Document added 11 Oct. 2011 by Izabela Stacewicz, 2degrees
This standard provides requirements and guidance for companies and other organizations to quantify and publicly report an inventory of GHG emissions and removals associated with a specific product.
To download the document and join the conversation,
Join Now or Sign In
Product Life Cycle
Accounting and
Reporting Standard
GHG Protocol Team
Pankaj Bhatia, World Resources Institute
Cynthia Cummis, World Resources Institute
Andrea Brown, World Business Council for Sustainable Development
Laura Draucker, World Resources Institute
David Rich, World Resources Institute
Holly Lahd, World Resources Institute
Steering Committee
Gerald Rebitzer, Amcor Ltd.
Nigel Topping, Frances Way, Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP)
Graham Sinden, The Carbon Trust
H. Scott Matthews, Carnegie Mellon University
Luc Larmuseau, DNV Climate Change Services
David A. Russell, Rob Rouse, The Dow Chemical Company
Jiang Kejun, Energy Research Institute, China’s National Development and Reform Commission
Andrew Hutson, Environmental Defense Fund
Simon Aumônier, Environmental Resources Management
Ugo Pretato, Kirana Chomkhamsri, European Commission Joint Research Centre
Steven Meyers, General Electric
Sergio Galeano, Georgia Paci f ic, ISO TC207 U.S. Technical Advisory Group
Gregory A. Norris, Harvard University, New Earth, University of Arkansas
Klaus Radunsky, ISO 14067 Working Group Convener
Atsushi Inaba, Kogakuin University
Alison Watson, New Zealand Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
Susan Cosper, Nick Shufro, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Rasmus Priess, THEMA1 GmbH, Product Carbon Footprint World Forum
Wanda Callahan, Shell
James A. Fava, UNEP SETAC Life Cycle Initiative, Five Winds International
Matthias Finkbeiner, UNEP SETAC Life Cycle Initiative, Technische Universität Berlin
Henry King, Unilever
Susan Wickwire, John Sottong, United States Environmental Protection Agency
Maureen Nowak, United Kingdom Department of Environment, Food, and Rural A f fairs
James Stanway, Miranda Ballentine, Walmart Stores Inc.
[01]
guidance
guidance
guidance
guidancerequirements
requirements
guidancerequirements
guidancerequirements
guidancerequirements
guidancerequirements
guidancerequirements
guidancerequirements
guidancerequirements
guidancerequirements
guidancerequirements
guidancerequirements
Table of Contents
CHAPTeRS
1. Introduction 02
2. De f ining Business Goals 08
3. Summary of Steps and Requirements 12
4. Principles of Product Life Cycle GHG Accounting and Reporting 18
5. Fundamentals of Product Life Cycle GHG Accounting 20
6. establishing the Scope of a Product Inventory 26
7. Boundary Setting 32
8. Collecting Data and Assessing Data Quality 46
9. Allocation 60
10. Assessing Uncertainty 78
11. Calculating Inventory Results 84
12. Assurance 92
13. Reporting 100
14. Setting Reduction Targets and Tracking Inventory Changes 108
APPenDICeS
A. Guidance on Product Comparison 115
B. Land-Use Change Impacts 117
C. Data Management Plan 126
Abbreviations 132
Glossary 133
References 139
Recognitions 140
Introduction01
g
u
i
d
a
n
c
e
g
u
i
d
a
n
c
e
[03]
Introduction
E missions of the anthropogenic greenhouse gases (GHG) that drive climate change and its impacts around the world are growing. According to climate scientists, global carbon dioxide emissions must be cut by as much as 85 percent below
2000 levels by 2050 to limit global mean temperature increase to 2 degrees Celsius
above pre-industrial levels.1 Temperature rise above this level will produce increasingly
unpredictable and dangerous impacts for people and ecosystems. As a result, the need
to accelerate e f forts to reduce anthropogenic GHG emissions is increasingly urgent.
Existing government policies will not su f f iciently solve the problem. Leadership and
innovation from business is vital to making progress.
Corporate action in this arena also makes good business
sense. By addressing GHG emissions, companies can
identify opportunities to bolster their bottom line,
reduce risk, and discover competitive advantages. As
impacts from climate change become more frequent and
prominent, governments are expected to set new policies
and provide additional market-based incentives to drive
signi f icant reductions in emissions. These new policy and
market drivers will direct economic growth on a low-
carbon trajectory. Businesses need to start planning for
this transition now as they make decisions that will lock in
their investments for years to come.
An e f fective corporate climate change strategy requires
a detailed understanding of a company’s GHG impact.
A corporate GHG inventory is the tool to provide such
an understanding. It allows companies to take into
account their emissions-related risks and opportunities
and focus company e f forts on their greatest GHG
impacts. Until recently, companies have focused their
attention on emissions from their own operations. But
increasingly companies understand the need to also
account for GHG emissions along their value chains and
product portfolios to comprehensively manage GHG-
related risks and opportunities.
Through the development of the GHG Protocol Product
Standard, the GHG Protocol has responded to the
demand for an internationally accepted method to
enable GHG management of companies’ goods and
services. Following the release of this standard, the
GHG Protocol and its partners will proactively work
[04] Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting Standard
g u i d a n c e
with industry groups and governments to promote its
widespread use – along with the entire suite of GHG
Protocol standards and tools – to enable more e f fective
GHG management worldwide.
1.1 The Greenhouse Gas Protocol
The Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Protocol is a multistakeholder
partnership of businesses, non-governmental
organizations (NGOs), governments, and others convened
by the World Resources Institute (WRI) and the World
Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD).
Launched in 1998, the mission of the GHG Protocol is
to develop internationally accepted greenhouse gas
(GHG) accounting and reporting standards and tools,
and to promote their adoption in order to achieve a low
emissions economy worldwide.
The GHG Protocol follows a broad, inclusive, consensus-
based multi-stakeholder process to develop these
standards with balanced participation from businesses,
government agencies, non-governmental organizations,
and academic institutions from around the world. The
standards include detailed guidance to assist users with
implementation and are freely available on the GHG
Protocol website (www.ghgprotocol.org).
The GHG Protocol has produced the following separate,
but complementary standards, protocols, and guidelines:
• GHG Protocol Corporate Accounting and Reporting
Standard (2004): A standardized methodology for
companies to quantify and report their corporate GHG
emissions. Also referred to as the Corporate Standard.
• GHG Protocol Corporate Value Chain (Scope 3)
Accounting and Reporting Standard (2011):
A standardized methodology for companies to quantify
and report their corporate value chain (scope 3) GHG
emissions, to be used in conjunction with the Corporate
Standard. Also referred to as the Scope 3 Standard.
• GHG Protocol for Project Accounting (2005):
A guide for quantifying reductions from GHG-mitigation
projects. Also referred to as the Project Protocol.
• GHG Protocol for the U.S. Public Sector (2010):
A step-by-step approach to measuring and reporting
emissions from public sector organizations,
complementary to the Corporate Standard.
• GHG Protocol Guidelines for Quantifying GHG
Reductions from Grid-Connected electricity Projects
(2007): A guide for quantifying reductions in emissions
that either generate or reduce the consumption of
electricity transmitted over power grids, to be used in
conjunction with the Project Protocol.
[05]
CHAPTeR 01 Introduction
g
u
i
d
a
n
c
e
• GHG Protocol Land Use, Land-Use Change, and
Forestry Guidance for GHG Project Accounting
(2006): A guide to quantify and report reductions from
land use, land-use change, and forestry, to be used in
conjunction with the Project Protocol.
• Measuring to Manage: A Guide to Designing GHG
Accounting and Reporting Programs (2007): A
guide for program developers on designing and
implementing e f fective GHG programs based on
accepted standards and methodologies.
1.2 Purpose of the GHG Protocol
Product Life Cycle Accounting and
Reporting Standard
The GHG Protocol Product Life Cycle Accounting and
Reporting Standard (referred to as the Product Standard)
provides requirements and guidance for companies and
other organizations to quantify and publicly report an
inventory of GHG emissions and removals2 associated
with a speci f ic product. The primary goal of this standard
is to provide a general framework for companies to make
informed choices to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
from the products (goods or services) they design,
manufacture, sell, purchase, or use. In the context of this
standard, public reporting refers to product GHG-related
information reported publicly in accordance with the
requirements speci f ied in the standard.
As awareness about climate change increases and
concerns grow, investors are demanding more
transparency, and consumers are seeking greater clarity
and environmental accountability. Companies are
increasingly receiving requests from stakeholders to
measure and disclose their corporate GHG inventories,
and these requests often include a company’s products
and supply chain emissions. Companies must be able to
understand and manage their product-related GHG risks
if they are to ensure long-term success in a competitive
business environment and be prepared for any future
product-related programs and policies.
This standard focuses on emissions and removals
generated during a product’s life cycle and does not
address avoided emissions or actions taken to mitigate
released emissions. This standard is also not designed to
be used for quantifying GHG reductions from o f fsets or
claims of carbon neutrality.
Ultimately, this is more than a technical accounting
standard. It is intended to be tailored to business realities
and to serve multiple business objectives. Companies may
f ind most value in implementing the standard using a
phased approach, with a focus on improving the quality of
the GHG inventory over time.
1.3 How this standard was developed
In 2008, WRI and WBCSD launched the three-year process
to develop the Product Standard. A 25 member Steering
Committee of experts provided strategic direction
throughout the process. The f irst draft of the Product
Standard was developed in 2009 by Technical Working
Groups consisting of 112 members representing diverse
industries, government agencies, academia, and non-
pro f it organizations from around the world. In 2010,
38 companies from a variety of industry sectors “road
tested” the f irst draft and provided feedback on its
practicality and usability, which informed a second draft.
Members of a Stakeholder Advisory Group (consisting of
more than 1,600 participants) provided feedback on both
drafts of the standard.
1.4 Who should use this standard
This standard is designed for companies and
organizations3 of all sizes in all economic sectors
and in all countries. Companies seeking a better
understanding of the GHG inventory of products they
design, manufacture, sell, purchase, or use can bene f it
from the use of this standard. Interested users of the
standard within companies could include sta f f from
product design, procurement, research and development,
marketing, energy, environment, logistics, and corporate
sustainability departments. Policy makers and GHG
programs may also be interested in incorporating the
standard into their policy or program design.
[06] Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting Standard
g u i d a n c e
1.5 Use of the Product Standard
for product comparison
The Product Standard is intended to support
performance tracking of a product’s GHG inventory
and emissions reductions over time. Additional
prescriptiveness on the accounting methodology, such
as allocation choices and data sources, are needed
for product labeling, performance claims, consumer
and business decision making based on comparison
of two or more products, and other types of product
comparison based on GHG impacts. See section 5.3.2
and Appendix A for more guidance on additional
speci f ications needed for comparison.
Claims regarding the overall environmental superiority or
equivalence of one product versus a competing product,
referred to in ISO 14044 as comparative assertions, are
not supported by the Product Standard.
1.6 Relationship to the Corporate
and Scope 3 Standards
The GHG Protocol Scope 3 Standard and GHG Protocol
Product Standard both take a value chain or life cycle
approach to GHG accounting and were developed
simultaneously. The Scope 3 Standard builds on the
GHG Protocol Corporate Standard and accounts for
value chain emissions at the corporate level, while the
Product Standard accounts for life cycle emissions at the
individual product level. Together, the three standards
provide a comprehensive approach to value chain GHG
measurement and management.
The reporting company’s business goals should drive the
use of a particular GHG Protocol accounting standard.
The Scope 3 Standard enables a company to identify
the greatest GHG reduction opportunities across the
entire corporate value chain, while the Product Standard
enables a company to target individual products with the
greatest potential for reductions. The Scope 3 Standard
helps a company identify GHG reduction opportunities,
track performance, and engage suppliers at a corporate
level, while the Product Standard helps a company meet
the same objectives at a product level.
The GHG Protocol
Scope 3 and Product
Standards both take
a value chain or life
cycle approach to
GHG accounting.
Common data is used
to develop scope 3
inventories and product
inventories, including
data collected from
suppliers and other
companies in the value
chain. Since there can
be overlap in data
collection, companies may f ind added business value and
e f f iciencies in developing scope 3 and product inventories
in parallel.
While each standard can be implemented independently,
both standards are mutually supportive. Integrated use
might include:
• Applying the Corporate Standard and Scope 3
Standard (to determine the company’s total scope 1,
scope 2, and scope 3 emissions) , using the results to
identify products with the most signi f icant emissions,
then using the Product Standard to identify mitigation
opportunities in the selected products’ life cycles
• Using product-level GHG data based on the Product
Standard as a source of data to calculate scope 3
emissions associated with selected product types
• Applying the Corporate Standard, Scope 3 Standard
and the Product Standard and using the results to
inform GHG-reduction strategies at both the product
and corporate levels
The sum of the life cycle emissions of each of a company’s
products, combined with additional scope 3 categories4
(e.g., employee commuting, business travel, and
investments), should approximate the company’s total
corporate GHG emissions (i.e., scope 1 + scope 2 + scope
3). In practice, companies are not expected or required
to calculate life cycle inventories for individual products
when calculating scope 3 emissions.
Figure 1.1 illustrates the relationship between the
Corporate Standard, Product Standard, and Scope 3
Standard. In this simpli f ied example, a company
manufactures one product (Product A). The example
shows how scopes of emissions at the corporate level
correspond to life cycle stages at the product level.
[07]
CHAPTeR 01 Introduction
g
u
i
d
a
n
c
e
Figure [1.1] The relationship between the Corporate, Scope 3, and Product Standards for a company
manufacturing product A
product A
upstream
scope 3 emissions
downstream
scope 3 emissions
scope 1 and 2
emissions
scope 1 and 2 emissions required by the Corporate Standard
scope 3 emissions required by the Scope 3 Standard
product life cycle emissions required by the Product Standard
use end-of-life
1.7 Limitations of product GHG inventories
The Product Standard accounts for the GHG emissions
and removals that occur during a product’s life cycle. A
product assessment limited to only GHGs has the bene f it
of simplifying the analysis and producing results that can
be clearly communicated to stakeholders. The limitation
of a GHG-only inventory is that potential trade-o f fs or co-
bene f its between environmental impacts can be missed.
Therefore, the results of a GHG-only inventory should
not be used to communicate the overall environmental
performance of a product. Non-GHG environmental
impacts that occur during the life cycle of a product should
also be considered when making decisions to reduce GHG
emissions based on the inventory results. Examples of
potentially signi f icant non-GHG impacts for some products
include ecosystem degradation, resource depletion, ozone
depletion, and negative human health impacts.
endnotes
1 IPCC, Summary for Policymakers (Table SPM.5: Characteristics
of post-TAR stabilization scenarios), in Climate Change 2007:
Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, ed. B. Metz, O.R. Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave, L.A.
Meyer (Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA:
Cambridge University Press, 2007).
2 In this standard, both emissions to the atmosphere and removals
from the atmosphere are accounted for in order to calculate
the total GHG inventory of a product. Removals of CO2 generally
occur during photosynthesis.
3 The term company is used throughout the standard to represent
a company or organization that may use the standard.
4 A scope 3 category is one of 15 types of scope 3 emissions
organized by activities that occur upstream and downstream
from a company’s ownership or control.
Moreover, while this standard focuses solely on GHG
emissions and removals, the accounting requirements
and guidance provided can be used to collect data for
other environmental impacts. Companies wishing to
include non-GHG impacts along with their GHG inventory
can do so using the same steps and methodologies
provided in this standard.
material acquisition
& pre-processing production
distribution
& storage
De f ining Business Goals02
g
u
i
d
a
n
c
e
[09]
g
u
i
d
a
n
c
e
C ompanies should f irst identify their business goals before conducting product GHG inventories. Doing so can bring clarity and assist in selecting the appropriate methodology and data to develop the inventory.
This standard has been designed as a comprehensive
accounting and reporting framework to enable a
company to gather information to serve all the business
goals de f ined below and outlined in table 2.1.
2.1 Climate change management
Product GHG inventories, performed according to a
consistent framework, provide a quantitative tool to help
understand GHG risks along a product’s life cycle. Product
inventories also can be used to understand emissions
reductions and cost savings opportunities, as GHG emissions
generally relate to energy use and can be a proxy for
ine f f iciencies in a product system. The use of product GHG
inventories can help product manufacturers avoid the pitfall
of focusing too heavily on the most proximate or obvious
emission sources associated with a product’s production
while missing major emission reduction and cost-saving
opportunities elsewhere in the life cycle.
Performing a product inventory can also be a proactive
approach to assessing future risks related to life cycle
GHG emissions. GHG regulations are already in place
in a number of countries and may be enacted in many
more in the future. Energy is becoming a scarcer
resource, creating price volatility and reduced reliability.
Understanding the location and amount of GHGs in a
product’s life cycle is valuable information when assessing
a company’s risk exposure from that product. Investors are
becoming more wary of companies that are not evaluating
and managing these and other GHG related risks.
A company can better model potential future costs of
regulations by using a product inventory to evaluate a
product’s life cycle GHG risks. For example, completing a
product inventory can increase understanding of where
there are energy intensive operations in the life cycle. A
company can then use this understanding to inform
strategies for reducing dependency on fossil fuels, such
as switching to a less energy intensive product material
or increasing the use of intermodal transportation for
product distribution. Stakeholders (e.g., investors) may
also like to see this risk assessment publicly reported and
there is growing demand for mandatory disclosure of
GHG risk in some countries.
2.2 Performance tracking
Product inventories provide detailed information on
the relative size and scale of emission sources within life
cycle stages and across the entire product system. This
information may be used to identify the largest emission
[10] Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting Standard
g u i d a n c e
sources – or “hot spots” – in the life cycle and focus e f forts
on the most cost e f fective emissions reduction activities.
Product GHG inventories, performed according
to a consistent framework, provide a quantitative
performance metric to set targets for improvement,
track progress. and communicate successes to internal
and external stakeholders. External stakeholders,
including customers, investors, shareholders and others
are increasingly interested in measured and reported
progress in emissions reductions by companies.
Therefore, identifying reduction opportunities, setting
goals and reporting on progress to stakeholders
may help di f ferentiate a company in an increasingly
environmentally conscious marketplace.
Internally, product GHG inventories may be used to
support less GHG-intensive product design choices
and production processes. For example, a shoe
manufacturer seeking to meet a company target of
10 percent lower life cycle emissions from its most
popular shoe might use a product GHG inventory to
determine the most cost e f fective means of achieving
the target, selecting from options such as optimizing
the distribution network, using less GHG-intensive
materials, or improving energy e f f iciency at production
facilities. External uses of the performance results
might include communications to regulators, investors,
customers, and local communities, using tools such as
an annual corporate sustainability report.
2.3 Supplier and customer stewardship
From raw material vendors to f inal consumers, product
inventories provide an opportunity for companies
to engage with stakeholders throughout a product’s
life cycle toward the common goal of reducing GHG
emissions. This engagement may also lead to supply
chain e f f iciencies and consequent cost savings, build
Table [2.1] Business goals served by a product GHG inventory
Business goal Description
Climate change
management
• Identify new market opportunities and regulatory incentives
• Identify climate-related physical and regulatory risks in a product’s life cycle
• Assess risks from f luctuations in energy costs and material availability
Performance
tracking
• Focus e f forts on e f f iciency improvements and cost-saving opportunities through
GHG reductions throughout a product’s life cycle
• Set product-related GHG reduction targets and develop strategies to
achieve goals
• Measure and report GHG performance over time
• Track e f f iciency improvements throughout a product life cycle over time
Supplier and
customer
stewardship
• Partner with suppliers to achieve GHG reductions
• Assess supplier performance for GHG aspects of green procurement e f forts
• Reduce GHG emissions and energy use, costs, and risks in the supply chain and
avoid future costs related to energy and emissions
• Launch a customer education campaign to encourage actions that reduce
GHG emissions
Product
di f ferentiation
• Achieve competitive advantage by pursuing GHG reduction opportunities and
cost savings to create a low-emitting product
• Redesign a product to better respond to customer preferences
• Strengthen brand image regarding GHG performance
• Enhance employee retention and recruitment resulting from pride in
product stewardship
• Strengthen corporate reputation and accountability through public disclosure
[11]
CHAPTeR 02 Defining Business Goals
g
u
i
d
a
n
c
e
stronger supply chain relationships, and uncover
valuable information that can be shared to help build
positive relationships with product users. For example,
a product GHG inventory of a home appliance may show
that much of the emissions occur in the use stage. This
information can provide a platform for the manufacturer
to communicate and collaborate with their customers
(e.g., the users of the appliance) to achieve lower product
life cycle emissions. If customers then reduced emissions
by reducing electricity use, they would also reap bene f its
in the form of electricity cost savings. Another example is
a product inventory of a beverage which shows signi f icant
emissions from packaging. These results may lead to a
partnership with packaging suppliers to reduce packaging
materials or replace them with less GHG-intensive
content. Reporting on these types of e f forts and the
progress of a company’s engagement with its suppliers
can be useful information for stakeholders both external
and internal to the reporting company.
2.4 Product di f ferentiation
Product di f ferentiation is a broad term, encompassing
all the speci f ic end uses of product GHG inventories
that may help a company distinguish its products in the
marketplace and create competitive advantage. For
example, a company may realize product di f ferentiation
simply by conducting and publicizing a product GHG
inventory that demonstrates to stakeholders that
the brand is concerned with environmental impacts.
With consumers increasingly concerned about the
environmental impacts of their product choices, product
GHG inventories enable companies to communicate
with customers about their e f forts to assess and reduce
their product-related impacts. Products may also be
di f ferentiated by advertising that their use can lower
consumers’ own GHG emissions (and related energy
expenses). Company e f forts to address product emissions
can also be an e f fective message to communicate to
employees in order to enhance pride in the company’s
product stewardship and can have positive impacts on
employee retention and recruitment.
As one of the Coca-Cola anchor bottlers, Swire Beverages
undertakes the manufacture, sale, and distribution of
Coca-Cola products. The company conducted life cycle
GHG studies for nine of the Coca-Cola branded products
produced in mainland China.
