Planet
Lightbulb

Organisational and Product Footprints, putting the puzzle together

Many organisations have now calculated the emissions related to their direct operations and electricity or heat consumption and have moved on to the challenging topic of value chain emissions. Commonly referred to as Scope 3, these emissions are associated with business activities, but are not under an organisations direct control (largely, they sit with suppliers, or customers). Scope 3 emissions average 84% of an organisations overall emissions*. There are 15 categories of scope 3 emissions, split into those associated with upstream and downstream activities, including but not limited to, purchased goods and services, product use, end of life of products, and investment activities.

Here, we focus on one category in particular: purchased goods and services, concentrating on the relationship between this and product carbon footprints.

The UK has been successful in decarbonising, we have reduced our emissions as a nation by 52% since 1990**, largely through introducing more renewables to the national fuel mix, and phasing out coal in power generation. However, we have also offshored much of our production and manufacturing, moving the problem overseas, and in some instances burying the emissions associated with the goods we purchase, deep within multi-tier, international supply chains. As a result, the emissions associated with purchased goods and services are often a major contributor to the scope 3 emissions of UK businesses, making this a really important area to tackle.

45% of emissions globally are associated with the products and services we buy, the other 55% being the emissions associated with buildings and transport. In order to tackle this 45%, it is crucial that businesses look at the products they buy, and the emissions associated with their production. Product carbon footprints include an assessment of the carbon impact of a product, from raw material extraction through to factory gate, and sometimes through product use and end of life. These assessments can be useful in identifying elements of the process which are particularly carbon intensive, and opportunities to evolve designs and processes accordingly. They can also provide a basis for comparing similar products, although due to a lack of standardisation of approach, caution must always be exerted when comparing product carbon footprints.  

In an ideal world, every supplier would supply a product, with not only a price, and specification, but also a product carbon footprint. A business purchasing items could easily sum these carbon prices from individual purchases, and understand their upstream impact through purchased goods and services. In some industries such as construction, this is becoming more common and product carbon footprints, backed by Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs) are available to guide procurement decisions, alongside the usual considerations of cost and quality. However, many suppliers still do not have product specific carbon data. Until a product carbon footprint is available for every product, businesses are left finding ways to fill the gaps in their scope 3 purchased goods and services data.

It is common for businesses to estimate purchased goods and services initially using a spend based approach; looking at the emissions intensity and the amount spent in different sectors. Once this screening exercise has taken place, businesses can progress to using mass-based methods, considering the mass of material purchased. This works well for homogenous materials, such as steel or cement, but is much more complex for businesses selling a heterogeneous product mix.

Whether you’ve been asked for a product carbon footprint by a customer, are looking to engage your suppliers, or increase the accuracy of your scope 3 reporting, Beyondly can help with our dedicated product carbon footprint and scope 3 assessment services. 

Source

*REF: Stenzel, A., Waichman, I. Supply-chain data sharing for scope 3 emissions. npj Clim. Action 2, 7 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s44168-023-00032-x

**ONS: https://bit.ly/4fTYD06