 10 Aug 2012
British Standards Institution (2012) PAS2050-1:2012 Assessment of life cycle greenhouse gas emissions from horticultural products 13.020.40. http://www.bsigroup.com/upload/Standards%20&%20Publications/Energy/PAS2050-1.pdf. Accessed 05 Apr 2012
Carbon Trust (2008) Product carbon footprinting: the new business opportunity. Experience from leading companies. http://www.carbontrust.com/media/84928/ctc744-product-carbon-footprinting-the-new-business-opportunity.pdf. Accessed 30 Oct 2012
Carbon Trust (2012) Carbon footprinting. The next step to reducing your emissions. http://www.carbontrust.com/media/44869/j7912_ctv043_carbon_footprinting_aw_interactive.pdf. Accessed 03 Nov 2012
Dangelico RM, Pujari D (2010) Mainstreaming green product innovation. Why and how companies integrate environmental sustainability. J Bus Ethics: JOBE 95(3):471–486
Dias AC, Arroja L (2012) Comparison of methodologies for estimating the carbon footprint—case study of office paper. J Clean Prod 24:30–35
Ecoinvent Centre (2010) Life cycle inventory database ecoinvent version 2.2
Feifel S, Walk W, Wursthorn S (2010) Die Ökobilanz im Spannungsfeld zwischen Exaktheit, Durchführbarkeit und Kommunizierbarkeit. Umweltwiss Schadst Forsch 22(1):46–55. doi:10.1007/s12302-009-0107-8
Galeano SF (2009) International standardization of CFP status of ISO 14067. http://www.lcacenter.org/LCA9/presentations/1024.pdf. Accessed 03 Nov 2012
Greenhouse Gas Protocol (2011a) Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting Standard. http://www.ghgprotocol.org/files/ghgp/Product%20Life%20Cycle%20Accounting%20and%20Reporting%20Standard.pdf. Accessed 10 Aug 2012
Greenhouse Gas Protocol (2011b) Quantifying the greenhouse gas emissions of products. PAS 2050 & the GHG Protocol Product Standard. A short guide to their purpose, similarities and differences. http://www.ghgprotocol.org/files/ghgp/public/GHG%20Protocol%20PAS%202050%20Factsheet.pdf. Accessed 10 Aug 2012
Hansen J, Sato M, Kharecha P, Beerling D, Berner R, Masson-Delmotte V, Pagani M, Raymo M, Royer DL, Zachos JC (2008) Target atmospheric CO2: where should humanity aim? TOASCJ 2(1):217–231
International Organization for Standardization (2012) Carbon footprint of products—requirements and guidelines for quantification and communication 13.020.40(14067)
International Organization for Standardization (2006a) Environmental management—life cycle assessment—principles and framework (ISO 14040:2006)
International Organization for Standardization (2006b) Environmental management—life cycle assessment—requirements and guidelines (ISO 14044:2006)
IPCC (2007) Salomon S (ed). IPCC fourth assessment report: climate change 2007. The physical science basis: contribution of Working Group I to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
JEMAI (2009) Draft of 2nd Edition of Japanese Technical Specification (TS Q0010). General principles for the assessment and labeling of carbon footprint of products. Provisional translation. http://www.jemai.or.jp/english/pdf/Japanese_CFP_TS.pdf. Accessed 03 Nov 2012
Kägi T, Wettstein D (2010) Ökobilanz von Balkonerde. http://www.climatop.ch/tl_files/downloads/2011/100812_bilanzierung_ricoter_public__2_.pdf. Accessed 10 Mar 2013
Paavola J (2001) Economics, ethics and green consumerism. In: Cohen M, Murphy J (eds) Exploring sustainable consumption. Elsevier, Oxford, pp 79–94
Page G, Ridoutt B, Bellotti B (2012) Carbon and water footprint tradeoffs in fresh tomato production. J Clean Prod 32:219–226. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.03.036
PCF World Forum (2012) 7th PCF World Summit. From environmental footprinting to implementation renewable energy in the value chain, Berlin, 17–18 April 2012
PE International (2011) Life cycle assessment software GaBi including professional database. Version 5, Stuttgart
Peters GP (2010) Carbon footprints and embodied carbon at multiple scales. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 2(4):245–250
Reinhardt G, Gärtner S, Münch J, Häfele S (2009) Ökologische Optimierung regional erzeugter Lebensmittel: Energie- und Klimagasbilanzen. http://ernaehrungsdenkwerkstatt.de/fileadmin/user_upload/EDWText/TextElemente/Ernaehrungsoekologie/Regionale_Lebensmittel_IFEU_2009.pdf. Accessed 05 Nov 2012
Röös E, Sundberg C, Hansson P (2011) Uncertainties in the carbon footprint of refined wheat products: a case study on Swedish pasta. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16(4):338–350
Sachs J (2009) Common wealth. Economics for a crowded planet. Penguin, London
Schäfer F, Blanke M (2012) Farming and marketing system affects carbon and water footprint—a case study using Hokaido pumpkin. J Clean Prod 28:113–119
Schmidt H (2009) Carbon footprinting, labelling and life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14(S1):6–9
Sinden G (2009) The contribution of PAS 2050 to the evolution of international greenhouse gas emission standards. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14(3):195–203
Stichnothe H (2009) Carbon Footprint - Der britische "Standard" PAS 2050 im Spiegel der Ökobilanz-Methodik und weitere Normierungsbestrebungen. http://www.netzwerk-lebenszyklusdaten.de/cms/webdav/site/lca/shared/Veranstaltungen/2009LcaWertksatt/Praesentationen/Vortrag%20HStichnothe%20webpage.pdf. Accessed 05 Nov 2012
Theurl MC (2011) Product-Carbon-Footprint von Lebensmitteln in Österreich: biologisch und konventionell im Vergleich. In: Leithold G (ed) Boden - Pflanze - Umwelt. Lebensmittel und Produktqualität. Köster, Berlin, pp 123–126
Weidema BP, Thrane M, Christensen P, Schmidt J, Løkke S (2008) Carbon footprint. J Ind Ecol 12(1):3–6
Westermeier, Hofmann (2011) Bericht zur Abfallwirtschaft im Landkreis Freising 2010. http://www.kreis-freising.de/fileadmin/docs/SG41/2011/Bericht_zur_Abfallwirtschaft_2010_.pdf. Accessed 31 Oct 2012
Williams A (2007) Comparative study of cut roses for the British market produced in Kenya and the Netherlands. Précis report for world flowers. http://www.fcrn.org.uk/sites/default/files/Cut_roses_for_the_British_market.pdf. Accessed 10 Aug 2012
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Prof. Dr. Klaus Menrad, Hans Haas and Valentin Sauer from the University of Applied Sciences Weihenstephan-Triesdorf for the information and data regarding the poinsettia production systems; project WeGa–Kompetenznetz Gartenbau and TUM Grad School for the support and guidance; and Gaven Meadows for revising the English.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Responsible editor: Matthias Finkbeiner
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Soode, E., Weber-Blaschke, G. & Richter, K. Comparison of product carbon footprint standards with a case study on poinsettia (Euphorbia pulcherrima). Int J Life Cycle Assess 18, 1280–1290 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-013-0575-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-013-0575-3