The results showed that packaging and refrigeration by
retailers were the processes that contributed the most
signi f icant GHG emissions and risks, especially for small-
and medium-sized products. Swire Beverages either
leases or sells refrigerators at a discount to retailers.
Following completion of the inventory and evaluation
of reduction opportunities, the company installed
energy-e f f icient refrigerator equipment and aggressively
pursued hydro f luorocarbon (HFC) recovery and HFC-free
technologies. The new equipment uses 35 - 40 percent
less electricity while reducing the usage of HFC-134a, a
refrigerant with high global warming potential. Swire
also calculated that if all retailers installed the new
refrigerators, it would
save 5 -16 percent
of the life cycle GHG
emissions of drinking
products depending
on their size.
Swire Beverages
and Coca-Cola also
identi f ied packaging
reduction as a key
climate mitigation
strategy and rolled out a new packaging design for a
bottled water product in China. The new plastic bottle
design reduces packaging material weight by 34 percent
and is estimated to reduce GHG emissions by 11 percent
over the product life cycle. The new design also helps
Swire Beverages to save on the procurement cost of
packaging materials.
Swire Beverages
if all retailers installed
the new refrigerators,
it would save
5 - 16%
of the life cycle
GHG emissions
of drinking
products
1 2 3
4 5 6
7 8 9
10 11 12
13 14 15
16 17
1. wheat
2. tree
3. mountains
4. glass bottle
5. plastic bottle
6. aluminium can
7. factory
8. lorry
9. cloud
10. recycling bin
11. recycling bin (colours
reversed)
12. wind turbines
13. chicken
14. cow 1
15. cow 2
16. shop
17. factory showing carbon
emissions (carbon
emissions are shown in
orange)
[12] Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting Standard
g u i d a n c e
03 Summary of Steps and Requirements
[13]
g
u
i
d
a
n
c
e
T his chapter provides a summary of the steps involved in product accounting and reporting, as well as a list of the requirements that must be followed for a product inventory to be in conformance with this standard.
3.1 Standard terminology
This standard uses precise language to indicate which
provisions of the standard are requirements, which
are recommendations, and which are permissible or
allowable options that companies may choose to follow.
The term “shall” is used in this standard to indicate what
is required for a GHG inventory to conform with the
Product Standard. The term “should” is used to indicate
a recommendation, but not a requirement. The term
“may” is used to indicate an option that is permissible
or allowable. Within the guidance sections, the term
“required” is used to refer to “shall” statements given
elsewhere in the standard. Also within the guidance
sections, “needs,” “can,” or “cannot” are sometimes used
to provide guidance on implementing a requirement or
to indicate when an action is or is not possible.
Summary of Steps and Requirements
Figure [3.1] Overview of steps in product accounting and reporting
De f ine
business
goals
Review
principles
De f ine the
scope
Set the
boundary
Collect data
and assess
data quality
Chapter 2 Chapter 4 Chapter 5 Chapter 6 Chapter 7 Chapter 8
Chapter 10 Chapter 11 Chapter 12 Chapter 13 Chapter 14
Assess
uncertainty
Calculate
inventory
results
Perform
assurance
Report
inventory
results
Set
reduction
targets
Review
funda-
mentals
Perform
allocation
(if needed)
Chapter 9
[14] Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting Standard
r e q u i r e m e n t s
3.2 Overview of steps in product
accounting and reporting
Figure 3.1 provides an overview of the steps taken to
perform a product GHG inventory that is in conformance
with this standard. Each of these steps is described in
detail in the following chapters.
3.3 Summary of Product Standard
requirements
Table 3.1 provides a summary of all the requirements
in the Product Standard. De f initions and guidance are
provided in the following chapters.
Table [3.1] Summary of requirements
Chapter Requirements
4. Accounting and
Reporting Principles
• GHG accounting and reporting of a product inventory shall follow the principles
of relevance, accuracy, completeness, consistency, and transparency
5. Fundamentals of
Product Life
Cycle Accounting
• A GHG product inventory shall follow the life cycle and attributional approaches
6. Establishing
the Scope of a
Product Inventory
• Companies shall account for carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide
(N2O), sulfur hexa f luoride (SF6), per f luorocarbons (PFCs), and hydro f luorocarbons
(HFCs) emissions to, and removals from, the atmosphere
• Additional GHGs included in the inventory shall be listed in the inventory report
• Companies shall de f ine the product, unit of analysis, and reference f low
• For all f inal products, companies shall de f ine the unit of analysis as a
functional unit
• For intermediate products where the eventual function is unknown, companies
shall de f ine the unit of analysis as the reference f low
7. Boundary Setting • The boundary of the product GHG inventory shall include all attributable processes
• Companies shall report the life cycle stage de f initions and descriptions
• Companies shall disclose and justify any exclusions of attributable processes in
the inventory report
• Companies shall report attributable processes in the form of a process map
• Companies shall report any non-attributable processes included in the boundary
• The boundary for f inal products shall include the complete life cycle,
from cradle-to-grave
• The boundary of a cradle-to-gate partial life cycle inventory shall not include
product use or end-of-life processes in the inventory results
• Companies shall disclose and justify when a cradle-to-gate boundary is de f ined in
the inventory report
• Companies shall report the time period of the inventory
• Companies shall report the method used to calculate land-use change impacts,
when applicable
8. Collecting Data
and Assessing
Data Quality
• Companies shall collect data for all processes included in the inventory boundary
• Companies shall collect primary data for all processes under their ownership or control
• During the data collection process, companies shall assess the data quality of
activity data, emission factors, and/or direct emissions data by using the data
quality indicators
• For signi f icant processes, companies shall report a descriptive statement on
the data sources, the data quality, and any e f forts taken to improve data quality
[15]
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
CHAPTeR 03 Summary of Steps and Requirements
Table [3.1] Summary of requirements (continued)
Chapter Requirements
9. Allocation • Companies shall allocate emissions and removals to accurately re f lect the
contributions of the studied product and co-product(s) to the total emissions and
removals of the common process
• Companies shall avoid allocation wherever possible by using process subdivision,
rede f ining the functional unit, or using system expansion
• If allocation is unavoidable, companies shall allocate emissions and removals based on
the underlying physical relationships between the studied product and co-product(s)
• When physical relationships alone cannot be established or used as the basis
for allocation, companies shall select either economic allocation or another
allocation method that re f lects other relationships between the studied product
and co-product(s)
• Companies shall apply the same allocation methods to similar inputs and outputs
within the product’s life cycle
• For allocation due to recycling, companies shall use either the closed loop
approximation method or the recycled content method as de f ined by this standard
• When using the closed loop approximation method, companies shall report
displaced emissions and removals separately from the end-of-life stage
• Companies shall disclose and justify the methods used to avoid allocation or
perform allocation
• When using the closed loop approximation method, companies shall report
displaced emissions and removals separately from the studied product’s end-of-
life stage inventory
10. Assessing
Uncertainty
• Companies shall report a qualitative statement on inventory uncertainty and
methodological choices. Methodological choices include:
• Use and end-of-life pro f ile
• Allocation methods, including allocation due to recycling
• Source of global warming potential (GWP) values used
• Calculation models
11. Calculating
Inventory Results
• Companies shall apply a 100-year GWP factor to GHG emissions and removals data
to calculate the inventory results in units of CO2 equivalent (CO2e)
• Companies shall report the source and date of the GWP factors used
• Companies shall quantify and report the following:
• Total inventory results in CO2e per unit of analysis, which includes all emissions
and removals included in the boundary from biogenic sources, non-biogenic
sources, and land-use change impacts
• Percentage of total inventory results by life cycle stage
• Biogenic and non-biogenic emissions and removals separately when applicable
• Land-use change impacts separately when applicable
• Cradle-to-gate and gate-to-gate inventory results separately or a clear
statement that con f identiality is a limitation to providing this information
• Companies shall not include the following when quantifying inventory results:
weighting factors for delayed emissions; o f fsets; and avoided emissions
• Companies shall report the amount of carbon contained in the product or its
components that is not released to the atmosphere during waste treatment,
if applicable
• For cradle-to-gate inventories, companies shall report the amount of carbon
contained in the intermediate product
[16] Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting Standard
Table [3.1] Summary of requirements (continued)
Chapter Requirements
12. Assurance • The product GHG inventory shall be assured by a f irst or third party
• Companies shall choose assurance providers that are independent of,
and have no con f licts of interest with, the product GHG inventory process
• Companies shall report the assurance statement in the inventory report
The statement shall include:
• The level of assurance achieved (limited or reasonable) including assurance
opinion or the critical review f indings
• Whether the assurance was performed by a f irst or third party
• A summary of the assurance process
• The relevant competencies of the assurance providers
• How any potential con f licts of interest were avoided for f irst party assurance
13. Reporting Companies shall publicly report the following information to be in conformance with
the GHG Protocol Product Standard:
General Information and Scope
• Contact information
• Studied product name and description
• The unit of analysis and reference f low
• Type of inventory: cradle-to-grave or cradle-to-gate
• Additional GHGs included in the inventory
• Any product rules or sector-speci f ic guidance used
• Inventory date and version
• For subsequent inventories, a link to previous inventory reports and description of
any methodological changes
• A disclaimer stating the limitations of various potential uses of the report
including product comparison
Boundary Setting
• Life cycle-stage de f initions and descriptions
• A process map including attributable processes in the inventory
• Non-attributable processes included in the inventory
• Excluded attributable processes and justi f ication for their exclusion
• Justi f ication of a cradle-to-gate boundary, when applicable
• The time period
• The method used to calculate land-use change impacts, when applicable
Allocation
• Disclosure and justi f ication of the methods used to avoid or perform allocation
due to co-products or recycling
• When using the closed loop approximation method, any displaced emissions and
removals separately from the end-of-life stage
Data Collection and Quality
• For signi f icant processes, a descriptive statement on the data sources, data
quality, and any e f forts taken to improve data quality
Uncertainty
• A qualitative statement on inventory uncertainty and methodological choices.
Methodological choices include:
• Use and end-of-life pro f ile
• Allocation methods, including allocation due to recycling
• Source of global warming potential (GWP) factors used
• Calculation models
r e q u i r e m e n t s
[17]
Table [3.1] Summary of requirements (continued)
Chapter Requirements
13. Reporting
(continued)
Inventory Results
• The source and date of the GWP factors used
• Total inventory results in units of CO2e per unit of analysis, which includes
all emissions and removals included in the boundary from biogenic sources,
non-biogenic sources, and land-use change impacts
• Percentage of total inventory results by life cycle stage
• Biogenic and non-biogenic emissions and removals separately, when applicable
• Land use impacts separately, when applicable
• Cradle-to-gate and gate-to-gate inventory results separately (or a clear statement
that con f identiality is a limitation to providing this information)
• The amount of carbon contained in the product or its components that is not
released to the atmosphere during waste treatment, when applicable
• For cradle-to-gate inventories, the amount of carbon contained in the
intermediate product
Assurance
• The assurance statement including:
• Whether the assurance was performed by a f irst or third party
• Level of assurance achieved (limited or reasonable) and assurance opinion or
the critical review f indings
• A summary of the assurance process
• The relevant competencies of the assurance providers
• How any potential con f licts of interests were avoided for f irst party assurance
Setting Reduction Targets and Tracking Inventory Changes
• Companies that report a reduction target and/or track performance over time
shall include the following:
• The base inventory and current inventory results in the updated inventory report
• The reduction target, if established
• Changes made to the inventory, if the base inventory was recalculated
• The threshold used to determine when recalculation is needed
• Appropriate context identifying and describing any signi f icant changes
that trigger base inventory recalculation
• The change in inventory results as a percentage change over time between
two inventories on the unit of analysis basis
• An explanation of the steps taken to reduce emissions based on the
inventory results
14. Setting Reduction
Targets and
Tracking Inventory
Changes Over Time
Note: Setting a reduction target and tracking inventory changes over time is not
required to claim conformance with the Product Standard. However, if companies
choose to set a reduction target, the following requirements apply.
To set reduction targets and track inventory changes over time, companies shall:
• Develop and report a base inventory that conforms with the requirements of this
standard
• Recalculate the base inventory when signi f icant changes in the inventory
methodology occur and report those changes
• Complete and disclose an updated inventory report including the updated results,
the base inventory results, and the context for signi f icant changes
• Use a consistent unit of analysis to enable comparison and track performance
over time
CHAPTeR 03 Summary of Steps and Requirements
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
04 Principles of Product Life Cycle GHG Accounting and Reporting
[19]
g
u
i
d
a
n
c
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
4.1 Introduction
T he f ive accounting principles are intended to underpin all aspects of GHG accounting and reporting for products. Their faithful application should help to ensure that the product inventory constitutes a true and fair representation of its GHG emissions and
removals. Their primary function is to guide users in the implementation of this standard, in
particular when making accounting choices not speci f ied by the standard.
4.2 Requirements
GHG accounting and reporting of a product
inventory shall follow the principles
of relevance, accuracy, completeness,
consistency, and transparency.
Relevance
Ensure that the product GHG inventory accounting
methodologies and report serves the decision-making
needs of the intended user. Present information in the
report in a way that is readily understandable by the
intended users.
Completeness
Ensure that the inventory report covers all product life
cycle GHG emissions and removals within the speci f ied
boundaries; disclose and justify any signi f icant GHG
emissions and removals that have been excluded.
Consistency
Choose methodologies, data, and assumptions that allow
for meaningful comparisons of a GHG inventory over time.
Transparency
Address and document all relevant issues in a
factual and coherent manner, based on a clear audit
trail. Disclose any relevant assumptions and make
appropriate references to the methodologies and data
sources used in the inventory report. Clearly explain any
estimates and avoid bias so that the report faithfully
represents what it purports to represent.
Accuracy
Ensure that reported GHG emissions and removals are not
systematically greater than or less than actual emissions
and removals and that uncertainties are reduced as far
as practicable. Achieve su f f icient accuracy to enable
intended users to make decisions with reasonable
assurance as to the reliability of the reported information.
05 Fundamentals of Product Life Cycle GHG Accounting
[21]
g
u
i
d
a
n
c
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
The Product Standard builds on the framework and
requirements established in the ISO LCA standards
(14040:2006, Life Cycle Assessment: Principles and
Framework and 14044:2006, Life Cycle Assessment:
Requirements and Guidelines) and PAS 2050, with the
intent of providing additional speci f ications and guidance
to facilitate the consistent quanti f ication and public
reporting of product life cycle GHG inventories. Other
standards and publications such as the ILCD Handbook3
were also used as reference during the development
of this standard. The following sections clarify the
relationship between the ISO LCA framework and the
Product Standard while identifying two fundamentals on
which the Product Standard is based: the life cycle and
attributional approaches to GHG accounting.
5.2 Requirements
A GHG product inventory shall follow the
life cycle and attributional approaches.
Product GHG inventories,4 also commonly known as
product carbon footprints, are a subset of LCA because
they focus only on the climate change impact category
(the limitations of which are discussed in chapter 1).
However, the accounting methodologies and requirements
presented in this standard follow the life cycle approach as
established by ISO LCA standards 14040 and 14044.
5.1 Introduction
P roduct life cycle GHG accounting is a subset of life cycle assessment (LCA), which seeks to quantify and address the environmental aspects and potential environmental impacts throughout a product’s life cycle from raw material extraction through to
end-of-life waste treatment.1 LCA became internationally standardized by the International
Organization for Standardization (ISO) with the publication of the 14040 series of life cycle
assessment standards. In 2008, the British Standards Institution (BSI), in partnership with
the UK Department of Environment Food and Rural A f fairs (DEFRA) and the Carbon Trust,
published a Publicly Available Speci f ication (PAS) for the assessment of life cycle greenhouse
gas emissions of goods and services, known as PAS 2050.2
[22] Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting Standard
r e q u i r e m e n t s
The requirements and guidance in this standard follow
the attributional approach to life cycle accounting.
The attributional approach is de f ined as a method in
which GHG emissions and removals are attributed to
the unit of analysis of the studied product by linking
together attributable processes along its life cycle.5
The attributional approach makes use of primary data
provided by a supplier/customer or average (secondary)
data for a given process. Explanation of the terms unit
of analysis, attributable processes, and primary data are
given in chapter 6, chapter 7, and chapter 8, respectively.
In addition to the attributional approach, another
method of life cycle accounting is the consequential
approach. The consequential approach is de f ined as an
approach in which processes are included in the life cycle
boundary to the extent that they are expected to change
as a consequence of a change in demand for the unit of
analysis.6 The consequential approach makes use of data
that is not constrained and can respond to changes in
demand (e.g., marginal technology information), where
change in demand can occur as a result of changes in
production volumes, production technologies, public
policies, and consumer behaviors. Although not followed
in this standard, the consequential approach can provide
valuable insight in certain applications such as evaluating
reduction projects or making public policy decisions.
Box [5.1] The consequential approach
[23]
CHAPTeR 05 Fundamentals of Product Life Cycle GHG Accounting
g
u
i
d
a
n
c
e
5.3 Guidance
5.3.1 Phases and steps of a GHG inventory
The ISO LCA standards de f ine four phases of a LCA
study: the goal and scope de f inition, inventory analysis,
impact assessment, and interpretation. To report the
results of an LCA study, ISO also de f ines critical review
and reporting as additional steps. Figure 5.1 shows the
general relationship between the ISO LCA phases of an
LCA study de f ined by ISO and the steps to complete a
GHG inventory in conformance with this standard.
The life cycle approach is by nature an iterative
technique, where each phase or step is dependent on
the results or methodologies used in another (previous
or subsequent) phase or step. For example, de f ining
the unit of analysis (as de f ined in chapter 6) is a step
that directly impacts the subsequent steps of boundary
setting, data collection, and allocation. However, a
company may f ind that to avoid allocation (as de f ined
in chapter 9) they need to rede f ine the unit of analysis.
Likewise, setting the boundary (chapter 7) is the f irst
step in identifying what data are needed by determining
attributable processes, but data collection limitations
(as de f ined in chapter 8) may result in excluding some
processes from the inventory results and justifying
those exclusions in the inventory report. Applying the
principles of this standard and clearly setting business
goals will help companies ensure that the decisions taken
while conducting the inventory and interpreting the f inal
results are relevant to those goals.
5.3.2 Use of product rules and sector guidance
As mentioned in chapter 1, product comparisons,
beyond tracking product performance over time,
need additional speci f ications to ensure consistent
application of this standard for a product or product
category. These speci f ications are provided within a
product rule. A product rule is a document created by
a group of stakeholders with an interest in a particular
product or product category and the goal of building
consensus on the additional speci f ications needed to
The life cycle
approach is by
nature an iterative
technique, where
each phase or
step is dependent
on the results or
methodologies used
in another (previous
or subsequent)
phase or step.
Box [5.1] The consequential approach
Figure [5.1] Comparison between the phases of an ISO LCA study and the steps
of a Product Standard GHG inventory
Phases in an
ISO LCA study Steps in a product standard GHG inventory
goal and scope de f inition
business goals (chapter 2)
principles (chapter 4)
fundamentals of product life cycle accounting (chapter 5)
de f ining the scope (chapter 6)
inventory analysis (LCI)
boundary setting (chapter 7)
data collection and quality assessment (chapter 8)
allocation (chapter 9)
impact assessment calculating inventory results (chapter 11)
interpretation
uncertainty (chapter 10)
performance tracking (chapter 14)
reporting (chapter 13)
reporting & critical review
(when applicable to the
goal and scope)
assurance (chapter 12)
reporting (chapter 13)
[24] Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting Standard
g u i d a n c e
Table [5.1] Sector guidance and product rule speci f ications
Inventory step Sector guidance and product rule speci f ications
Chapter 6:
Establishing
the Scope
• Choosing a studied product (in sector guidance)
• Choosing a unit of analysis (functional unit)
• Identifying whether a cradle-to-gate inventory is appropriate
• Identifying any additional GHGs that are applicable to the product or sector
Chapter 7:
Boundary Setting
• Life cycle stage de f initions and descriptions
• Speci f ic attributable processes
• Relevant non-attributable processes
• Justi f ied excluded attributable processes (including insigni f icance threshold)
• Use and end-of-life pro f iles
• Time period
• Method used to calculate land-use change impacts
Chapter 8:
Collecting Data and
Assessing Data Quality
• Type of primary data to collect for processes under the reporting company’s control
• Processes not under the reporting company’s ownership/control where primary
data should be collected
• Secondary data sources and default data values
Chapter 9:
Allocation
• Allocation method and appropriate allocation factor
• Recycling allocation method
Chapter 10:
Assessing Uncertainty
• Default uncertainty values
• Likely sources of uncertainty
Chapter 11:
Calculating
Inventory Results
• The GWP values to use
• Default emission factors
Chapter 12:
Assurance
• The type of assurance to perform
Chapter 13:
Reporting
• Optional reporting elements that would be bene f icial to stakeholders
• Additional requirements due to communication type (e.g., label)
Chapter 14:
Setting Reduction
Targets and Tracking
Inventory Changes
• The base inventory to set
• De f inition of changes that would warrant base inventory recalculation
enable comparisons or declarations about the product.
An example is a product category rule (PCR) as de f ined
by ISO 14025:2006. Appendix A includes details on what
speci f ications are needed in a product rule to enable
di f ferent types of comparisons and gives some guidance
on creating product rules.
Sector guidance is typically created by a group of
stakeholders and sector representatives convened to
build consensus on guidance for performing a product
GHG inventory within their sector, but without the goal of
enabling product comparison.
While using product rules and sector guidance is not
required for conformance with this standard, each provides
[25]
CHAPTeR 05 Fundamentals of Product Life Cycle GHG Accounting
g
u
i
d
a
n
c
e
additional speci f ications that can be useful to companies
as they prepare their inventories. Table 5.1 provides some
examples of additional speci f ications for key inventory
steps. For de f initions and explanations of terms included in
the table please see the respective chapters.
Companies using sector guidance and product rules
still need to abide by the requirements of the Product
Standard. For example, companies may use a product
rule to help choose an allocation method as long as the
method is in conformance with chapter 9 and performed
using the attributional approach (e.g., primary supplier or
average data). Companies may not use sector guidance
or product rules to exclude attributable processes
without justi f ication. Any sector guidance or product rules
used during the inventory process are disclosed in the
inventory report following the reporting requirements
(chapter 13).
Product rules and sector guidance should be developed
through an inclusive multi-stakeholder process to ensure
broad acceptance and facilitate increased consistency and
credibility. Guidance and tools in conformance with the
Product Standard can be found at (www.ghgprotocol.org).
endnotes
1 International Organization for Standardization, ISO 14044:2006,
Life Cycle Assessment: Requirements and Guidelines. Geneva.
2 British Standards Institution et al. PAS 2050:2008: Speci f ication
for the assessment of life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of
goods and services.
3 European Commission - Joint Research Centre - Institute for
Environment and Sustainability, International Reference Life
Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook - General guide for Life Cycle
Assessment - Detailed guidance. First edition, March 2010.
Luxembourg: Publications O f f ice of the European Union, 2010.
4 In the Product Standard, a completed GHG assessment is called
a GHG inventory to be consistent with corporate-level GHG
accounting. The GHG inventory includes both the collection of
data and the calculation of the global warming impact. This is
di f ferent from the ISO LCA terminology which de f ines inventory
as only the collection of data.
5 Adapted from UNEP and SETAC, Global Guidance Principles for Life
Cycle Assessment Databases. 2011.
6 Adapted from UNEP and SETAC, Global Guidance Principles for Life
Cycle Assessment Databases. 2011.
establishing the Scope
of a Product Inventory06
[27]
g
u
i
d
a
n
c
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
establishing the Scope
of a Product Inventory
6.1 Introduction
A well-de f ined scope
1, aligned with the f ive accounting principles and the company’s
business goals, can help ensure the f inal inventory meets the company’s and
stakeholder’s needs. In addition to identifying which GHGs to account for,
establishing the inventory scope involves choosing a product, de f ining the unit of analysis, and
identifying the reference f low. Speci f ic requirements and guidance are detailed in this chapter.
6.2 Requirements
Companies shall account for carbon
dioxide (CO2 ), methane (CH4), nitrous
oxide (n2O), sulfur hexafluoride
(SF6 ), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and
hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) emissions
to, and removals from, the atmosphere.
Additional GHGs included in the inventory
shall be listed in the inventory report.
Companies shall account for these six gases in their
product GHG inventory if they are emitted during
the product’s life cycle. Companies should account
for any other GHGs whose 100-year GWP values have
been identi f ied by the IPCC if they are emitted during
the product’s life cycle.2 Any additional GHGs that are
accounted for shall be listed in the inventory report to
improve transparency.
Removals from the atmosphere typically occur when CO2
is absorbed by biogenic sources (i.e. plants) and converted
to energy during photosynthesis. However, removals
may also occur when a product absorbs atmospheric CO2
during use, or when CO2 from the atmosphere is used
during a processing step. Companies shall also account
for all removals of CO2 from the atmosphere if they are
removed during the product’s life cycle.
Companies shall de f ine the studied product,
unit of analysis, and reference f low.
The studied product is the product on which the GHG life
cycle inventory is performed.
[28] Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting Standard
r e q u i r e m e n t s
The unit of analysis is de f ined as the performance
characteristics and services delivered by the product
being studied. The reference f low is the amount of
product on which the results of the study are based.
For all f inal products, companies shall de f ine
the unit of analysis as a functional unit.
Final products are goods and services that are ultimately
consumed by the end user rather than used in the
production of another good or service. Since the function
of a f inal product is known, companies shall de f ine
the unit of analysis as a functional unit. The functional
unit, like unit of analysis, is de f ined as the performance
characteristics and services delivered by the product
being studied. A de f ined functional unit typically includes
the function (service) a product ful f ills, the duration
or service life (amount of time needed to ful f ill the
function), and the expected quality level.
For intermediate products where the
eventual function is unknown, companies
shall de f ine the unit of analysis as the
reference f low.
Intermediate products are goods that are used as inputs
in the production of other goods and services. For
example, a plastic resin that is eventually transformed
into plastic car parts is an intermediate product.
In general, an intermediate product is a good that
eventually becomes a material input into the life cycle of
a f inal product. Therefore, the service an intermediate
product ful f ills is often dependent on the f inal product’s
function. When that function is unknown to the company
performing a GHG inventory on an intermediate product,
it is not always possible to de f ine the unit of analysis as
the functional unit. In this case, companies shall de f ine
the unit of analysis for an intermediate product as the
reference f low or amount of product being studied.
[29]
g
u
i
d
a
n
c
e
CHAPTeR 06 establishing the scope of a product inventory
6.3 Guidance
6.3.1 Choosing the studied product
A review or screening exercise of all the products a
company produces, distributes, buys, or sells3 is the
f irst step to identifying an individual product to study.
Companies should pick a product that is GHG intensive
as well as strategically important and aligned with their
business goals.
The results of a corporate GHG inventory following the
Corporate and Scope 3 Standards can be used to easily
identify products or product categories that are GHG
intensive. If this inventory is not available, companies
may use environmentally extended input-output (EEIO)
tables to estimate the GHG intensity of products based
on economic transactions. (See chapter 8 for more
information on EEIO tables.) If neither is available,
companies may use physical or economic factors to rank
products by mass, volume, or spend. This option is least
preferred because physical or economic factors alone may
not correlate with GHG intensity.
Companies may decide to further evaluate a group
of products in more detail. This further evaluation
may include looking deeper into where reductions
could occur along the product’s life cycle, evaluating
the company’s potential in f luence on suppliers and
customers, researching
supplier relationships
and potential for
engagement, and
ranking products
based on the ability
for marketplace
di f ferential. Companies
may consult with their
product design and/or research and development teams
to choose a product for which potential reductions
could be met through innovation such as design,
material, or manufacturing advancements. Or they may
choose a new or emerging product still in prototype
or conceptual stage where GHG reductions could be
achieved during the product design and implementation
stages of development.
If it is still unclear through screening exercises and further
evaluation which product to choose, companies should
opt for a product with the largest anticipated strategic
impact and GHG reduction potential in the life cycle.
6.3.2 De f ining the unit of analysis
De f ining the unit of analysis is a critical step in completing
a GHG inventory because it directly in f luences the
subsequent steps and results of the inventory. For example:
• The duration/service life is the basis for the product’s
use pro f ile during boundary setting (chapter 7)
• The reference f low is the basis for all data collection
since it de f ines the magnitude of material or energy
inputs and outputs (chapter 8)
• A well-de f ined unit of analysis can avoid allocation
by including the studied product and co-products
together (chapter 9)
• The unit of analysis is the basis on which the inventory
results are reported, and therefore a transparent unit
of analysis is important to ensure inventory results are
interpreted and used correctly (chapters 11 and 13)
The following sections provide guidance on de f ining a
product’s function, functional unit, and reference f low,
as well as de f ining the unit of analysis for intermediate
products and services.
Identifying the function
The function is the service a product provides. When
the function is known (i.e., for f inal products and some
intermediate products), the unit of analysis is the
functional unit. Some questions a company may ask to
help identify a product’s function include:
• Why is the product created?
• What purpose does the product serve?
• What de f ining characteristics or expected level of
quality does the product have?
For example, if the studied product is a light bulb, the
product is created for the purpose of providing light.
The amount of service (e.g., light) that the light bulb
provides depends on characteristics such as the amount
of luminance and spectrum. In many cases, a product can
have several functions; in this step, companies should
identify all functions before selecting one to serve as the
basis of the functional unit.
Companies should pick
a product that is GHG
intensive as well as
strategically important
and aligned with their
business goals.
[30] Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting Standard
g u i d a n c e
Selecting the function(s)
If multiple functions are identi f ied, companies should
base the functional unit on the function(s) that best
re f lects what the studied product was designed to do.
For example, paint ful f ills the function of providing wall
color and surface protection. If the goal of the company
is to design paint with longer-lasting color that doesn’t
have to be reapplied as frequently, that is the function
on which the functional unit should be based. More than
one function can be represented in a functional unit if
applicable to the goal of the company.
Defining the functional unit and reference flow
A well-de f ined functional unit consists of three general
parameters: the magnitude of the function or service; the
duration or service life of that function or service; and the
expected level of quality. Although not all parameters
may be relevant for all products (or some parameters may
be mutually exclusive), considering them helps to ensure
a robust functional unit de f inition and makes subsequent
inventory steps easier, such as de f ining the use pro f ile
during boundary setting.
There are two approaches to de f ining the functional
unit and reference f low: de f ine the reference f low f irst
and then determine the functional unit based on the
amount of product; or de f ine the functional unit f irst
and then determine the amount of product needed to
ful f ill it. When de f ining the functional unit f irst, it is often
helpful to base the parameters on product rules, sector
guidance, or industry average use-pro f iles. On the other
hand, the reference f low may be de f ined f irst to specify
an amount of product included in the study. This could
be an individual product, bulk packaging of a product, or
government- or industry-regulated product speci f ications
(e.g., government-recommended serving sizes for food
products). It is helpful to consider which criterion would
be most meaningful to the user of the report. For
example, a functional unit that requires half a product
may be hard for a consumer to understand.
To report e f f iciency improvements of a product over time,
companies should de f ine the functional unit so that, as
improvements are made, the reference f low needed to
ful f ill the same functional unit decreases. Consider, for
example, a laptop computer for which the functional
unit is average daily use over a 3-year lifetime and the
reference f low includes two batteries that each have a
1.5-year useful life. Extending the battery life will reduce the
reference f low in subsequent inventories. (See chapter 14
for more information on performance tracking over time.)
Ecolab, the global leader in cleaning, sanitizing, food
safety, and infection prevention products and services,
performed a GHG inventory on the life cycle of their
APEXTM automatic warewashing system. Ecolab selected
the function as the delivery of clean and sanitized dishes
through an automatic dish machine, which included
the necessary individual functions that the APEXTM
warewashing system provides (APEXTM Power, APEXTM
Rinse Additive, and APEXTM Presoak). They chose the
magnitude and duration of the function as its use in
a typical food service facility for one year and set the
expected level of quality as “clean and sanitized,”
which requires 180 °F water during use.
Using this information, the functional unit was de f ined as
delivering clean and sanitized dishes through an automatic
dish machine in a typical food service facility for one year.
The reference f low was de f ined as the total pounds of
product required to ful f ill the function, namely:
• 500 racks per day of dishes washed at a typical location
with 360 operating days per year
• 1800 parts per million (ppm) average detergent
concentration within the dish machine (steady-state
assumption)
• 0.15 grams of rinse additive per rack of dishes
• 4000 ppm presoak concentration, dispensed twice per day
By de f ining a detailed functional unit – considering all
functions, quality, magnitude, and duration – Ecolab was
able to quickly and accurately de f ine their reference f low.
Additionally, the information collected about the use of
the product was used during boundary setting (chapter 7)
to easily de f ine the use pro f ile.
ecolab
[31]
g
u
i
d
a
n
c
e
CHAPTeR 06 Establishing the Scope of a Product Inventory
In some cases, a company produces one product in
multiple varieties (e.g., di f ferent f lavors or colors). When
the variation does not have an impact on GHG inventory
results (chapter 11), companies may de f ine the functional
unit broadly enough so that the GHG inventory report
is applicable to all product variations. If the functional
unit and subsequent inventory results are applicable to
several product variations, this should be noted in the
inventory report.
6.3.3 De f ining the unit of analysis for
intermediate products
Intermediate products are used as inputs into f inal
products, and the company performing the GHG
inventory on an intermediate product may or may not
know the function of the f inal product. For example, a
steel bar has many uses and therefore the speci f ic end
use may be unknown to a steel producing company. On
the other hand, a producer of a specialized intermediate
product that is manufactured for a speci f ic use will likely
know the function of the f inal product. When the function
of the f inal product is known, companies should de f ine
the unit of analysis as a functional unit.
For intermediate products where the function of the f inal
product is unknown, the unit of analysis is the reference
f low. A general rule of thumb when de f ining a reference
f low without a functional unit is to use a value that
provides meaningful GHG inventory results. This could
be a single product or the amount or weight of a typical
shipment of product (for example, a box of 50 units or
a slab of 100 kilograms) depending on the size of the
product and the relative GHG emissions and removals
associated with its acquisition and production.
6.3.4 De f ining the unit of analysis for services
De f ining the unit of analysis for a service should follow the
same general procedure outlined in this chapter. As with
a good, the magnitude, duration, and quality parameters
may be based on sector or product rules, industry average
data, or a company-speci f ic reference f low. For example, a
home insurance company may de f ine their functional unit
as the provision of premium home insurance coverage for
one year. The magnitude and quality of the insurance is
speci f ic to the de f inition of “premium.”
endnotes
1 The product inventory scope is di f ferent from the concept of
scopes as used in the Corporate and Scope 3 Standards.
2 A full list of long-lived GHGs is available in table 2.14 of the IPCC
Fourth Assessment Report, 2007.
3 Whether the studied product is produced, distributed, or sold
by the reporting company depends on the company’s position in
the product’s life cycle. For example, a manufacturing company
screens products they produce, while a retail company screens
products they buy and sell. More guidance is available in chapter 7.
07 Boundary Setting
g
u
i
d
a
n
c
e
[33]
g
u
i
d
a
n
c
e
7.1 Introduction
T he next step in the inventory process is to de f ine the boundary. The boundary identi f ies which emissions and removals are included in the GHG inventory. During boundary setting, companies should complete the following steps:
• Identify the attributable processes along the life cycle that are directly connected to
the studied product and its ability to perform its function
• Group the attributable processes into life cycle stages
• Identify the service, material, and energy f lows needed for each attributable process
• Illustrate the product’s life cycle processes through a process map
The following sections include requirements and guidance to help companies de f ine the boundary of the inventory.
7.2 Requirements
The boundary of the product GHG inventory
shall include all attributable processes.
An inventory consists of service, material, and energy
f lows that become the product, make the product, and
carry the product through its life cycle. These are de f ined
as attributable processes. Examples include the studied
product’s components and packaging, processes that
create the product, materials used to improve its quality
(e.g., fertilizers and lubricants), and energy used to move,
create, or store the product.
Companies shall report the life cycle stage
de f initions and descriptions.
Interconnected stages make up a product’s life cycle,
and these are a useful way to organize processes, data
collection, and inventory results. The standard identi f ies
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
[34] Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting Standard
r e q u i r e m e n t s
f ive general life cycle stages, which are illustrated in
f igure 7.1 and referred to throughout the standard.
Companies may elaborate or classify the stages di f ferently to
better re f lect a speci f ic product’s life cycle. For example,
a company may want to disaggregate into more stages (such
as separating distribution from storage) or use a term that
better describes the processes taking place within the stage,
such as service delivery when the studied product is a service.
All stages should have clear and logical boundaries and be
consecutive and interlinked throughout the life cycle.
Companies shall disclose and justify any
exclusions of attributable processes in the
inventory report.
Attributable processes may be excluded from the
inventory if all of the following are true:
• A data gap exists because primary or secondary data
cannot be collected
• Extrapolated and proxy data cannot be determined to
f ill the data gap
• An estimation determines the data are insigni f icant
De f initions of data types and guidance on f illing data gaps
are included in chapter 8.
Companies shall disclose and justify any exclusions of
attributable processes in the inventory report. This should
include a description of the estimation technique used
and the insigni f icance threshold de f ined.
end of life
Figure [7.1] The f ive stages of a product life cycle (simpli f ied for illustrative purposes)
recycled/reused into
another product life cycle
returned to
nature
nature
use
end-of-life
material acquisition
& pre-processing
production
distribution
& storage
nature
use
end-of-life
material acquisition
& pre-processing
production
distribution
& storage
[35]
CHAPTeR 07 Boundary Setting
Companies shall report attributable
processes in the form of a process map.
Companies shall include a process map in their inventory
report. A process map illustrates the services, materials,
and energy needed to move a product through its
lifecycle. If speci f ic details are considered con f idential, a
company may create a simpli f ied version for the report.
At a minimum, the reported process map should identify
the following items:
• The de f ined life cycle stages
• The generalized attributional processes in each stage
• The f low of the studied product through its life cycle
• Any attributable processes excluded from the
inventory
A company should create a detailed process map for
internal use and assurance, as it serves as the basis for
data collection.
An example of a minimal process map to be reported for
the cradle-to-grave inventory of a car is given in f igure 7.2.
Companies shall report any non-attributable
processes included in the boundary.
Some service, material, and energy f lows are not directly
connected to the studied product during its lifecycle
because they do not become the product, make the
product, or directly carry the product through its life
cycle. These are de f ined as non-attributable processes.
RSA, one of the
world’s leading
multinational
insurance groups,
delivers services in
over 130 countries.
RSA performed a
GHG inventory on their MORE TH>N® home insurance
policy. The MORE TH>N® home insurance policy covers
building and contents against damage, loss, or theft.
They de f ined the unit of analysis as the provision of an
insurance policy for a period of one year. Recognizing
the need to build on the general stages for a service
such as insurance, RSA adopted the following life cycle
stages for their inventory:
• Customer requesting a quote
• RSA providing a quote
• RSA setting up the policy and any subsequent
amendments
• RSA sending correspondence throughout the period
of coverage
• RSA servicing claims throughout the period of coverage
RSA then grouped their attributable processes by life
cycle stage, and used the results to identify where
signi f icant GHG emissions arose in the insurance
process. This, in turn, underpins ongoing GHG-
reduction work with suppliers.
used the results to
identify where
signi f icant GHG
emissions arose in
the insurance process
RSAFigure [7.1] The f ive stages of a product life cycle (simpli f ied for illustrative purposes)
g
u
i
d
a
n
c
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
[36] Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting Standard
r e q u i r e m e n t s
Examples include service, material, and energy f lows
due to:
• Capital goods (e.g., machinery, trucks, infrastructure)
• Overhead operations (e.g., facility lighting, air
conditioning)
• Corporate activities and services (e.g., research and
development, administrative functions, company sales
and marketing)
• Transport of the product user to the retail location
• Transport of employees to and from works
Companies are not required to include non-attributable
processes. However, if non-attributable processes are
included in the boundary, companies shall disclose this in
the inventory report.
The boundary for f inal products shall include
the complete life cycle, from cradle-to-grave.
The boundary for f inal products shall include the cradle-
to-grave removals and emissions from material acquisition
through to end-of-life.
For intermediate products, if the function of the
corresponding f inal product is known, companies should
complete a cradle-to-grave inventory.
The boundary of a cradle-to-gate partial
life cycle inventory shall not include f inal
product use or end-of-life processes in the
inventory results. Companies shall disclose
and justify when a cradle-to-gate boundary
is de f ined in the inventory report.
* Recycling of parts is not included in this simpli f ied example
material acquisition
& pre-processing production
distribution
& storage use end-of-life
pre-processing
of f lat
rolled steel
e
car
part
manufacturing
e
car
retail
e
car
assembly
e
car
shipment
e
car
use
e
pre-processing
of plastics
(20 types)
e
m
m
m
m
m
pre-processing
of
paint
e
car
dismantling
e
pre-processing
of
lubricants
e
shredding
e
pre-processing
of proprietary
goods
e
disposal*
e
Figure [7.2] Sample process map for a car (cradle-to-grave inventory)
energy inputs
material inputsm
e
attributable processes
movement of material
through the lifecycle
[37]
CHAPTeR 07 Boundary Setting
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
If the function of the f inal product for which the
intermediate product is an input is not known, a
cradle-to-gate boundary is de f ined. Cradle-to-gate is a
partial life cycle inventory, including all emissions and
removals from material acquisition through to when the
intermediate product leaves the reporting company’s
gate (typically immediately following its production) and
excluding f inal product use and end-of-life. If a cradle-to-
gate boundary is de f ined, companies shall disclose this
in the inventory report.
Companies shall report the time period
of the inventory.
The time period of the inventory is the amount of time
a studied product takes to complete its life cycle, from
when materials are extracted from nature until they are
returned to nature at the end-of-life (e.g., incinerated)
or leave the studied product’s life cycle (e.g., recycled).
Non-durable goods, like perishable foods or fuels, typically
have a time period of one year or less. Durable goods,
such as computers, cars, and refrigerators, will typically
have a time period of three years or more.
Companies shall report the time period of the total
inventory. The time period should be based on scienti f ic
evidence to the extent possible, and sector guidance or
product rules may be a source of this information when
available. If known science, sector guidance, or product
rules do not exist, companies should assume a minimum
time period of 100 years including the end-of-life stage
(i.e., the time period cannot exclude end-of-life if the use
stage is more than 100 years).
Companies shall report the method used
to calculate land-use change impacts,
when applicable.
For studied products whose life cycle includes biogenic
materials, land use is re f lected in two aspects of the
inventory. One is through emissions and removals from
attributable processes associated with agricultural and
forestry practices such as growth, fertilizer application,
cultivation, and harvesting. For example, rice cultivation
produces CH4 emissions that would be included as a material
acquisition impact in the inventory of a rice product.
The second contributory aspect of land use is land-use
change. Land-use change impacts may be attributable
to the studied product’s material acquisition and
preprocessing stage, including:
• Biogenic CO2 emissions and removals due to carbon
stock change occurring as a results of land conversion
within or between land use categories
• Biogenic and non-biogenic CO2, N2O, and CH4 emissions
resulting from the preparation of converted land, such
as biomass burning or liming1
Guidance on determining when land-use change
impacts are attributable to the studied product is given
in Appendix B. The appendix also includes methods to
calculate land-use change impacts for two situations:
when the speci f ic land from which the product or product
component originates is known and when it is not
known. When land-use change impacts are attributable,
companies shall include these in the boundary and
disclose the calculation method in the inventory report.
Indirect land-use change2 is de f ined as land-use change
that occurs when the demand for a speci f ic land use (e.g.,
an increased demand for crops as a bioenergy feedstock
in the United States) induces a carbon stock change on
other land (e.g., increased need for cropland in Brazil
causing deforestation). This displacement is a result
of market factors and calculated using data consistent
with a consequential approach. Therefore, the inclusion
of indirect land-use change is not a requirement of this
standard. (See chapter 5 for more information on the
consequential versus attributional approach to life cycle
GHG inventories.) However, if indirect land-use impacts
can be calculated and are determined to be signi f icant for
a given product, the magnitude of the impacts should be
reported separately from the inventory results.
[38] Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting Standard
g u i d a n c e
During boundary setting, it is important to document
attributable processes for which GHG removals from
the atmosphere may occur to ensure removal data are
collected later in the inventory process.
The amount of removal calculated for materials of
biogenic origin should only re f lect the amount of
carbon contained, or embedded, in that material. For
example, if a product requires 50 tons of wood input
that is 50 percent carbon, 25 tons of carbon removal is
assumed. To convert carbon to CO2, the tons of carbon
are multiplied by the ratio of molecular weights of
CO2 (44) and carbon (12), respectively. Removals
and emissions due to land-use change or other stock
changes associated with the use of biogenic materials
are accounted for as land-use change impacts and are
de f ined in Appendix B.
Box [7.2] GHG removals
Multiple entities are involved in the production,
distribution, use, and end-of-life of products – including
raw material suppliers, manufacturers, distributors,
retailers, consumers, etc. Each entity has a di f ferent
perspective along the life cycle of a given product.
Depending on an entity’s position in the life cycle,
a portion of the product’s life cycle emissions and
removals occurs prior to their involvement, while the
remainder occurs subsequent to their involvement.
Figure 7.3 is an example of a company that sells a f inal
product called a widget. In this example, all material
acquisition and material processing occurs prior to
the company’s involvement in the product’s life cycle.
Figure 7.4 is an example of a company that produces
an intermediate product to be used in the production
of the widget. In this example, widget production
occurs subsequent to the company’s involvement in
the product’s life cycle. Understanding a company’s
perspective within the life cycle of the studied product
is important as it in f luences the de f inition of life cycle
stages, data collection requirements, and supplier
engagement opportunities.
Box [7.1] The role of perspective in product
GHG accounting
7.3 Guidance
7.3.1 De f ining life cycle stages and identifying
attributable processes
The perspective of a company in f luences the life cycle
stage boundaries and de f initions. The following guidance
provides examples of life cycle stage boundaries,
descriptions, and attributable processes from the
perspective of a company that is performing an inventory
on a f inal product they produce or sell.
Material acquisition and preprocessing
The material acquisition and preprocessing stage starts
when resources are extracted from nature and ends when
the product components enter the gate of the studied
product’s production facility. Other processes that may
occur in this stage include recycled material acquisition,
processing of materials into intermediate material inputs
(preprocessing), and transportation of material inputs
to the production facility. Transportation may also occur
between processes and facilities within the stage, such as
the transport of coal by trucks within a coal mining facility
or the transport of a petrochemical from the re f inery to a
preprocessing facility. Examples of attributable processes
may include:
Figure [7.3] Perspective of a company producing a f inal product
material
acquisiton
material
processing
widget
distribution
widget
use
widget
disposal
widget
production
[39]
CHAPTeR 07 Boundary Setting
g
u
i
d
a
n
c
e
• Mining and extraction of materials or fossil fuels
• Photosynthesis (e.g., removal of CO2 from the
atmosphere) for biogenic materials
• Cultivation and harvesting of trees or crops
• Application of fertilizer
• Preprocessing of material inputs to the studied
product, such as:
• Chipping wood
• Forming metals into ingots
• Cleaning coal
• Conversion of recycled material
• Preprocessing of intermediate material inputs
• Transportation to the production facility and within
extraction and preprocessing facilities
Production
The production stage starts when the product
components enter the production site of the studied
product and ends when the f inished studied product
leaves the production gate. Site and gate are f igurative
terms, as a product may go through many processes
and corresponding intermediate facilities before exiting
the production stage as a f inished product. Processes
associated with co-products or the treatment of wastes
formed during production may also be included in this
stage. Examples of attributable processes may include:
• Physical or chemical processing
• Manufacturing
• Transport of semi- f inished products between
manufacturing processes
• Assembly of material components
• Preparation for distribution, e.g., packaging
• Treatment of waste created during production
Product distribution and storage
The product distribution and storage stage starts when
the f inished studied product leaves the gate of the
production facility and ends when the consumer takes
possession of the product. Several legs of distribution
and storage may occur for one product, such as storage
at a distribution center and a retail location. Examples of
attributable processes may include:
• Distribution center or retail location operations
including:
• Receipt
• Put away
• Heating/refrigeration
• Shipping transportation
• Transportation between storage locations
Product use
The use stage begins when the consumer takes possession
of the product and ends when the product is discarded
for transport to a waste treatment location. The type
Figure [7.4] Perspective of a company producing an intermediate product
material
acquisiton
widget
production
widget
distribution
widget
use
widget
disposal
material
pre-
processing
[40] Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting Standard
g u i d a n c e
and duration of attributable processes in the use stage
depends heavily on the function and service life of the
product. For products that consume energy to ful f ill their
function, attributable processes in the use stage and their
corresponding emissions may account for the largest
fraction of impacts over the complete life cycle. Examples
of attributable processes may include:
• Transportation to the use location (e.g., consumers
driving to their residences)
• Refrigeration at the use location
• Preparation for use (e.g., microwaving)
• Use (e.g., power consumption)
• Repair and maintenance occurring during usage time3
end-of-life
The end-of-life stage begins when the used product is
discarded by the consumer and ends when the product
is returned to nature (e.g., incinerated) or allocated to
another product’s life cycle (e.g., recycled). Because
the main attributable process in the end-of-life stage
is the method used to treat the product (land f illing,
incineration, etc.), companies need to know or assume
the fate of the product to map this stage. Examples of
attributable processes may include:
• Collection and transport of end-of-life products and
packages
• Waste management
• Dismantling of components
• Shredding and sorting
• Incineration and sorting of bottom ash
• Land f illing and land f ill maintenance
Requirements and guidance for end-of-life recycling are
available in chapter 9.
For a service, the production and use stage may be
combined into the service delivery stage. This stage
encompasses all operations required to complete a
service. For example, in the case of home appliance repair,
attributable processes may include driving to the home,
assessing the appliance, ordering or picking up parts, and
returning to complete the f inal repair. All material f lows
(e.g., parts needed for the repair), energy f lows (e.g., fuel
to deliver the service person and/or parts), and end-of-
life considerations of materials and wastes make up the
attributable processes along the service life cycle.
7.3.2 Developing a process map
Developing a process map is an important requirement
when completing an inventory, since processes and
f lows identi f ied in the process map are the basis for
data collection and calculation. Companies may use the
following steps:
1. Identify the de f ined life cycle stages at the top of the
map, from material extraction through to end-of-life
(or production for cradle-to-gate inventories)
2. Identify the position on the map where the studied product
is f inished, and exits the reporting company’s gate
[41]
CHAPTeR 07 Boundary Setting
g
u
i
d
a
n
c
e
3. Identify component inputs and upstream processing
steps necessary to create and transport the f inished
product, aligning the processes with the appropriate
life cycle stage
4. Identify the energy and material f lows associated with
each upstream process, including inputs that directly
impact the product’s ability to perform its function
(e.g., fertilizers, lubricants) and outputs such as waste
and co-products
5. For cradle-to-grave inventories, identify the
downstream processing steps and energy and material
f lows needed to distribute, store, and use the studied
product
6. For cradle-to-grave inventories, identify the energy
and material inputs needed for the end-of-life of the
studied product
Figure 7.5 illustrates the steps to develop a process map
with a generic, simpli f ied cradle-to-grave inventory.
For a cradle-to-gate inventory, the use of the product
is unknown and therefore the process map ends when
the studied product is a f inished intermediate product,
typically when it leaves the production stage.
7.3.3 Identifying attributable processes
in the use and end-of-life stages
Companies need to make assumptions about the speci f ic
attributable processes used to create, distribute, and sell
the studied product as they develop their process map.
Because the way a product is used (often referred to
as the use pro f ile) can vary signi f icantly between users,
companies often f ind it di f f icult to determine attributable
processes for the use stage.
The f irst step is to look at the functional unit de f inition
for the product. The de f ined function, as well as the
duration and quality of service provided by the product,
should help identify the use pro f ile processes. Because
the service life does not always correspond directly to
the use pro f ile, companies should assume a pro f ile that
most accurately represents the use of their product while
material acquisition
& pre-processing production
distribution
& storage use end-of-life
processing
of
component A
production
process
distribution
process
use
process
processing
of
component B
end-of-life
process
Figure [7.5] Illustrative steps to developing a process map for a company that produces a f inal product
material
input B
material
input A
e e e e
Step [1] Identify the de f ined life cycle stages
Step [2] Identify the studied product leaving the production gate
Step [3] Identify component inputs and upstream processes
Step [4] Identify directly connected energy and material f lows
Step [5+6] Identify downstream processes and energy/material f lows
m
m
energy inputs
material inputsm
e
attributable processes
movement of material
through the lifecycle
[42] Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting Standard
g u i d a n c e
abiding by the attributional approach of the standard as
well as the data collection requirement that speci f ic data
be used whenever possible. This could be data collected
from customer surveys, when available, or data based on
industry average values for the average product use.
Attributable processes in both the use and end-of-
life stage can vary signi f icantly between geographical
locations. While companies can use global averages, they
may f ind that focusing on a speci f ic region or country
provides greater insight into the GHG impacts of the
product’s use and end-of-life stages. Data collection
requirements and guidance are available in chapter 8 to
help companies determine the most appropriate use and
waste treatment pro f ile.
In the case where more than one use or end-of-life pro f ile
is possible, companies may assess the scenario uncertainty
(i.e., sensitivity analysis) to understand the impact each
potential pro f ile may have on the total inventory results.
For example, a company may want users of the report to
know the impact that storing food in the freezer for three
months versus one year has on the inventory results.
More information on scenario uncertainty is available in
chapter 10.
7.3.4 Estimating to determine insigni f icance
To determine insigni f icance, a company should estimate the
process’s emissions using data with upper limit assumptions
to determine whether, in the most conservative case, the
process is insigni f icant based on either mass, energy, or
volume, as well as GHG relevance criteria.
To determine whether an estimate is insigni f icant or not,
a company needs to establish a de f inition of insigni f icance
which may include a rule of thumb threshold. For example,
a rule of thumb for insigni f icance may be material or
energy f lows that contribute less than one percent of the
mass, energy, or volume and estimated GHG signi f icance
over a process, life cycle stage, or total inventory.4
For example, consider a process for which there is no
primary or secondary data available on material input
X other than that it contributes 0.5 grams to the 100
gram total material input for the product. The company
estimates that even if material X is a GHG intensive input,
0.5 grams does not exceed one percent of the mass or
environmental impact; therefore, the material input is a
justi f ied exclusion. The de f inition of insigni f icance should
re f lect the company’s business goals for conducting the
inventory. As stated previously, companies are required
to disclose and justify any exclusion of attributable
processes in the inventory report.
7.3.5 non-attributable processes
Companies are not required to include non-attributable
processes (processes that are not directly connected to
the studied product) in the boundary. However, companies
should include non-attributable processes in the inventory
if they cannot be separated from attributable process
data, or if the company determines that the process is
relevant to the studied product. Relevance is determined
by the company and may be based on many di f ferent
factors including business goals and reduction potentials,
product rules or sector guidance, and relative impact in
relation to the rest of the inventory.
TAL Apparel is a major
apparel manufacturer with
multiple manufacturing
facilities in China and
Southeast Asia. While TAL
has installed sub-meters
for most attributable
processes for their non-iron shirt, there are still some
attributable processes, such as packing, whose energy
use cannot be fully separated from non-attributable
processes that also occur in the factory, such as R&D
and product testing. After deducting the emissions of
metered processes from the overall tally, TAL captured
emissions from the remaining processes (attributable
and non-attributable) that are not sub-metered by
allocating across all products produced in the factory.
As a result of using this approach, the product
inventory was able to meet the boundary requirement
to include all attributable processes. By clearly stating
which non-attributable processes were included in the
report, TAL also improved the transparency of their
inventory results.
TAL
[43]
CHAPTeR 07 Boundary Setting
g
u
i
d
a
n
c
e
GE performed a GHG inventory of their GE Energy 2.5xl
wind turbine, with the unit of analysis de f ined as the
quantity of electricity delivered to the grid by one 2.5xl
wind turbine over its 20-year lifetime. Using the general
life cycle stages de f ined by this standard, GE developed
a process map to re f lect how the various materials and
activities should be categorized within the life cycle. The
wind turbine contains over 10,000 parts, so the material
acquisition and preprocessing stage processes
were simpli f ied to include only the main material inputs
while still giving an idea of the magnitude compared
to other stages. The production stage includes sub-
assembly of various turbine components. The use stage
includes operation and maintenance (O&M) that occurs
over the 20 years the wind turbine is in operation,
including any related transportation to the installation
site. The end-of-life stage includes decommissioning
(disassembly of turbine) and recycling or disposal of the
turbine materials.
Ge
NOTE: The upstream and downstream material and energy inputs are not identi f ied in this process map for simplicity.
The results of this inventory showed that 65 percent of the life cycle GHG emissions occur in the material acquisition
and preprocessing stage. Including the process map in the inventory report will allow GE’s stakeholders to have a visual
understanding of not only the life cycle processes attributable to a wind turbine but also the inventory results.
material acquisition
& pre-processing production
distribution
& storage use end-of-life
material acquisition and processing
transport
hub bed plate converter main shaft gearbox yaw drives
nacelle generator top box main bearing pitch bearing yaw bearing
pitch system main ctrl cab transformer other components
transport
transport
Ge manufacturing
& assembly
transport
site prep
installation
transport
O&M decommissioning transport recycling/ disposal
blades
tower
transport
vendor parts shipped to GE
vendor parts shipped directly to installation site
[44] Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting Standard
g u i d a n c e
Both relevance and signi f icance are used in this
standard to de f ine similar concepts.
Signi f icance is de f ined as the size of emissions,
removals, or GHG intensity and is used quantitatively
throughout the standard. Signi f icance is used in
data quality reporting (chapter 8) to describe data
that has a large impact on the inventory results.
Insigni f icance is also used in boundary setting and
base inventory recalculation (chapter 14) to describe
a threshold under which a process or change can be
assumed insigni f icant to the inventory results.
Relevance is a qualitative term used to describe how
decisions made during the inventory process impact
a company’s business goals. Examples of decisions
that consider relevance include establishing the scope
(chapter 6), including non-attributable processes, and
screening during data collection (chapter 8). When
making decisions based on relevance, it is usually
recommended that companies also consider signi f icance.
Box [7.3] Relevance and signi f icance
geographic location, and can vary signi f icantly depending
on the type of waste treatment assumed and how long
it takes for the product’s carbon to return to nature. For
example, waste that is incinerated has a very short time
period compared to waste that is disposed of in a land f ill.
Additionally, not all waste treatment methods result in
the release of the carbon contained in the product into
the atmosphere. When a company knows that either
all or a portion of a product’s carbon does not return to
the atmosphere during waste treatment, a company is
required to disclose and justify this in the inventory report.
For example, lignin is a carbon-based component of wood
that does not degrade under anaerobic conditions.5
A company may not assume that carbon is stored in a
product by shortening the end-of-life time period. It
should be known that the carbon is stored inde f initely
as a result of waste treatment. For example, a company
cannot assign an end-of-life time period of f ive years to a
product that aerobically degrades in ten years.
7.3.7 Cradle-to-gate inventories
There are two types of intermediate products: when the
company manufacturing the intermediate product knows
the use pro f iles of the f inal product it becomes and when
the intermediate product can be used in many di f ferent
f inal products and therefore has a variety of possible use
pro f iles. Just like the unit of analysis of an intermediate
product (see chapter 6), the boundary requirements
are dependent on whether the company knows the use
pro f ile (e.g., function) of the f inal product.
If the use pro f ile is known, companies should perform
a full life cycle (cradle-to-grave) inventory of the
intermediate product. This provides companies with more
reduction opportunities by including the distribution,
retail, use and end-of-life stages, and stakeholders with a
complete picture of the product’s life cycle. An innovative
way to do this is to work with the f inal product producer;
using the primary data and expertise they have on the
f inal production, use, and end-of-life can improve the
completeness and accuracy of the inventory.
If the use pro f ile is unknown, companies may still decide
to perform a cradle-to-grave inventory by picking a
representative or average use pro f ile. Alternatively, a
cradle-to-gate inventory may be performed. Transparency
is important when performing a cradle-to-gate
Non-attributable process that may be relevant to
some products are capital goods and infrastructure.
For example, renewable energy generation such
as hydroelectric and wind power require capital
infrastructure that may have a large GHG impact relative
to the rest of the inventory. This can be determined using
the same basis and threshold de f ined when determining
insigni f icance. Additionally, a company may see corporate
activities, a non-attributable process, as a key area of
reduction potential and therefore determine they are
relevant to include in the product inventory.
7.3.6 Time period
The total inventory time period is dependent on the
use and end-of-life stages. The use-stage time period is
based on the service life of the product. For example,
if the function of a laptop computer is to provide 5,000
computing hours, eight hours a day, f ive days a week, the
use-stage time period would be 2.4 years.
The end-of-life time period is based on the average waste
treatment pro f ile of the studied product in the assumed
[45]
CHAPTeR 07 Boundary Setting
g
u
i
d
a
n
c
e
inventory, particularly when a downstream customer
of an intermediate product wants to use the cradle-to-
gate data to calculate the cradle-to-grave inventory of
their f inal product. As stated previously, companies are
required to clearly disclose and justify in the inventory
report when a cradle-to-gate boundary is used. For
example, an appropriate justi f ication could be lack of
knowledge of the f inal product’s use pro f ile. The fact that
a cradle-to-gate, and not cradle-to-grave, inventory was
performed should also be made clear in the process map
and the description of life cycle stages.
A cradle-to-gate inventory performed in conformance
with this standard does not include the use and end-of-
life stages of the f inal product. This is to preserve the
continuous nature of the life cycle approach and avoid
cherry picking (e.g., omitting a GHG-intensive use stage
but including the end-of-life stage). In some cases, the
company producing the intermediate product may have
information on end-of-life processes that would improve
the downstream customer’s inventory, such as recycling
rates or time period. Companies may include additional
information about the end-of-life stage in the report of a
cradle-to-gate inventory, as long as it is clearly separated
from the inventory results (e.g., the total CO2 equivalents
[CO2e] per unit of analysis) and process map.
endnotes
1 This refers only to biomass burning, liming, and other practices
used to prepare converted land. Biomass burning and fertilizer
application due to agricultural and forestry practices are also
included in the inventory as attributable processes, separate from
land-use change impacts.
2 Indirect land use does not refer to the direct land used to
produce an attributable input into the studied product (e.g., the
land used to produce animal feed which is an attributable input
for the studied product beef).
3 Material inputs such as part replacement due to operation and
maintenance may fall within the use or material acquisition stage.
Although the process occurs in the use stage, it may be easiest
during data collection to include all emissions associated with
that material input over the product’s life cycle during material
acquisition. For example, if the product requires two timing
belts during its service life, companies can either assume one
during material acquisition and one during use, or both during
material acquisition. Either is appropriate as long as this is made
transparent in the inventory report.
4 Companies may determine signi f icance based on the process, life
cycle stage, or inventory level as long as this is done consistently
throughout the inventory.
5 Treating waste under anaerobic conditions means that the waste
degrades with limited oxygen. This typically occurs in land f ills
where oxygen is unable to penetrate buried waste.
Collecting Data and
Assessing Data Quality08
[47]
g
u
i
d
a
n
c
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
8.1 Introduction
D ata collection can be the most resource intensive step when performing a product GHG inventory. Data can also have a signi f icant impact on the overall inventory quality. This chapter provides requirements and guidance to help companies successfully
collect and assess the quality of their inventory data.
8.2 Requirements
Companies shall collect data for all processes
included in the inventory boundary.
Companies shall collect primary data for all
processes under their ownership or control.
Primary data are data collected from speci f ic processes
in the studied product’s life cycle. Primary data can be
process activity data (physical measures of a process
that results in GHG emissions or removals), direct
emissions data (determined through direct monitoring,
stoichiometry, mass balance, or similar methods) from
a speci f ic site, or data that is averaged across all sites
that contain the speci f ic process. Primary data can be
measured or modeled, as long as the result is speci f ic to
the process in the product’s life cycle. It is important to
note that using the reference f low of the studied product
(e.g., mass of f inished product) as process activity data is
not considered primary data.
Allocated data are considered primary data as long as the
data meets the other primary data requirements.
During the data collection process,
companies shall assess the data quality
of activity data, emission factors, and/
or direct emissions data by using the data
quality indicators.
Activity data are quanti f ied measures of a level of activity
that results in GHG emissions or removals. Emission
factors are GHG emissions per unit of activity data. Direct
emissions data are data on emissions released from a
process (or removals absorbed from the atmosphere)
determined through direct monitoring, stoichiometry,
mass balance, or similar methods (see section 8.3.4 for
more details on data types).
[48] Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting Standard
r e q u i r e m e n t s
The standard de f ines f ive data quality indicators to use
in assessing data quality. They are:
• Technological representativeness: the degree to
which the data re f lect the actual technology(ies)
used in the process
• Geographical representativeness: the degree to
which the data re f lects actual geographic location of
the processes within the inventory boundary (e.g.,
country or site)
• Temporal representativeness: the degree to which
the data re f lect the actual time (e.g., year) or age of
the process
• Completeness: the degree to which the data are
statistically representative of the process sites
• Reliability: the degree to which the sources, data
collection methods, and veri f ication procedures used
to obtain the data are dependable
Assessing data quality during data collection allows
companies to make data quality improvements more
e f f iciently than when data quality is assessed after the
collection is complete.
For signi f icant processes, companies shall
report a descriptive statement on the data
sources, the data quality, and any e f forts
taken to improve data quality.
Companies need to determine which processes
are significant in order to report the data sources,
quality concerns, and quality improvement efforts.
For example, a process that contributes a substantial
amount of GHG emissions relative to the total life
cycle emissions is significant. The criteria included in
the screening steps below can be helpful to identify
significant processes. See the guidance section for
examples of reporting on data sources, quality, and
improvement efforts for significant processes.
A company owns or controls a process if it is under
its operational or f inancial control. The GHG Protocol
Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard
de f ines two types of control: f inancial control and
operational control.
A company has f inancial control over a process if it
has the ability to direct the f inancial and operating
policies of the process with a view to gain economic
bene f its from the activity. For example, f inancial
control usually exists if the company has the right to
the majority of bene f its of the operation. Similarly,
a company is considered to f inancially control a
process if it retains the majority of the risks and
rewards of ownership of the operation’s assets.
A company has operational control over a process
if the company or one of its subsidiaries has the full
authority to introduce and implement its operating
policies to the process. This criterion is consistent
with the current accounting and reporting practice
of many companies that report on emissions
from facilities for which they hold the operating
license. If the company or one of its subsidiaries is
the operator of a facility, it is expected that it has
the full authority to introduce and implement its
operating policies and thus has operational control,
except in very rare circumstances.
For more information on ownership and control
refer to chapter 3 of the GHG Protocol Corporate
Accounting and Reporting Standard.
Box [8.1] De f inition of ownership or control
[49]
CHAPTeR 08 Collecting Data and Assessing Data Quality
g
u
i
d
a
n
c
e
8.3 Guidance
Companies should follow the steps below when collecting
data and assessing data quality:
Step 1. Develop a data management plan and document
the data collection and assessment processes as
they are completed
Step 2. Identify all data needs using the product’s
process map
Step 3. Perform a screening to help focus data
collection e f forts
Step 4. Identify data types
Step 5. Collect primary data for all processes under the
ownership or control of the reporting company
Step 6. For all other processes, collect primary or
secondary data. Assess and document the data
quality of the direct emissions data, activity data,
and emission factors as the data are collected
Step 7. Improve the data quality, focusing on processes
that have a signi f icant impact on the inventory
results
The following sections provide guidance on completing
each of these steps.
8.3.1 Data management plan
A data management plan is a tool to help companies
organize and consistently document the data collection
process, including sources of data, assumptions made,
and data quality. Documenting the data collection
process is useful for improving the data quality over
time, preparing for assurance, and revising future
product inventories to re f lect changes in the product’s
life cycle. To ensure that all the relevant information
is documented, a data management plan should be
established early in the inventory process. Detailed
guidance on how to create and implement a data
management plan is given in Appendix C.
PepsiCo, Inc. is a leading global food and beverage
company whose brands include Pepsi, Lay’s, Quaker
Oats, Gatorade, and Tropicana. Working with Columbia
University, and using sector guidance developed by the
Beverage Industry Environmental Roundtable, PepsiCo
inventoried the GHG emissions from a 64 ounce (1.9 liter)
gable top carton of their Tropicana Pure Premium brand
of orange juice using the following six step process:
1. Develop a comprehensive list of materials
2. Develop a process map
3. Collect emissions data
4. Perform a screening analysis
5. Fill data gaps with additional primary data and
acceptable secondary data
6. Calibrate against sector guidance and report
By collecting secondary data through the screening
analysis step, PepsiCo discovered that the orange
growing process was a large emissions contributor
to the product inventory. This result led PepsiCo to
collect its own primary data since these would be
specific to the growing processes used for Tropicana
oranges and would allow the company to track
performance over time. PepsiCo’s selection of primary
data was further validated when comparison of the
data sources showed the secondary data were less
complete and contained significant differences in the
fertilizer, on-farm activities, and transportation data.
By using primary data, PepsiCo found that the orange
growing process, which included fertilizer use and
application, contributed approximately 35 percent of the
product’s emissions.
As a result, PepsiCo
is now working with
one of its long-term
orange growers to
test two lower-GHG
fertilizers in the
growing process.
PepsiCo
By using primary data,
PepsiCo found that
the orange growing
process... contributed
35% of the
product’s emissions.
[50] Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting Standard
g u i d a n c e
8.3.2 Identifying data needs
The attributable processes identi f ied during boundary
setting and in the process map provide a basis for the list
of data that needs to be collected. The data management
plan can also be used to organize attributable processes if
it is not possible to include them all in a process map.
8.3.3 Data screening
Screening processes based on their estimated contribution
to the total life cycle helps companies focus their data
collection e f forts. While such screening is not required,
it may deliver surprising f indings and help companies
prioritize data collection resources more e f fectively.
The most e f fective way to perform screening is to
estimate the emissions and removals of processes
and process inputs using secondary data and rank the
estimates in order of their contribution to the product’s
life cycle. Companies can then use this list to prioritize
the collection of primary or quality secondary data on the
processes and process inputs that have the largest impact
on the inventory results. If companies choose not to
estimate emissions and removals during screening, they
should at a minimum identify and focus data collection on
processes that are known to consume or produce large
amounts of GHG-intensive energy or material inputs.
During the screening process it is also helpful to assess
the estimated uncertainty. Processes that contribute
signi f icantly to the total life cycle emissions based on data
with high levels of uncertainty should be priority areas for
data collection.
Processes may be relevant for non-emissions-
related reasons for some companies. Under such
circumstances, companies may want to use the
following criteria, in addition to the ones above, to
establish data collection priorities:
• Processes that are signi f icant by spend relative to
other processes in the product’s life cycle
• Processes with potential emissions reductions that
could be undertaken or in f luenced by the company
• Processes that are controlled by suppliers with
strategic importance to the company’s core business
• Processes that meet additional criteria developed by
the company or industry sector
[51]
CHAPTeR 08 Collecting Data and Assessing Data Quality
g
u
i
d
a
n
c
e
8.3.4 Identifying data types
Identifying the data types used in an inventory will
provide companies with a better understanding of the
data and their quality. Typically, data can be gathered in
one of two ways:
1. Directly measuring or modeling the emissions
released from a process
2. Collecting activity data and emission factors for
a process and multiplying the activity data by the
emission factor
The sources of data used in the inventory should be
documented in the data management plan (see Appendix
C). Direct emissions data, activity data (process and
f inancial), and emission factors are types of data de f ined
in this standard.
Direct emissions data
Direct emissions data are derived from emission
releases and are determined through direct monitoring,
stoichiometry, mass balance, or similar methods.
Examples of direct emissions data include:
• Emissions from an incinerator measured through
a continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS)
• A chemical reaction’s emissions determined using
stochiometric equation balancing
• Fugitive refrigerant emissions determined using a
mass balance approach
Activity data
Activity data are the quantitative measure of a level of
activity that results in GHG emissions. Activity data can be
measured, modeled, or calculated.
There are two categories of activity data: process activity
data and f inancial activity data.
Process activity data
Process activity data are physical measures of a process
that results in GHG emissions or removals. These data
capture the physical inputs, outputs, and other metrics
of the product’s life cycle. Process activity data, when
combined with a process emission factor, result in the
calculation of GHG emissions. Examples of process activity
data include:
Box [8.2] Using environmentally extended input-
output emission factors
Environmentally extended input-output (EEIO)
models estimate energy use and/or GHG emissions
resulting from the production and upstream supply
chain activities of di f ferent sectors and products
within an economy. The resulting EEIO emissions
factors can be used to estimate GHG emissions for
a given industry or product category. EEIO data are
particularly useful in screening emission sources
when prioritizing data collection e f forts.
EEIO models are derived by allocating national GHG
emissions to groups of f inished products based on
economic f lows between industry sectors. EEIO
models vary in the number of sectors and products
included and how often they are updated. EEIO data
are often comprehensive, but the level of granularity
is relatively low compared to other sources of data.1
• Energy (e.G., Joules of energy consumed)
• Mass (e.G., Kilograms of a material)
• Volume (e.G., Volume of chemicals used)
• Area (e.G., Area of a production facility)
• Distance (e.G., Kilometers travelled)
• Time (e.G., Hours of operation)
Financial activity data
Financial activity data are monetary measures of a process
that results in GHG emissions. Financial activity data,
when combined with a f inancial emission factor (e.g.,
environmentally extended input-output [EEIO] emission
factor), result in the calculation of GHG emissions.
While process activity data measure the physical inputs,
outputs, and other metrics of a process, f inancial activity
data measure the f inancial transactions associated with
a process.
If a company initially collects f inancial activity data on a
process input and then determines the amount of energy
or material inputs using a conversion factor, the resulting
activity data are considered process data. For example,
[52] Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting Standard
g u i d a n c e
a company that knows the cost of the fuel consumed in
a process and the cost per liter of fuel can easily convert
the fuel value into the physical amount of litres consumed
in the process.
emission factors
Emission factors are the GHG emissions per unit of activity
data, and they are multiplied by activity data to calculate
GHG emissions. Emission factors may cover one type of
GHG (for example, CH4/liter of fuel) or they may include
many gases in units of CO2 equivalents (CO2e). Emission
factors can include a single process in a product’s life
cycle, or they can include multiple processes aggregated
together. Life cycle emission factors that include
emissions from all attributable upstream processes of a
product are often called cradle-to-gate emission factors.
Companies should understand which processes are
included in the inventory’s emission factors to ensure that
all processes in the product’s life cycle are accounted for
in the data collection process.
The types of emission factors needed depend on the
types of activity data collected. For example, if companies
collect f inancial activity data on a material input to a
process, they can select an EEIO emission factor to
calculate the upstream emissions. Conversely, a company
may f irst collect available emission factors and then
decide which type(s) of activity data to collect.
Examples of emission factor sources include life cycle
databases, published product inventory reports,
government agencies, industry associations, company-
developed factors, and peer reviewed literature. A list of
databases is available at (www.ghgprotocol.org). More
information on calculating emissions and inventory results
is available in chapter 11.
8.3.5 Collecting primary data
To achieve conformance with this standard, primary
data are collected for all processes2 under the ownership
or control of the reporting company. Primary data are
de f ined as data from speci f ic processes in the studied
product’s life cycle. Direct emissions data and process
activity data can both be classi f ied as primary data if they
meet the de f inition.
Examples of primary data include:
• Liters of fuel consumed by a process in the product’s
life cycle, either from a speci f ic site or an average
across all production sites
• Kilowatt-hours consumed by a process from an
individual site or an average across sites
• Kilograms of material added to a process
• GHG emissions from the chemical reaction of a process
Companies typically do not have control over the source
of emission factors used to calculate the GHG emissions
associated with process activity data, even if the activity
data is primary. Therefore, the source of emission factor
has no bearing on the classi f ication to meet the primary
As with data from other emission sources, companies
should select electricity emission factors that are
geographically speci f ic to the electricity sources used
in the product inventory. When an electricity supplier
can deliver a supplier-speci f ic emission factor and
these emissions are excluded from the regional
emission factor, the supplier’s electricity data should
be used. Otherwise, companies should use a regional
average emission factor for electricity to avoid
double counting.
Box [8.3] Selecting electricity emission factors
Quality data are important to develop a useful
inventory report and to track reductions over time.
Therefore, the best type of data from suppliers:
• Are based on process-speci f ic information, not
disaggregated site information from a corporate
inventory; and
• Provide su f f icient supporting information to enable
users to understand how the data were gathered,
what calculation methodologies were used, and the
quality of inventory.
Guidance on how to collect supplier data and
develop a data collection strategy is available at
(www.ghgprotocol.org).
Box [8.4] Collecting supplier data
[53]
CHAPTeR 08 Collecting Data and Assessing Data Quality
g
u
i
d
a
n
c
e
Many life cycle databases exist, and they vary in
their geographic focus, cost, update frequency,
and review processes. A few questions to use in the
selection of a database are listed below. While these
questions can be used to evaluate entire databases,
companies are required to assess the quality (both in
representativeness and data collection methods) of the
individual data points chosen from databases as part of
data quality assessment. A list of databases is available
at (www.ghgprotocol.org).
1. Are the process data from a collection of actual
processes or estimated/calculated from other
data sources?
2. Were the data developed using a consistent
methodology?
3. For agricultural and forest products, are land-use
impacts included in the LCA emissions data? If yes,
what impacts are included?
4. How long has the database existed, and how
extensively has the database been used?
5. How frequently is the database updated?
6. How current are the data sources used for
developing the LCA emissions data?
7. Can uncertainties be estimated for the data?
8. Is there any risk that the data will be perceived as
biased and, if so, have the data and methodologies
been independently reviewed?
Box [8.5] Questions to assist with selecting a lifecycle database to use with the Product Standard
data requirement and emission factors do not need to be
classi f ied as primary or secondary.
If available and of su f f icient quality, primary data should
be collected for all processes in the product’s life cycle.
There are several reasons why collecting primary data can
be bene f icial to a company even if the processes are not
under the company’s ownership or control. For example:
• Collecting primary data from suppliers throughout
the product’s life cycle can expand transparency,
accountability, and data management to partners in
the value chain
• Primary data can better re f lect changes in emissions
resulting from operational changes taken to reduce
emissions, whereas secondary data sources may not
re f lect such changes
• Collecting primary data enables companies to more
e f fectively track and report progress toward its GHG-
reduction goals
8.3.6 Collecting secondary data
Secondary data are de f ined as data that are not from
speci f ic processes in the studied product’s life cycle.
Direct emission data and process activity data that do not
meet the de f inition of primary data can be classi f ied as
secondary. Financial activity data cannot be used to meet
the primary data collection requirement and therefore
are always classi f ied as secondary.
Examples of secondary data include:
• Average number of liters of fuel consumed by a
process, obtained from a life cycle database
• Kilowatt-hours consumed by another similar process
used as a proxy in the studied product’s life cycle
• Industry-average kilograms of material input into
a process
• Industry-average GHG emissions from a process’s
chemical reaction
• Amount spent on process inputs, either speci f ic to
the process or a company/industry average
Secondary data can come from external sources (e.g.,
lifecycle databases, industry associations, etc.) or can be
data from another process or activity in the reporting
company’s or supplier’s control that is used as a proxy for
a process in the inventory product’s life cycle. This data
can be adapted to the process or can be used “as-is” in the
studied product’s inventory. For example, suppose the
studied product’s life cycle includes a process using a steam-
generating boiler. If the company does not have primary
data for the boiler but does have process activity data for a
boiler used in another product’s life cycle, the company may
use this data for the studied product’s boiler process.
[54] Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting Standard
g u i d a n c e
8.3.7 Assessing data quality
During data collection, there may be cases where several
data types (direct emissions data, activity data, emission
factors) and data classi f ications (primary and secondary)
are available for the same process. Figure 8.1 illustrates
this with an example of 4 di f ferent options for collecting
the GHG data for process A: direct emissions data (option
1); primary process activity data (option 2A); secondary
process activity data (option 2B); and f inancial activity
data (option 3). Companies may also have several choices
for emission factors. Assessing data quality during data
collection helps companies determine which data most
closely represents the actual emissions released by the
process during the studied product’s life cycle.
Data quality should not be based on intuition or
assumption (e.g., primary data is always better than
secondary). Companies are required to assess data
quality using data quality indicators. Data quality
indicators can be used to qualitatively or quantitatively
address how well the data characterizes the speci f ic
Figure [8.1] Options available to calculate the GHG data for process A
Process A that uses diesel fuel
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3
Direct emissions data
e.g., 10 kg CO2 emitted
from process A
(direct measurement
of emissions)
Financial activity data
e.g., 15 dollars of
diesel fuel purchased
Process activity data
Primary
e.g., process A uses
5 liters of diesel fuel
Secondary
e.g., an average process A
uses 8 liters of diesel fuel
LCA database emission factor
eeIO emission
factor
GHG data for process A
Option 2A Option 2B
process(es) in the product’s life cycle. Generally, data
quality can indicate how representative the data are (in
time, technology, and geography) and the quality of the
data measurement (completeness of data collection and
the reliability of the data).
Assessing data quality is valuable for a number of
reasons, including:
1. Improving the inventory’s data quality. The results
of a data quality assessment can identify which data
sources are of low quality, allowing companies to
improve the overall inventory quality by collecting
di f ferent data of higher quality
2. Assisting the assurance process. An assurer may
request information on the quality of the data used in
the product inventory
3. Demonstrating to stakeholders the quality of the data
used in the product inventory
[55]
CHAPTeR 08 Collecting Data and Assessing Data Quality
g
u
i
d
a
n
c
e
Data quality indicators and methods
The f ive data quality indicators used to assess individual
data points for processes in the product inventory are
listed in table 8.1.
There are multiple methods for using indicators to
assess data quality, including the qualitative data quality
assessment method outlined in this standard. Regardless
of the method used, companies should document the
approach and results in the data management plan to
support the assurance process, ensure internal inventory
quality controls, and track data quality improvements
over time.
Improving the quality of data for large emission sources can
result in a signi f icant improvement in the overall inventory
quality. Therefore, if resource constraints exist, companies
should focus data assessment and subsequent collection of
higher quality data on the largest sources of emissions.
Qualitative data quality assessment
The qualitative data quality assessment approach applies
scoring criteria to each of the data quality indicators. This
rating system has elements of subjectivity. For example,
some fuel emission factors do not change signi f icantly
over time. Therefore, a fuel emission factor that is over
10 years old, which would be assigned a temporal score
of ‘poor’ with the data quality in table 8.2, may not be
di f ferent from a factor less than 6 years old (a ‘good’
temporal score). Companies should consider the individual
circumstances of the data when using the data quality
Indicator Description Relation to data quality
Technological
representativeness
The degree to which the data re f lects
the actual technology(ies) used
Companies should select data that
are technologically speci f ic.
Temporal
representativeness
The degree to which the data re f lects
the actual time (e.g., year) or age of
the activity
Companies should select data that
are temporally speci f ic.
Geographical
representativeness
The degree to which the data re f lects
the actual geographic location of the
activity (e.g., country or site)
Companies should select data that
are geographically speci f ic.
Completeness The degree to which the data are
statistically representative of the
relevant activity.
Completeness includes the percentage
of locations for which data is available
and used out of the total number that
relate to a speci f ic activity. Complete-
ness also addresses seasonal and other
normal f luctuations in data.
Companies should select data that
are complete.
Reliability The degree to which the sources, data
collection methods and veri f ication
procedures3 used to obtain the data are
dependable.
Companies should select data that are
reliable.
Table [8.1] Data quality indicators
NOTE: Adapted from B.P. Weidema, and M.S. Wesnaes, “Data quality management for life cycle inventories - an example of using data quality
indicators,” Journal of Cleaner Production. 4 no. 3-4 (1996): 167-174.
[56] Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting Standard
g u i d a n c e
Score Representativeness to the process in terms of:
Technology Time Geography Completeness Reliability
Very
good
Data generated
using the same
technology
Data with less
than 3 years of
di f ference
Data from the
same area
Data from all relevant
process sites over an
adequate time period
to even out normal
f luctuations
Veri f ied4 data
based on
measurements5
Good Data generated
using a similar
but di f ferent
technology
Data with less
than 6 years of
di f ference
Data from a
similar area
Data from more than
50 percent of sites for
an adequate time period
to even out normal
f luctuations
Veri f ied data
partly based on
assumptions
or non-veri f ied
data based on
measurements
Fair Data generated
using a di f ferent
technology
Data with less
than 10 years of
di f ference
Data from a
di f ferent area
Data from less than
50 percent of sites for
an adequate time period
to even out normal
f luctuations or from more
than 50 percent of sites
but for shorter time period
Non-veri f ied
data partly
based on
assumptions
or a quali f ied
estimate (e.g.,
by sector expert)
Poor Data where
technology is
unknown
Data with more
than 10 years of
di f ference or the
age of the data
are unknown
Data from an
area that is
unknown
Data from less than
50 percent of sites for
shorter time period
or representativeness
is unknown
Non-quali f ied
estimate
Table [8.2] Sample scoring criteria for performing a qualitative data quality assessment
NOTE: Adapted from Weidema and Wesnaes, 1996.
[57]
CHAPTeR 08 Collecting Data and Assessing Data Quality
g
u
i
d
a
n
c
e
criteria results as a basis for collecting new data or when
using the results in an uncertainty assessment. (See
chapter 10 for requirements and guidance on uncertainty.)
When companies do not know the uncertainty of
individual data points in the inventory they may use the
data quality indicator scores to estimate the level of
uncertainty. For information on this approach see chapter
10. Additional uncertainty calculation guidance and tools
are available at (www.ghgprotocol.org).
8.3.8 Reporting on data quality
for signi f icant processes
Companies are required to report on the data sources,
data quality, and e f forts to improve data quality for
signi f icant processes. Table 8.3 provides an example
of reporting on data sources, quality, and improvement
e f forts for a signi f icant process. The criteria included
in the screening steps can be helpful to identify
signi f icant processes.
8.3.9 Additional data quality considerations
In addition to the data quality indicators in table 8.1,
companies should consider the following quality
considerations:
Allocated data
Data that has been collected to avoid allocation are
preferable to data that require allocation. For example,
with other data quality indicators being roughly equal,
data gathered at the process level that does not need
to be allocated is preferable to facility-level data that
needs to be allocated between the studied product and
other facility outputs. For requirements and guidance on
performing allocation see chapter 9.
Data transparency
Companies should have enough information to assess
the data with the data quality indicators. If there is not
enough information on the collection procedures, quality
controls, and relevant data assumptions, companies
should use that data only if no other data of su f f icient
quality is available.
Uncertainty
Data with high uncertainty can negatively impact the
overall quality of the inventory. More information on
uncertainty is available in chapter 10.
Table [8.3] Example of reporting on data sources, quality, and improvement e f forts for a signi f icant process
Signi f icant
process name
Data sources Data quality E f forts to improve
data quality
Fruit product transport
from distribution
center to retail store
Activity Data: Average
kilometers traveled for
produce in Germany
Source: Trucking
Association
Emission Factor: U.K.
Defra’s Freight Transport
The activity data
does not re f lect the
product’s actual
transport distance or
our company’s shipping
e f f iciency practices.
The transport emis-
sion factor is speci f ic to
United Kingdom trans-
port operations and not
speci f ic to Germany’s
transportation system
(poor geographic
indicator score).
We are working to
improve our internal
data collection e f forts
on product distance
traveled to obtain
country-speci f ic
emission factors for
truck transport.
[58] Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting Standard
g u i d a n c e
8.3.10 Data gaps
Data gaps exist when there is no primary or secondary
data that is su f f iciently representative of the given
process in the product’s life cycle. For most processes
where data are missing, it should be possible to obtain
su f f icient information to provide a reasonable estimate.
Therefore, there should be few, if any, data gaps. The
following sections give additional guidance on f illing data
gaps with proxy and estimated data.
Proxy data
Proxy data are data from similar processes that are used
as a stand-in for a speci f ic process. Proxy data can be
extrapolated, scaled up, or customized to represent the
given process. Companies may customize proxy data
to more closely resemble the conditions of the studied
process in the product’s life cycle if enough information
exists to do so. Data can be customized to better match
geographical, technological, or other metrics of the
process. Identifying the critical inputs, outputs, and
other metrics should be based on other relevant product
inventories or other considerations (e.g., discussions with
a stakeholder consultant) when product inventories do
not exist. Examples of proxy data include:
• Using data on apples as a proxy for all fruit
• Using data on PET plastic processes when data on the
speci f ic plastic input is unknown
• Adapting an electricity grid emission factor for one
region to another region with a di f ferent generation mix
• Customizing the amount of material consumed by a
process from another product’s life cycle to match a
similar process in the studied product
estimated data
When a company cannot collect proxy data to f ill a
data gap, companies should estimate the data to
determine signi f icance. If processes are determined to
be insigni f icant based on estimated data, the process
may be excluded from the inventory results. Criteria for
determining insigni f icance are outlined in chapter 7.
To assist with the data quality assessment, any
assumptions made in f illing data gaps, along with the
anticipated e f fect on the product inventory f inal results,
should be documented. Figure 8.2 illustrates the guidance
for f illing data gaps with proxy data or estimated data.
8.3.11 Improving data quality
Collecting data and assessing its quality is an iterative
process for improving the overall data quality of the
product inventory. If data sources are identi f ied as low
quality using the data quality indicators, companies should
re-collect data for the particular process. The following
steps are useful when improving data quality.
are proxy data available?
is the process estimated
to be insigni f icant?
disclose and justify
the data gap
in the inventory report
collect new data
or
include estimated data in the
inventory results
f ill data gap with this secondary data
Figure [8.2] Decision tree for f illing data gaps
yes
yes
no
no
[59]
CHAPTeR 08 Collecting Data and Assessing Data Quality
g
u
i
d
a
n
c
e
Step 1: Identify sources of low quality data in the
product inventory using the data quality
assessment results.
Step 2: Collect new data for the low quality data
sources as resources allow. Sources with low
quality data that have also been identi f ied as
signi f icant through the screening process should
be given priority.
Step 3: Evaluate the new data. If it is of higher quality
than the original data, use in its place. If the data
are not of higher quality, either use the existing
data or collect new data.
Step 4: Repeat as necessary and as resources allow.
If companies change data sources in subsequent
inventories they should evaluate whether this change
creates the need to update the base inventory. (See
chapter 14 for more information.)
endnotes
1 UNEP and SETAC, Global Guidance Principles for Life Cycle
Assessment Databases. 2011.
2 Non-attributable processes under the control of the company
may be included in the inventory without available primary data.
This is to be expected if the general rules for collecting quality
data are applied, since including non-attributable processes in the
inventory is not a requirement of this standard.
3 Veri f ication may take place in several ways, for example by on-site
checking, reviewing calculations, mass balance calculations, or
cross-checks with other sources.
4 Veri f ication may take place in several ways, e.g., by on-site
checking, by recalculation, through mass balance, or by cross-
checks with other sources.
5 Includes calculated data (e.g., emissions calculated using
activity data) when the basis for calculation is measurement
(e.g., measured inputs). If the calculation is based partly on
assumptions, the score should be good or fair.
Allocation09
g
u
i
d
a
n
c
e
[61]
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
9.1 Introduction
I n most product life cycles, there is at least one common process that has multiple valuable products as inputs or outputs and for which it is not possible to collect data at the individual input or output level. In these situations, the total emissions or removals
from the common process need to be partitioned among the multiple inputs and outputs. This
partitioning is known as allocation, an important and sometimes challenging element of a
product inventory process. Accurately allocating emissions or removals to the studied product
is essential to maintaining the quality of a GHG inventory.
This standard de f ines two types of products produced
from common processes:
• The studied product for which the GHG inventory is
being prepared
• Co-product(s) that have value as an input into another
product’s life cycle
Inputs to the common process may be services, materials,
or energy inputs. Outputs may be intermediate or f inal
products, energy outputs (such as electricity or district
heat), or waste. A typical common process is illustrated
in f igure 9.1.
This chapter provides requirements and guidance to
help companies choose the most appropriate allocation
method to address common processes in their product
inventory. In addition, de f initions and examples of the
methods available to avoid or perform allocation are
given. The chapter concludes with guidance, including
how to choose between allocation methods. For
simplicity, the methods and examples below focus only
on emissions. However, removals are also subject to
allocation following the same requirements and guidance.
[62] Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting Standard
r e q u i r e m e n t s
Figure [9.1] Illustrative generic common process
that requires allocation1
intermediate
product A
studied
product
common
process
emissions
intermediate
product B
co-product
A
energy input
waste
inputs outputs
9.2 Requirements
Companies shall allocate emissions
and removals to accurately re f lect the
contributions of the studied product and
co-product(s) to the total emissions and
removals of the common process.
A studied product, as de f ined in chapter 6, is the product
on which the GHG inventory is performed. A co-product
is produced during the studied product’s life cycle and
has value as an input into another product’s life cycle.
To abide by the principle of completeness and accuracy,
companies shall allocate emissions and removals to
accurately re f lect the contribution of the studied product
and co-product(s) to the total emissions and removals of
the common process. A co-product without economic
value is considered a waste and, hence, no emissions or
removals are allocated.
Companies shall avoid allocation wherever
possible by using process subdivision,
rede f ining the functional unit, or using
system expansion.
[63]
CHAPTeR 09 Allocation
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
Method De f inition
Process subdivision Dividing the common process into sub-processes.
Rede f ining the unit
of analysis
Inclusion of the co-products (additional functions) in the functional unit.
System expansion Using the emissions from an alternative product that comprises the same functional
unit as a co-product to estimate the emissions of the co-product. Only applicable when
companies have direct knowledge of the function and eventual use of the co-product.
Table [9.1] Methods to avoid allocation
Table 9.1 describes the methods companies shall
use to avoid or minimize the use of allocation in a
product inventory.
If allocation is unavoidable, companies
shall allocate emissions and removals based
on the underlying physical relationships
between the studied product and co-
product(s). When physical relationships
alone cannot be established or used as
the basis for allocation, companies shall
select either economic allocation or another
allocation method that re f lects other
relationships between the studied product
and co-product(s).
Table 9.2 describes the methods companies shall use to
perform allocation, starting with physical allocation.
Companies shall apply the same allocation
methods to similar inputs and outputs
within the product’s life cycle.
To abide by the principle of consistency, companies shall
apply the same allocation methods to similar inputs and
outputs, for example, when an allocated co-product output
is also an input to another process within the life cycle.
For allocation due to recycling, companies
shall use either the closed loop
approximation method or the recycled
content method as de f ined by this standard.
Method De f inition
Physical allocation Allocating the inputs and emissions of the system based on an underlying physical
relationship between the quantity of product and co-product and the quantity of
emissions generated.
Economic allocation Allocating the inputs and emissions to the product and co-product(s) based on the
market value of each when they exit the common process.
Other relationships Allocating the inputs and emissions to the product and co-product(s) based on
established and justi f iable relationships other than physical or economic.
Table [9.2] Method to perform allocation
[64] Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting Standard
r e q u i r e m e n t s
Allocation due to recycling processes can be especially
challenging. Recycling occurs when a product or material
exits the life cycle of the studied product to be reused
or recycled as a material input into another product’s life
cycle. This creates a unique allocation scenario because
the common processes for recycling are often shared
between di f ferent life cycles.
When recycling occurs in a studied product’s boundary,
companies need to allocate the emissions and removals
associated with the extraction and processing of raw
materials and the f inal disposal of products (including
recycling) between more than one product life cycle
(i.e., the product that delivers the recycled material and
the subsequent product which uses recycled material).
Therefore, all allocation requirements for common
processes also apply to allocation due to recycling.
However, because of the additional complexity
associated with recycling processes, this standard
provides two speci f ic methods for allocating emissions
and removals between product life cycles: the closed
loop approximation method and the recycled content
method. The closed loop approximation method is a type
of system expansion that accounts for the impact that
end-of-life recycling has on the net virgin acquisition of
a material. The recycled content method allocates the
recycling process emissions and removals to the life cycle
that uses the recycled material.
If neither the closed loop approximation nor the recycled
content method is appropriate, companies may use
another method if all of the following are true:
• The method conforms to the allocation and all other
requirements of this standard (including being
disclosed and justi f ied in the inventory report)
• The method accounts for all emissions and removals
due to recycling (i.e., applies an allocation factor
between 0 and 100 percent consistently between
inputs and outputs to avoid double counting or
undercounting emissions)
• The method uses as the basis for allocation (in the
following order of preference, if feasible): a physical
properties factor, an economic value factor, or a factor
based on the number of subsequent uses2
Companies shall disclose and justify
the methods used to avoid allocation or
perform allocation due to co-products
or recycling. When using the closed loop
approximation method, companies shall
report displaced emissions and removals
separately from the studied product’s end-
of-life stage inventory.
Regardless of which allocation methods are used,
companies shall report a brief explanation of the choice
of speci f ic allocation methods and factors (if applicable)
used in the inventory, including why the methods and
factors most accurately re f lect the studied product’s or
co-product’s contribution to the common process’s total
emissions and removals (See chapter 13).
When the closed loop approximation method is used in
a GHG inventory, the virgin material displacement factor
(as described in section 9.3.6) is subtracted from the total
inventory results. However, the displacement factor shall
be reported separately from the percentage of inventory
results by stage to avoid a negative end-of-life value.
[65]
CHAPTeR 09 Allocation
g
u
i
d
a
n
c
e
9.3 Guidance
9.3.1 Choosing an appropriate allocation method
This standard provides six valid methods for avoiding
allocation or for allocating emissions from a common
process, each suited to di f ferent scenarios.
Figure 9.2 presents a decision process for selecting the
best method for avoiding or performing allocation for a
given common process in various situations. As shown in
f igure 9.2, if the output is a waste no allocation is needed.
In this case, all emissions are allocated to the studied-
product, and the waste treatment is also included as an
attributable process. This is because waste without value
is not subsequently used. In the situation where waste
is subsequently used, that output would have some
economic value and is no longer classi f ied as “waste.”
9.3.2 Avoiding allocation
Process subdivision
Process subdivision is used to avoid allocation when it is
possible to divide the common process into two or more
distinct processes. Process subdivision may be done
through sub-metering speci f ic process lines and/or using
engineering models to model the process inputs and
outputs. The common process is disaggregated into
sub-processes that separately produce the studied
product and co-products. The common process needs
to be sub-divided only to the point at which the studied
product and its function is isolated, not to the point that
every co-product has a unique and distinct process.
Process subdivision should be considered f irst and is
often used together with other methods to avoid or
perform allocation, particularly when a single material
input is transformed into more than one product. In this
case, process subdivision is not possible for all common
processes because there is a physical, chemical, or
biological separation of the material input. However,
process subdivision may only be useful in a limited capacity
for less technical common processes if transparent data
are not available for all process steps.
e x A M P L e
A petroleum re f inery produces many outputs including, but
not limited to, gasoline, diesel fuel, heavy oil, petrol, coke,
and bitumen. If the studied product is diesel fuel, then only a
part of the re f inery’s total emissions should be allocated to
the diesel product. Therefore, the re f inery process should be
subdivided as much as possible into processes that include
only diesel fuel.
However, because diesel fuel comes from one material
input (crude oil) which is chemically separated into many
di f ferent products, process subdivision cannot be used for
all allocations. After considering process subdivision and
simplifying the common processes as much as possible, a
company should allocate or avoid allocation of the remaining
common processes using one of the other recommended
allocation methods.
Redefining the unit of analysis
Another method to avoid allocation is to rede f ine the unit
of analysis to include the functions of both the studied
product and the co-product. For guidance on de f ining the
unit of analysis, see chapter 6.
e x A M P L e
A company produces a PET bottle designed to contain
beverages. The company de f ines the functional unit (unit of
analysis) and inventory boundary to include only the processes
attributable to producing, using, and disposing of the bottle.
The production, use, and disposal processes of the beverage
are excluded. However, many processes within the inventory
boundary a f fect both the bottle and the beverage. To avoid
allocation the company decides to rede f ine the functional unit
to include the function of the beverage (to be consumed by
customers). The functional unit is now de f ined as one bottle
containing one liter of beverage consumed.
System expansion
The system expansion method estimates the emissions and
removals contribution of the co-products to the common
process by substituting the emissions and removals of a
similar or equivalent product or the same product produced
by a di f ferent product system.3
Some life cycle assessment practitioners consider system
expansion as a consequential approach to allocation. (See
chapter 5 for more information on consequential and
attributional approaches to life cycle assessment.) This is
true if marginal data or market trends are used to identify
the substituted co-product. To ensure the attributional
approach is used when performing system expansion, the
[66] Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting Standard
g u i d a n c e
Step 1: Avoid allocation if possible
Step 2: If allocation is necessary, determine if a physical relationship exists
Step 3: If a physical relationship cannot be established or is not applicable,
use economic allocation or other relationships
Figure [9.2] Steps to select an allocation method4
is the process output
a waste (of no
economic value)?
no need to allocate
use physical allocation
use economic allocation use other relationships
use process subdivision rede f ine the
functional unit
use system expansion
is there an underlying physical relationship between
the studied product, co-product(s)
and their emissions contributions?
are the market values of the studied product and
co-product(s) free of signi f icant market e f fects on their
valuation (e.g. brand value, constrained supply, etc.)?
are there other relationships between
the studied product and co-product(s)
that can be established?
can the common process
be divided
and evaluated
as separate processes?
is it practical to combine
the studied product
and co-product(s) into one
single functional unit?
can the co-product’s
emissions be modeled
using a similar process or
product, and do you have
direct knowledge
about the eventual use of
the co-product(s)?
yesyesyesyes
yes
yes yes
[67]
CHAPTeR 09 Allocation
g
u
i
d
a
n
c
e
reporting company should know the exact use of the co-
product and collect quality supplier-speci f ic and/or average
emission factor data to perform system expansion.
When disclosing and justifying which allocation methods
were used, companies that use system expansion should
explain how the selected substitute (and its associated
emissions) a reasonable replacement for the co-product.
Companies that are unsure whether system expansion
is appropriate for their situation should explore other
methods for avoiding or performing allocation.
e x A M P L e
One situation where system expansion may be particularly
useful is in allocating incineration emissions between
multiple inputs (including the studied product) and an
energy co-product. For example, at a pulp mill, wood is
converted into pulp and black liquor. Black liquor can be
combusted for internal power generation and/or sold as
excess power to the grid. To account for the electricity co-
product from black liquor, system expansion should be used
to identify the emissions associated with the electricity
generated using the black liquor (based on average grid
values at the mill location). Therefore, if the mill created
1000 kg of GHG emissions and 5 MW of electricity, and
the grid data shows that 5 MW of average electricity on
the grid is equivalent to 50 kg of GHG emissions, then the
mill emissions allocated to the pulp product would be
950 kg (i.e., 1000 kg from the mill - 50 kg from the created
Levi Strauss & Co. (LS&Co.) used process subdivision
and physical allocation methods for di f ferent allocation
challenges within the life cycle of a pair of Levi’s® Jeans.
Production
LS&Co. collected primary data directly from the two
suppliers of the studied product, a Levi’s® Jean. The
two suppliers were a fabric mill that creates the denim
fabric from cotton f iber and a garment manufacturer
responsible for cutting, sewing, and f inishing the denim
fabric into the f inal jeans.
Physical allocation
For the fabric mill, LS&Co. allocated the GHG emissions
from fabric production using a mass allocation factor
because mass is one of the main determinants of material
and energy inputs during the milling process. The fabric
mill provided aggregated data on material use, energy
use, production outputs, and waste streams for their full
production over the year. The fabric mill only produces
denim fabric, so LS&Co. was able to estimate emissions
per product by dividing the total facility emissions by
the facility output. Emissions per product were then
applied to the total LS&Co. fabric order from the mill to
determine the total emissions attributable to LS&Co.
Process subdivision
For the garment manufacturer, LS&Co. created a process
model to estimate the studied product’s emissions. Each
step in the garment manufacturing process was modeled
according to the capital equipment used for that step.
For example, sewing of the back pocket was modeled by
the amount of machine minutes it takes to fully complete
that assembly step.
Distribution-physical allocation
After production, the jeans are sent to a distribution
center that packages and ships various products. LS&Co.
allocated emissions from the energy and material used
by the total number of products shipped during a year.
This method assumes that all units shipped result in the
same emissions, which LS&Co. considers to be reasonable
since all products go through the same processes at the
distribution center.
Retail- physical allocation
Each retail store sells a variety of products, which
requires allocating total store emissions to each product
type. LS&Co. allocated emissions according to the retail
f loor space occupied by each product compared to the
entire store. They did this by determining the average
f loor space and emissions of a retail store along with the
f loor area (physical space) occupied by each product to
estimate retail emissions per individual unit.
Levi Strauss & Company
[68] Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting Standard
g u i d a n c e
Box [9.1] Using physical relationships to allocate emissions from transportation
Figure [9.3] Allocating emissions based on a mass physical factor
Figure [9.4] Allocating emissions based on a volume physical factor
fruits
60% load mass
fuel
vegetables
40% load mass
60%
emissions
fruits
vegetables 40%
emissions
fruits
30% load volume
fuel
vegetables
70% load volume
30%
emissions
fruits
vegetables 70
emissions
30%
emissions
transportation
transportation
In f igure 9.3, the amount of fruits and vegetables the truck transports are limited by the mass of the products.
However, if the fruits and vegetables are transported by rail and the limiting factor is the volume of products, the
most appropriate allocation factor would be volume.
Figure 9.4 shows how the emissions would be allocated using a volume allocation factor.
Allocating emissions from transportation is necessary
when one or more products are transported but a
company only knows the total emissions for the transport
mode (e.g., a truck, train, aircraft, or vessel).
Transportation example
A truck transports two products: fruits and vegetables.
There is a clear physical relationship between the two
products and their emissions contributions because
the fuel use per unit of product in a transport vessel
is dependent on the mass or volume of their load. To
determine which physical allocation factor best describes
this relationship, a company should determine the
limiting factor of the transportation mode (typically mass
or volume).
[69]
CHAPTeR 09 Allocation
g
u
i
d
a
n
c
e
electricity). In this example, system expansion would not
be appropriate if it was not known that the black liquor
created excess power or if a marginal emission factor was
used as data for the electricity substitution.
9.3.3 Performing allocation
Physical allocation
When performing physical allocation, the factor chosen
should most accurately re f lect the underlying physical
relationship between the studied product, co-product,
and process emissions and removals. For example, if the
mass of the process outputs determine the amount of
emissions and removals, choosing an energy content
factor would not provide the most accurate allocation.
Examples of physical allocation factors include:
• Mass of co-product outputs
• Volume of cargo transported
• Energy content of heat and electricity co-products
• Number of units produced
• Protein content of food co-products
• Chemical composition
economic allocation
Economic allocation is the division of emissions from a
common process to the studied product and co-product(s)
according to the economic values of the products when
leaving the multi-output process.
When selecting an economic allocation factor,
companies should use the price of the co-product(s)
directly after it leaves the common process (i.e., its value
prior to any further processing). When this direct price
is not available or cannot be evaluated, market prices or
prices at a later point of the life cycle may be used, but
downstream costs should be subtracted to the fullest
extent possible. The market price is the value of the
product in a commercial market.
Other relationships
The “other relationships” allocation method uses
established sector, company, academic, or other sources
of conventions and norms for allocating emissions when
neither physical nor economic allocation is applicable.
When no established conventions are available and
the other allocation methods are not applicable to the
common process, a company may make assumptions
GNP Company, a U.S. poultry producer, conducted a product
inventory on their Just BARE® Boneless and Skinless
Chicken Breasts. Just BARE® products come from birds that
receive no antibiotics and are fed special vegetarian feed
formulations. The product package contains 2 to
3 individual chicken breasts packaged for retail purchase.
Each package is traceable to the speci f ic farm on which
the chicken was raised and the product is shipped to
retail locations in the
continental United States.
The energy and material
inputs for Just BARE®
as well as other branded
products are available on
a facility-wide basis. GNP
Company identi f ied mass
and economic allocation
as two potential allocation methods. The chicken breasts
represent 16 percent of the chicken’s total mass and
about 35 percent of the revenue. While a range of
products come from the whole chicken, the majority of
consumer demand is for the boneless, skinless breasts.
Other fresh chicken co-products such as tenders, thighs,
and drumsticks would not be produced without also
producing the chicken breasts. Additionally, about half of
the weight of the chicken consists of inedible parts that
have a low selling price and are not sold in retail stores.
Therefore, GNP Company identi f ied economic allocation
as the most appropriate method.
Using economic allocation, 35 percent of the facility’s
energy and material activity data were allocated to the
boneless, skinless breasts. Net selling price data by meat
cut were averaged over a one-year period to determine
the economic allocation factor.
GNP Company, makers of Just BARE Chicken
net selling price
data by meat cut
were averaged over
a one-year period
to determine
the economic
allocation factor.
[70] Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting Standard
g u i d a n c e
on the common process in order to select an allocation
method. When using assumptions, companies should
assess the scenario uncertainty to determine how the
assumptions may impact the inventory results. (See
chapter 10 for more guidance on assessing uncertainty.)
9.3.4 Choosing between physical
and economic allocation
Step 3 in f igure 9.2 states that if a physical relationship
between the studied product, co-product, and the
emissions and removals of a common process is not
applicable or cannot be established, then companies
should use economic or other relationships. Physical
relationships cannot be established when the following
conditions apply:
• There is no data available on the physical relationship
between the studied product, co-products, and the
process emissions and removals (e.g., the process
is operated by a supplier and that information is
proprietary)
• There are multiple co-products along with the studied
product and no one common physical allocation factor
is applicable (e.g., some outputs are measured in terms
of energy and others in volume or mass)
However, in many cases it may not be clear whether a
physical relationship can be established, and companies may
struggle to determine if an economic relationship is more
applicable. In general, physical allocation is preferred when:
• A physical relationship between the studied product
and co-products can be established that re f lects their
relative emissions contributions
• A change in the physical output of the studied product
and co-products is correlated to a change in the
common process’s emissions (e.g., if more co-product
is produced more emissions occur)
• There is a strong brand in f luence on the market value
of the various co-products which does not re f lect the
relative emissions contribution of the outputs. (e.g., a
process creates the same product with di f ferent brand
names that therefore has di f ferent prices, but the
relative emissions are the same)
Economic allocation is preferred when:
• The physical relationship cannot be established (as
described above)
• The co-products would not be produced using the
common process without the market demand for the
studied product and/or other valuable co-products
(e.g., by-catch from lobster harvesting)
• The co-products were a waste output that acquires
value in the market place as a replacement for another
material input (e.g., f ly ash in cement production)
• The physical relationship does not adequately re f lect
the relative emissions contributions
e x A M P L e
In the process of catching lobster, additional f ish are often
caught by default and sold as by-catch. By-catch is much
less valuable than lobster, but in some cases can account
for a substantial portion of the mass output of the catching
process. Economic allocation is preferred in this case because
the co-product (by-catch) would most likely not be caught
in the same manner if the f isherman were not also catching
lobster, and because a change in the physical output of
products is not strongly correlated to a change in process
emissions (i.e., depending on the day more or less by-catch
and lobster are possible using the same amount of fuel).
CO2 removals that occur upstream from a common
process also need to be allocated when part of
the material that removed the CO2 from the
atmosphere becomes a co-product. In the example
illustrating system expansion, black liquor contains
lignin and other biogenic materials separated from
the wood during pulping. A company needs to
determine the amount of the original wood that
is exiting the boundary as electricity, and then
subtract the equivalent amount of removals from
the material acquisition stage. This is also true when
a material that contributed to removals is recycled
into another product’s life cycle. Correctly allocating
removals is important to avoid double counting
among di f ferent products.
Box [9.2] Allocating removals
[71]
CHAPTeR 09 Allocation
g
u
i
d
a
n
c
e
9.3.5 Comparing allocation results
When one allocation method is not clearly more suitable
than another, companies should perform multiple
allocations with di f ferent methods and compare the
results. This is particularly important when companies
are deciding whether physical, economic, or another
allocation method is more appropriate. If several methods
are performed and similar results are obtained, the choice
between the methods should not impact the inventory
results and the company should note this in the inventory.
report. If the allocation method(s) result in di f ferent
GHG emissions, companies should select the allocation
method that provides the more conservative result (e.g.,
the method that allocates more emissions to the studied
product as opposed to the co-products).
Companies are required to disclose and justify the methods
used to avoid allocation or perform allocation. Companies
may also report a range of results as part of the qualitative
uncertainty description in the inventory report.
Alcoa, a leading producer of aluminum, performed
a cradle-to-grave GHG inventory of their LvL One
aluminum truck wheel. Recycling occurs twice during
the life cycle of the wheel. First, scrap created during
the wheel fabrication process is sent to be recycled in
an ingot casting facility,
and second, the wheels
themselves are recycled
at the end-of-life. Both
metal streams fall into the
category of the closed loop
approximation method as
described in the standard.
The recycled metal is
processed, remelted,
and cast into secondary
aluminum ingot with the same inherent properties as
primary metal. Because of this, it can be assumed that
the recycled metal displaces the production of virgin
metal in another product’s life cycle.
To account accurately for the recycling activity, Alcoa
calculated the mass of recycled metal during the wheel
fabrication process using a mass balance. For end-of-
life recycling, Alcoa assumed a recycling rate of 95
percent based on peer-reviewed literature data specific
to the recycling rates of aluminum in the commercial
vehicle sector.
Alcoa achieved a 10 percent reduction in the total
inventory results compared to an LvL One aluminum
wheel with no recycling.
achieved a
10% reduction
in the total
inventory results
compared to an
LvL One aluminum
wheel with
no recycling
Alcoa
9.3.6 Methods for allocation due to recycling
Closed loop approximation method
The closed loop approximation method accounts for
the impact that end-of-life recycling has on the net
virgin acquisition of a material. Its name derives from
the assumption that the material being recycled is used
to displace virgin material input with the same inherent
properties5. The closed loop approximation method is
also known as the following: the 0/100 method; the end-
of-life approach as de f ined and supported by many in the
metal industry6; the recyclability substitution approach
in the ILCD Handbook7; and the closed loop8 method
de f ined in ISO 14044:2006 and shown with examples in
ISO 14049:2000.
Since the closed loop approximation method is de f ined
as a method to allocate recycled materials that maintain
the same inherent properties as its virgin material input,
the properties (e.g., chemical, physical) of the recycled
material have to be similar enough to the properties
of the virgin material input to be used interchangeably
without any additional changes to the product’s life cycle.
A process map illustrating the closed loop approximation
method is given in f igure 9.5.
[72] Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting Standard
g u i d a n c e
Figure [9.5] Example process map illustrating the closed loop approximation method
Material recovery facility and recycled material
preprocessing are general terms for the attributable
processes needed to convert recovered material (e.g.,
material collected for reuse) into a recycled material
output ready to be used in another product system.
Speci f ic examples of potential attributable processes
include sorting, shredding, cleaning, melting, and deinking.
In the closed loop approximation method no emissions
or removals associated with recycling are allocated
to another product system. However, the creation of
recyclable material results in the displacement of virgin
material and the emissions and removals associated with
its creation.
The following illustrates how to calculate inventory
results for the material acquisition, end-of-life stage,
and virgin material displacement using the closed loop
approximation method as illustrated in f igure 9.5.
Virgin material acquisition and preprocessing stage:
All attributable processes due to virgin material acquisition
and preprocessing (assumes all input material is virgin).
End-of-life stage: All attributable processes due to end-
of-life (including recycling). In f igure 9.5 this includes
collection9, waste treatment, material recovery facility,
and preprocessing of recycled material.
Virgin material displacement factor: Recycling
rate of material (recycled output/virgin material input)
multiplied by the attributable processes for virgin
material acquisition and preprocessing.
The virgin material displacement factor is calculated
only for the virgin material that has the same inherent
properties as the recycled material. For products with
several material inputs, only the attributable processes
associated with the displaced material are considered.
Virgin material acquisition and preprocessing impacts
should be calculated assuming that all material input is
virgin. In the case where recycled material is also used as an
input, the material acquisition and preprocessing impacts
are calculated assuming all virgin input in order to correctly
apply the closed loop approximation method. Alternatively,
to avoid double accounting, the recycled content approach
can be applied to the recycled input with a closed loop
approach applied to the remaining net material output
(displacing only the primary material input). However this
could be di f f icult and therefore is not advised.
The closed loop approximation method can also be used
for recycling within a life cycle stage (e.g., the creation
and reuse of scrap during production).
material acquisition
& pre-processing production
distribution
& storage use end-of-life
virgin material
acquisition
& pre-processing
production
process
distribution
process
use
process
collection
process
material recovery
facility (MRF)
recycled materials
pre-processing
assumed virgin
material
displacement
waste
treatment
waste
material
output
recovered
material
output
recycled
material
output
attributable processes
movement of material
through the lifecycle
[73]
CHAPTeR 09 Allocation
g
u
i
d
a
n
c
e
waste
treatment
Figure [9.6] Example process map illustrating the recycled content method
Recycled content method
The recycled content method allocates the recycling
process emissions and removals to the life cycle that
uses the recycled material. The recycled content
method can be used in open loop situations10 that
include recycled material inputs and outputs. Figure
9.6 illustrates a simpli f ied process map for a product
that uses the recycled content method11. The recycled
content method is also referred to as the cut–o f f
method or the 100-0 method.
The following describes the calculation of the material
acquisition and end-of-life stages using the recycled
content method as illustrated in f igure 9.6.
Material acquisition and preprocessing stage:
All attributable processes due to virgin and recycled
material acquisition and preprocessing. In f igure 9.6 this
includes virgin material preprocessing, virgin material
acquisition, recycled material preprocessing, and material
recovery facility.
End-of-life: All attributable processes due to end-of-life
treatment of waste material output. In f igure 9.6 this
includes collection and waste treatment.
The recycled content method does not include
attributable processes due to recovered material output.
While a virgin material displacement factor is not included
in this method, f igure 9.6 does illustrate two potential
bene f its due to recycling in the studied product’s
inventory: the reduction in the amount of waste entering
waste treatment and the reduction of upstream virgin
material acquisition. Reducing the amount of waste
entering waste treatment reduces the GHG emissions
from waste treatment in the end-of-life stage. Reducing
upstream virgin material acquisition reduces the GHG
emissions and removals from material acquisition if the
recycling processes are less GHG intensive than virgin
extraction. If this is not the case (e.g., recycling processes
are more GHG intensive than virgin inputs), it is possible
that using virgin inputs would result in a lower total
product inventory than using recycled inputs. This is
an example of when focusing on one impact category
may drive companies to make product decisions that
are desirable for one impact (e.g., GHG emissions)
but unfavorable to another (e.g., material depletion).
Companies are encouraged to consider all applicable
environmental metrics before making reduction decisions,
as discussed in chapter 14.
material acquisition
& pre-processing production
distribution
& storage use end-of-life
virgin
material
acquisition
virgin
material
pre-
processing
material
recovery
facility
(MRF)
recycled
material
pre-
processing
production
process
distribution
process
use
process
collection
process
virgin
material
input
recycled
material
input
waste
material
output
recovered
material
output
attributable processes
movement of material
through the lifecycle
[74] Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting Standard
g u i d a n c e
As defined in chapter 7, the boundary of a cradle-to-
gate inventory does not include the use or end-of-
life stages. If an intermediate product has recycled
inputs, companies can use the recycled content
method and account for the material recovery
facility (MRF) and recycling process emissions and
removals for that input. If an intermediate product
is known to be recycled at its end-of-life regardless
of its function during use, companies may report
this separately in the inventory report along with
any other end-of-life information that may be
useful to a stakeholder. Companies may include
end-of-life recycling in the inventory results for an
intermediate product only if the company knows
the function of the final product and performs a
cradle-to-grave inventory.
Box [9.3] Recycling in a cradle-to-gate inventory
9.3.7 Choosing between closed loop
approximation and the recycled
content method
In cases where both the closed loop approximation and
recycled content methods are equally applicable to the
studied product, the following guidance provides insight
on which method is most appropriate in certain situations.
The recycled content method should be used in the
following situations:
• When the product contains recycled input, but no
recycling occurs downstream
• When the market for the recycled material is saturated
(e.g., not all material that is recovered is used as a
recycled input, supply exceeds demand) and therefore
the creation of recycled material may not displace the
extraction of virgin material
• When the content of recycled material in the product
is directly a f fected by the company’s activities alone,
and therefore the company has control over how
much recycled material input to procure (which could
potentially be used as a reduction mechanism)
• The time period of the product’s use stage is long and/
or highly uncertain and therefore the amount of material
recycled at the end-of-life is also highly uncertain
The closed loop approximation method should be used in
the following situations:
• When the recycled content of the product is unknown
because recycled material is indistinguishable from
virgin material in the market
• When the market for the recycled material is not
saturated (e.g., all material that is recovered is used
as a recycled input, demand exceeds supply) and
therefore creating more recycled material is likely to
increase the amount of recycled material used
• When the time period of the product’s use stage is
short and/or well known
There may be situations where a company feels neither
method is appropriate for a given recycled material
input or output. In these cases the method used should
abide by the speci f ications given in the requirements
section and be referenced from available sector guidance,
product rules, technical reports, journal articles, or
other standards. For example, companies with paper
products may want to use the “number of subsequent
uses” method recommended by the American Forest
and Paper Association for recycling cellulosic f iber in
paper products.12 Another company may feel economic
allocation is more appropriate for its product’s inventory
and therefore reference ISO 14049:2000.13 If a company
is using a method that is not published, the company is
strongly encouraged to include details on the method,
either in the inventory report or as a supplementary
document, and to have the method externally veri f ied to
ensure its conformance with this standard.
When it is not obvious which method is most appropriate,
companies should perform a scenario uncertainty
assessment (e.g., sensitivity analysis) on the potential
methods and include the results in the inventory report
(see chapter 10 for more information on uncertainty).
[75]
CHAPTeR 09 Allocation
g
u
i
d
a
n
c
e
9.3.8 Collecting recycling data
To abide by the attributional approach of the standard,
data used to determine the amount of recycled material
output is based either on speci f ic recycling data of a
product, or on average recycling data for the product in
the geographic location where the product is consumed
(as de f ined by the use pro f ile). Recycling data is subject to
the same requirements and guidance given in chapter 8
for data collection and quality.
Companies using the closed loop approximation method
should ensure that the data used to determine recycled
material output excludes material where the inherent
properties have changed. Where the only data available
aggregates recycled materials, and it is known that some
inherent property change occurs, companies should
assume a percentage of property loss based on other
available data. Examples of other available data include
reduction in economic value or percentage loss of material
property such as elasticity. Where it is not possible to
disaggregate the data but some portion of the material
properties are known to change, it should be clearly noted
as a data quality limitation in the inventory report.
Anvil Knitwear, Inc. performed a cradle-to-grave GHG
inventory on two of their t-shirt lines: one that contains
a pre-consumer recycled yarn input and the other a post-
consumer recycled yarn input. The AnvilSustainable™
t-shirt is made from a blend of transitional cotton and
recycled polyester (from recycled plastic bottles). The
AnvilRecycled® t-shirt is produced from yarn spun from
recycled textile waste clippings from textile cut and sew
operations. Additionally, clippings from the cut and sew
operations of the AnvilRecycled® t-shirt are sold as a
recycled material output.
The AnvilSustainableTM t-shirt contains 50 percent
post-consumer Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) from
recycled plastic bottles and after use is assumed to
be disposed of in a conventional land f ill. Because no
recycling occurs at the end-of-life, Anvil used the recycled
content method to account for the recycled PET input.
The attributable processes for the material acquisition
and preprocessing of recycled PET included the curbside
collection, sorting, and f laking of PET bottles.
However, accounting for recycling in the AnvilRecycled®
t-shirt was more challenging because of the pre-consumer
recycled yarn input and output. In previous assessments,
Anvil took a conservative approach of assuming the
pre-consumer yarn input had the same emission factor
for material acquisition and preprocessing as virgin
yarn. However, with the additional guidance provided
by this standard and during the road testing process,
Anvil determined that the recycled content method was
also appropriate for the AnvilRecycled® t-shirt. Anvil
performed the recycled content method by including
the transport, cleaning, and production of the yarn
made from recycled textile clippings as the attributable
processes for the acquisition and preprocessing of the
yarn. They also assumed no attributable processes for the
end-of-life processing of the sold clipping from their cut
and sew operations because they are used as a recycled
input into other product life cycles. The use of the
recycled content method reduced the GHG inventory of
the AnvilRecycled® t-shirt
signi f icantly compared to
the inventory conducted
assuming a virgin yarn
emission factor. The
additional speci f icity
provided in this standard
gave Anvil con f idence
that they were using
an established and
accepted recycling
allocation method.
Anvil Knitwear
the recycled content
method reduced the
GHG inventory of
the AnvilRecycled®
t-shirt signi f icantly
compared to the
inventory conducted
assuming a virgin
yarn emission factor.
[76] Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting Standard
g u i d a n c e
Box [9.4] Comparing closed loop approximation and the recycled content method
The closed loop approximation and recycled content method allocate emissions and removals di f ferently, and
choosing one method over the other can produce di f ferent inventory results. The following simpli f ied example
highlights this di f ference: in this case both methods are equally appropriate for a product that has virgin and
recycling material input, recycled material output, and waste.
example parameters
example Results
Data Value Units
Material input 5 tons
Material output 5 tons
Recycled material input 40% Percent of total input
Virgin material input 60% Percent of total input
Recycled material output 25% Percent of total output
Waste output 75% Percent of total output
Virgin material acquisition and preprocessing 10 kg CO2e/ton
Recycled material acquisition (MRF) and preprocessing 3 kg CO2e/ton
Waste treatment 5 kg CO2e/ton
Inventory results (CO2e) Recycled content Closed loop
method approximation
Material acquisition and preprocessing 36 50
End-of-life 19 23
Virgin material displacement factor 0 [13]
Total 55 60*
*Total = material acquisition & pre-processing + end-of-life - virgin material displacement factor
[77]
CHAPTeR 09 Allocation
g
u
i
d
a
n
c
e
endnotes
1 The term “common process” can be one or more processes that
require allocation.
2 As de f ined in ISO 14044:2006, 4.3.4.3.
3 In some LCA literature, this method is known as the substitution
or avoided-burden method.
4 Steps adapted from ISO 14044:2006, 4.3.4.2.
5 A true closed loop recycling scenario occurs when the recycled
material does not leave the studied product’s life cycle and
therefore does not require allocation.
6 John Atherton, “Declaration by the Metals Industry on Recycling
Principles,” International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 12 no.
1 (2007):59-60.
7 European Commission - Joint Research Centre - Institute for
Environment and Sustainability, International Reference Life
Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook - General guide for Life Cycle
Assessment - Detailed guidance.
8 ISO 14044:2006 de f ines open and closed loop recycling as well
as open and closed loop allocation procedures. In ISO 14044, an
open loop recycling situation where there is no change in the
inherent properties of the material is treated using a closed loop
allocation procedure.
9 Collection may be considered part of the material recovery facility
in some product life cycles.
10 Recycled material that does not leave a product system
(e.g., scraps that do not leave the control of the production
company) is an example of a closed loop situation. Material that
is recycled at the end-of-life and then used in a di f ferent product
(e.g., tires being recycled into asphalt) is an example of an open
loop situation.
11 The collection process is listed as an attributable end-of-life
process; however, the location of this process depends on how
the recycled material is collected, as discussed above and in
chapter 7.
12 International Working Group, Life Cycle Inventory Analysis:
Enhanced Methods and Applications for the Products of the
Forest Industry. (Washington DC: American Forest and Paper
Association,1996).
13 International Organization for Standardization, ISO 14049:2000,
Environmental management — Life cycle assessment —
Examples of application of ISO 14041 to goal and scope de f inition
and inventory analysis. Geneva.
Box [9.4] Comparing closed loop approximation and the recycled content method (continued)
Although in this example using the recycled content
method results in lower emissions and removals
allocated to the studied product, a different scenario
may have the opposite results. To avoid the misuse
or misinterpretation of methodological choices, the
standard includes the following requirements related
to recycling:
• Disclose and justify the method used for recycling;
• Use that same method consistently over time to track
performance, or if the method changes recalculate the
base inventory as required in chapter 14; and
• Disclose the calculated virgin material displacement
separately.
The standard also recommends that companies include
quantitative uncertainty results in their inventory report
(e.g., sensitivity analysis).
Additionally, a disclaimer is required as part of the
inventory report to avoid incorrect comparisons of
inventory results based on di f ferent allocation methods
(see chapter 13 for more details). In cases where choices
are needed in a general standard to accommodate a
large range of products, companies are encouraged
to look towards available product rules and sector
guidance to ensure consistency and comparability (if
desired) within a product category or sector. Companies
can choose a method other than the recycled content
or closed loop approximation based on product rules or
sector guidance as long as this is disclosed and justi f ied
in the inventory report.
Assessing Uncertainty 10
[79]
g
u
i
d
a
n
c
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
10.1 Introduction
T he term uncertainty assessment refers to a systematic procedure to quantify or qualify the uncertainty in a product inventory. Understanding uncertainty can be crucial for properly interpreting inventory results. Identifying and documenting sources of
uncertainty can assist companies in understanding the steps needed to improve inventory
quality and increase the level of con f idence users have in the inventory results. Because the
audience for a product inventory report is diverse, companies should make a thorough yet
practical e f fort to communicate the level of con f idence and key sources of uncertainty in the
inventory results.
This chapter provides requirements and guidance to
help companies identify, assess, and report qualitative
information on inventory uncertainty. Detailed
descriptions of quantitative approaches to assess
uncertainty, and an uncertainty calculation tool are
available at (www.ghgprotocol.org). While remaining
current with leading science and practice, the chapter
is intended to favor practicality and feasibility for
companies with a range of uncertainty expertise.
10.2 Requirements
Companies shall report a qualitative
statement on sources of inventory
uncertainty and methodological choices.
Methodological choices include:
• Use and end-of-life pro f ile
• Allocation methods, including allocation
due to recycling
• Source of global warming potential
(GWP) values used
• Calculation models
See table 10.2 for guidance on reporting on these choices.
[80] Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting Standard
g u i d a n c e
10.3 Guidance
10.3.1 Role of the uncertainty assessment process
Figure 10.1 illustrates the role of uncertainty assessment
within the GHG inventory process. Companies should
keep a list of uncertainties throughout the inventory
process in order to facilitate the uncertainty assessment,
assurance, and reporting processes.
While the reporting requirements are focused on
qualitative descriptions, quantitative assessments of
uncertainty can assist companies in prioritizing data
quality improvement e f forts on the sources that
contribute most to uncertainty and in understanding the
in f luence methodological choices have on the overall
product inventory. A quantitative approach can also add
clarity and transparency in reporting on uncertainty to
inventory report readers. When available, companies
should report quantitative uncertainty results in the
inventory report. Guidance on quantifying uncertainty can
be found at (www.ghgprotocol.org).
10.3.2 Types of uncertainty
The results of a GHG inventory may be a f fected by various
types of uncertainty, which can arise from di f ferent
sources within the inventory process. Uncertainty is
divided into three categories: parameter uncertainty,
scenario uncertainty and model uncertainty, which are
de f ined in the following section.
The categories are not mutually exclusive, but they are
evaluated and reported in di f ferent ways. For example,
the same uncertainty source might be characterized as
either a component of parameter uncertainty and/or as a
component of scenario uncertainty.
As shown in f igure 10.1, these types of uncertainties arise
throughout the stages of the GHG inventory compilation
process. Table 10.1 illustrates these various types of
uncertainties and how each type can be presented.
Parameter uncertainty
Parameter uncertainty is the uncertainty regarding
whether a value used in the inventory accurately
represents the process or activity in the product’s life
cycle. If parameter uncertainty can be determined it can
typically be represented as a probability distribution of
possible values including the value used in the inventory
results. In assessing the uncertainty of a result, parameter
uncertainties can be propagated within a model to
provide a quantitative measure (also as a probability
distribution) of uncertainty in the f inal inventory result.
Single parameter uncertainty
Parameter uncertainty addresses the question, how well
do the data that are used to represent a parameter f it
the process in the product inventory. Single parameter
uncertainty refers to incomplete knowledge about the true
value of a parameter1. It can arise in relation to three data
types: direct emissions data, activity data, and emission
Figure [10.1] Iterative process of tracking and evaluating uncertainty
identify and track uncertainties
• parameter uncertainty
• scenario uncertainty
• model uncertainty
prioritize, quantify
and/or evaluate
document and report
uncertainty
establish
the scope
set the
boundary
collect data
assess data
quality
allocate
data
(if needed)
assess
uncertainty
calculate
inventory
results
perform
assurance
report
inventory
results
improve quality in areas of high uncertainty
un
ce
rt
ai
nt
y
as
se
ss
m
en
t
[81]
CHAPTeR 10 Assessing Uncertainty
g
u
i
d
a
n
c
e
factors. Measurement errors, inaccurate approximation,
and how the data was modeled to f it the conditions of the
process all in f luence parameter uncertainty.
For example, two data points of similar measurement
precision may result in very di f ferent levels of uncertainty
depending on how the data points represent the process’s
speci f ic context (i.e., in temporal, technological, and
geographical representativeness, and completeness terms).
e x A M P L e
An emission factor for the production of the plastic used
in a toner cartridge is 4.5 kg of CO2 per kg of plastic resin
produced. The emission factor data might be based on a
limited sampling of producers of such resin and may source
from an older timeframe or di f ferent geography than that
in which the resin in question is being produced. Therefore,
there is parameter uncertainty in the emission factor value
being used.
Propagated parameter uncertainty
Propagation of parameter uncertainty is the combined
e f fect of each parameter’s uncertainty on the uncertainty
of the total computed result. Methods are available
to propagate parameter uncertainty from single data
points. Two prominent methods applied to propagation
of parameter uncertainty include random sampling (such
as the Monte Carlo method) and analytical formulas (such
as the Taylor Series expansion method). These methods
are described in the quantitative uncertainty guidance
available at (www.ghgprotocol.org).
e x A M P L e
Company A inventoried their printer cartridge product
and determined that the total inventory results equaled
155 kg CO2e per functional unit of printing of 50,000
pages. The activity data, emission factor data and GWPs
applied in this calculation each have a level of individual
parameter uncertainty. Using the Monte Carlo method, the
propagated parameter uncertainty assessment shows that
there is a 95 percent con f idence that the true value of the
product inventory is between 140 and 170 kg CO2e. This
can also be presented as the inventory total is 155 kg CO2e
(+/-15 kg CO2e)
2 per functional unit.
Scenario uncertainty
While parameter uncertainty is a measure of how close
the data used to calculate the inventory results are to
the true (though unknown) actual data and emissions,
scenario uncertainty refers to variation in results due to
methodological choices. The uses of standards reduce
scenario uncertainty by constraining choices the user may
make in their methodology. For example, the attributional
approach and boundary setting requirements standardize
the inventory approach for all products. However, when
there are multiple methodological choices available in the
The uncertainty of the direct global warming
potential (GWP) for CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, and PFCs
is estimated to be ± 35 percent for the 90 percent
con f idence interval (5 percent to 95 percent of
the distribution). This is based on information
provided in the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report,
and the range given is to re f lect the uncertainty
in converting individual GHG emissions into units
of CO2e.
As identi f ied in the requirements section
10.2, companies are required to report the source
of GWP values used. If companies choose to
quantify inventory uncertainty they may include the
uncertainty of GWP values in their calculations.
Box [10.1] Uncertainty of global warming
potential factors
Table [10.1] Types of uncertainties and
corresponding sources
Types of uncertainty Sources
Parameter uncertainty • Direct emissions data
• Activity data
• Emission factor data
• Global warming
potential (GWP)
factors
Scenario uncertainty • Methodological
choices
Model uncertainty • Model limitations
[82] Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting Standard
g u i d a n c e
standard scenario uncertainty is created. Methodological
choices include but are not limited to:
• Allocation methods
• Product use assumptions
• End-of-life assumptions
To identify the in f luence of these selections on results,
parameters (or combinations of parameters) are varied in
an exercise known as scenario analysis. Scenario analysis is
also commonly called sensitivity analysis. Scenario analysis
can reveal di f ferences in the inventory results due to
methodological choices.3
e x A M P L e S
E x AmP L E 1
A company may choose to allocate facility electricity
consumption between the toner production and other
production lines using the physical allocation factor of the
number of units produced. Using this factor, 30 percent of the
electricity consumption is allocated to the toner production
process. However, allocating the electricity by the mass of
products results in 40 percent of the electricity consumption
allocated to the toner production process.
E x AmP L E 2
Company data indicates that 40 percent of the toner
cartridges are recycled. Therefore, it can be assumed that
40 percent of the plastic in the cartridge’s casing is recycled.
For both the reporting company and stakeholders, it may be
interesting to consider how a change in the overall recycling
rate would change the inventory results. From an individual
consumer’s perspective, there might be interest in how the
inventory results would change when an individual recycles
(100 percent rather than 40 percent recycling) or does not
recycle (0 percent recycling) the cartridge.
Model uncertainty
Model uncertainty arises from limitations in the ability of
the modeling approaches used to re f lect the real world.
Simplifying the real world into a numeric model always
introduces some inaccuracies.
In many cases, model uncertainties can be represented–
at least in part–through the parameter or scenario
approaches described above. However, some aspects
of model uncertainty might not be captured by those
classi f ications and are otherwise very di f f icult to quantify.
e x A M P L e
A model of soy production is involved in predicting emissions
from the production of the cartridge’s soy-based ink. Emissions
of N2O due to application of nitrogen fertilizers are based on a
linear modeling of interactions of the fertilizer with the soil and
plant systems. As these interactions are more complicated than
the model assumes, there is uncertainty regarding the emissions
resulting from this model.
10.3.3 Reporting qualitative uncertainty
Companies are required to report a qualitative description
of uncertainty sources and methodological choices
made in the inventory. These include the use and end-
of-life pro f iles for cradle-to-grave inventories, allocation
methods (including recycling allocation methods), the
source of GWP used, and any calculation models used to
quantify emissions and removals.
Quantitative uncertainty assessment is not required,
but such an assessment is desirable since it can provide
a more robust result that can identify speci f ic areas of
high uncertainty to track over time. Companies may wish
to present both qualitative and quantitative uncertainty
information in the inventory report. Companies may
also describe their e f forts to reduce uncertainty in
future revisions of the inventory. Table 10.2 includes the
required qualitative uncertainty sources to report.
10.3.4 Uncertainty in comparisons
Comparative uncertainty di f fers from the various types
of uncertainty previously mentioned in that more than
one product or system is considered. This standard is
not intended to support product comparison beyond
performance tracking (as described in chapter 1).
However, even within a product inventory, comparative
uncertainty may arise, such as when comparing the
impact of one process or stage to another process or
stage in the product’s life cycle.
Whenever considering uncertainty in comparisons, the
uncertainty ranges of each process, life cycle stage, or
product should not be directly compared; instead, the
uncertainty in the comparison itself should be assessed.
That is, rather than comparing the distribution of A
and the distribution of B, companies may assess the
distribution of A divided by B. This can be done for both
parameter uncertainty and scenario uncertainty.
[83]
CHAPTeR 10 Assessing Uncertainty
g
u
i
d
a
n
c
e
When comparing the uncertainties between two or more
processes, stages, or products, it is important to track any
common inputs, outputs, and/or processes. When the
two items being compared share common elements their
uncertainties are likely correlated, which should not be
included in the uncertainty comparison result. Because
of correlation, a comparison of two relatively uncertain
results could have relatively high certainty. Identifying
correlations is important in tracking any changes in the
product’s inventory over time.
e x A M P L e
The manufacturer of the toner cartridge determines the
product inventory’s parameter uncertainty is +/- 20 percent.
The company develops a lighter weight cartridge body,
reducing 30 percent of the weight of that component and
3 percent of the total product inventory result. Besides the
di f ference in weight, the processes in the two inventories are
the same and the data sources are also consistent. Therefore,
while both the original and revised inventories each have a
parameter uncertainty of +/- 20 percent and the di f ference in
their results is 3 percent, the company can be con f ident that
the new design has a lower GHG impact.
endnotes
1 Parameter refers to the value(s) assigned to processes, inputs,
outputs, within the product’s life cycle.
2 In some cases, such as in the use of log-normal distributions,
the distribution around the mean is not symmetrical and the
upper and lower con f idence levels might need to be speci f ied
separately (e.g., “-10, +20”, rather than “+/- 15).
3 Mark A. J. Huijbregts, “Application of uncertainty and variability
in LCA. Part I: A General Framework for the Analysis of
Uncertainty and Variability in Life Cycle Assessment.”International
Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 3 no. 5 (1998):273 – 280.
4 For cradle-to-grave inventories.
5 The description of single parameter uncertainty is included in the
data quality reporting requirements (see chapter 7).
Table [10.2] Qualitative description of required uncertainty sources
Source of uncertainty Qualitative description
Scenario uncertainty
• Use pro f ile4 Describe the use pro f ile of the product. If more than one use pro f ile
was applicable, disclose which method was used and justify the choice.
• End-of-life pro f ile4 Describe the end-of-life pro f ile of the product. If more than one end-
of-life pro f ile was applicable, disclose which method was used and
justify the choice.
• Allocation method(s) Describe any allocation problems in the inventory and which
allocation method was used. If more than one allocation method was
applicable, disclose which method was used and justify the choice.
• Recycling allocation method(s) Disclose and reference which method was used (closed loop
approximation method or recycled content method).
Parameter uncertainty5
• Global warming potential factors List the source of global warming potential (GWP) factors used.
Model uncertainty
• Model sources not included in
scenario or parameter uncertainty
Describe the models, identify their published source, and identify
areas where they may deviate from real world conditions.
Calculating Inventory Results11
[85]
g
u
i
d
a
n
c
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
11.1 Introduction
T his chapter outlines key requirements, steps, and procedures involved in quantifying the GHG inventory results of the studied product necessary for public reporting.
11.2 Requirements
Companies shall apply a 100 year global
warming potential (GWP) factor to GHG
emissions and removals data to calculate
the inventory results in units of CO2
equivalent (CO2e). Companies shall report
the source and date of the GWP factor used.
The global warming potential (GWP) is a metric used to
calculate the cumulative radiative forcing impact of
multiple GHGs in a comparable way. When emissions
or removals are multiplied by their respective GWP,
they become CO2 equivalents (CO2e). Companies
should use GWP values from the Intergovernmental
Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment
Report, published in 2007, or the most recent IPCC
values when the Fourth Assessment Report is no longer
current. Although the IPCC provides GWP metrics for
di f ferent time periods (e.g., 20 and 500 years), 100 years
is used most often by programs and policies as the
median metric and therefore shall be used to calculate
inventory results in this standard.
Companies shall quantify and report the
total inventory results in CO2e per unit of
analysis, which includes all emissions and
removals included in the boundary from
biogenic sources, non-biogenic sources,
and land-use change impacts.
Once data collection, allocation, and data quality
assessments are complete, companies shall quantify
and report the total inventory results in CO2e per unit
of analysis (e.g., functional unit). For more information
on the unit of analysis please refer to chapter 6.
[86] Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting Standard
r e q u i r e m e n t s
In addition to the total inventory results,
companies shall quantify and report:
• Percentage of total inventory results
by life cycle stage
• Biogenic and non-biogenic emissions and
removals separately when applicable
• Land-use change impacts separately
when applicable
• Cradle-to-gate and gate-to-gate
inventory results separately or a clear
statement that con f identiality is a
limitation to providing this information
Separately calculating and reporting these components of
the inventory results adds transparency to the product’s
life cycle and provides companies and their stakeholders
with a better understanding of what type of emissions
and removals dominate the inventory and where they
occur along the life cycle.
Companies shall not include the following
when quantifying inventory results:
• Weighting factors for delayed emissions
• O f fsets
• Avoided emissions
In a life cycle, particularly for products that have long
use and end-of-life time periods, emissions may occur
at di f ferent points in time and have di f ferent impacts
on the atmosphere. Some methodologies try to capture
this in the life cycle results by applying a weighting
factor to account for emissions delayed over time (also
[87]
CHAPTeR 11 Calculating Inventory Results
referred to as emission discounting). In this standard,
inventory results shall not be calculated with weighting
factors. This is true for both biogenic and non-biogenic
emissions, removals, and products. Companies may show
the impact of delayed emissions and removals separately
from the inventory results. It is important to note that
if a weighting factor is applied to calculate the impact
of delayed emissions or removals in the end-of-life
stage, the same factor needs to be applied to end-of-life
allocation of co-products and recycled materials.
O f fsets and avoided emissions are both classi f ied as
actions that occur outside the boundary of the product’s
life cycle. O f fsets are emission credits (in the form of
emission trading or funding of emission-reductions1
projects) that a company purchases to o f fset the studied
product’s inventory results. Avoided emissions are
quanti f ied as emissions reductions that are indirectly
caused by the studied product or a process that occurs
in the studied product’s life cycle. Avoided emissions as
de f ined here are not the same as emissions reductions
that occur due to directly attributable reduction projects,
or allocated emissions using the system expansion
allocation method. Purchased o f fsets and avoided
emissions shall not be deducted from the product’s
total inventory results, but may be reported separately.
Guidance on using o f fsets to meet reduction targets is
available in chapter 14.
Companies shall report the amount of carbon
contained in the product or its components
that is not released to the atmosphere
during waste treatment, if applicable. For
cradle-to-gate inventories, companies shall
report the amount of carbon contained in the
intermediate product.
Many products contain carbon as part of their chemical
makeup or composition. This carbon, which can be
biogenic or non-biogenic, is either recycled or reused
in another product cycle, released as CO2 or CH4 during
waste treatment (due to combustion or decomposition),
or stored as a result of waste treatment (due to land
f illing or other treatments that prevent decomposition).
Companies shall report when carbon contained in
a product or its components is not released to the
atmosphere during waste treatment and therefore is
considered stored. The amount of carbon stored will
depend on the waste treatment process, the scienti f ic
understanding of the product’s degradation in certain
environments, and the time period chosen. More
information on time period is available in chapter 7.
In cradle-to-gate inventories, contained carbon leaves the
boundary of the inventory as part of the intermediate
product. For intermediate product cradle-to-gate inventory
results to be useful to a downstream customer doing a f inal
product cradle-to-grave inventory, companies shall report
the amount of carbon contained in the product leaving the
boundary (e.g., gate). Companies may include additional
information about the end-of-life properties of an
intermediate product separate from the inventory results.
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
[88] Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting Standard
g u i d a n c e
11.3 Guidance
11.3.1 Calculating the inventory results of the
studied product
Companies should follow these steps when calculating
the GHG impact of the studied product:
1. Choose a GWP value
Because radiative forcing is a function of the
concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere, and because
the methodology to calculate GWP continues to
evolve, GWP factors are reassessed every few years
by the IPCC. The most current GWP factors published
by the IPCC at the time of this standard’s publication
are the factors published in the Fourth Assessment
Report (2007). The Fifth Assessment Report is set
to be completed in 2013-2014 and will likely contain
updated factors. A table of the most recent GWP
values is available at (www.ghgprotocol.org).
Companies may choose to use other GWP values. For
example, some companies may want to use the second
assessment report values to be consistent with national
inventories following the UNFCCC. Although it is required
that companies calculate inventory results using the
100-yr GWP, companies may choose to calculate and
separately report results using a 20 or 500 year GWP
factors or other impact assessment metrics such as global
temperate potential (GTP) if they feel this would be
useful information to their stakeholders.
Multipliers or other corrections to account for radiative
forcing may be applied to the GWP of emissions arising
from aircraft transport. When used, the type of multiplier
and its source should be disclosed in the inventory report.
2. Calculate CO2e using collected data
The following equations illustrate how to calculate CO2e
for an input, output, or process based on activity data,
emission factors, and GWP. More information on data
collection and sources of emission factors are available in
chapter 8.
When process or f inancial activity data is collected, the
basic equation to calculate CO2e for an input, output, or
process is:
kg CO2e = Activity Data x Emission Factor x GWP
(unit) [kg GHG/unit] [kg CO2e/kg GHG]
When direct emissions data has been collected, an emission
factor is not needed and the basic equation to calculate
inventory results for an input, output, or process is:
kg CO2e = Direct Emissions Data x GWP
(kg GHG) [kg CO2e/kg GHG]
If direct emissions data and activity data are available,
companies may f ind bene f it in completing and calculating
both ways as a cross-check.
When CO2 is removed from the atmosphere by the
product during the use phase (e.g., CO2 uptake by
cement), the removal data may come in the form of a
removal rate per mass or volume of product. However,
the most typical form of atmospheric CO2 removal is due
to biogenic uptake during photosynthesis. In this case,
companies usually only know the amount of biogenic
carbon contained in the material or product. To convert
this to CO2, the amount of carbon is multiplied by the
ratio of molecular weights of CO2 (44) and carbon (12),
respectively. CO2 removal data, like direct emissions data,
does not need to be multiplied by an emission factor and
can simply be multiplied by the GWP of 1 for CO2.
kg CO2e = kg Biogenic Carbon x (44/12) x GWP
[kg CO2e/kg GHG]
Alternatively, companies may want to sum all emissions
and removals per GHG per unit of analysis before applying
the GWP. This approach is recommended if companies
wish to have the option of reporting results separately by
GHG or using a di f ferent GWP value.
Companies should be cognizant of signi f icant f igures and
rounding rules when calculating emissions and removals,
particularly when using emissions factors from a life
cycle database or software program that automatically
calculates emissions when activity data are given as an
input. The number of signi f icant f igures of the emission
data should not exceed that of the activity data or
emission factor with the least signi f icant f igures used in
the calculation.
[89]
g
u
i
d
a
n
c
e
CHAPTeR 11 Calculating Inventory Results
3. Calculate total inventory results
(CO2e/unit of analysis)
Once the inventory results in CO2e are calculated, the
company needs to ensure that all results are on the same
reference f low basis. For example, if the reference f low
for the studied product is 10 kg and the inventory results
are per kg of product, all the inventory results need to
multiplied by 10. Because the reference f low represents
to amount of product needed to ful f il the unit of
analysis, results on the reference f low basis are summed
together to calculate the total CO2e/unit of analysis. More
information on reference f lows and unit of analysis is
available in chapter 6.
The following components make up the total inventory
results:
The total CO2e/unit of analysis represents the amount
of CO2 equivalent GHGs entering the atmosphere as a
result of ful f illing the function of a product. Therefore,
emissions are treated as positive values and removals are
treated as negative values.
Land-use change impacts are included in the total
inventory results if they are attributable to the studied
product. Guidance on calculating land-use change impacts
is included in Appendix B. If no land-use change impacts
are attributable and no removals occur during the
product’s life cycle, the total inventory results are simply
the sum of emissions in CO2e per reference f low.
Total CO2e
unit of analysis
CO2e Emissions (Biogenic)
reference f low
= –
CO2e Removals (Biogenic)
reference f low
CO2e Emissions (Non-Biogenic)
reference f low
+
–
CO2e Removals (Non-Biogenic)
reference f low
CO2e Land Use Change Impacts
reference f low
+
[90] Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting Standard
g u i d a n c e
4. Calculate percentage of total inventory
results by life cycle stage
The inventory results per life cycle stage are calculated
using the same equation given in step 3 above. Land-use
change impacts and removals are typically included in the
material acquisition and preprocessing or production stage
depending on the perception of the reporting company.
In some cases removals may occur during the use stage
(e.g. the absorption of CO2 by cement). If the removals are
large enough to create a negative percent impact from that
stage, this should be noted clearly in the inventory report.
The following equation is used to determine the
percentage of total inventory results by life cycle stage:
Percentage per =
CO2e per life cycle stage
Total CO2e inventory results
x 100
As required in chapter 9, the virgin material displacement
factor is reported separately from the inventory results
by life cycle stage to avoid a negative percent impact in
the end-of-life stage. The percentage impact of the virgin
material displacement can be reported next to the end-
of-life stage results as shown in the reporting template
(available at www.ghgprotocol.org). The virgin material
displacement factor is included as part of the total
inventory results.
5. Separate reporting of biogenic and
non-biogenic emissions and removals and
land-use change impacts, when applicable
Separate reporting of the total inventory result
components provides transparency to the reporting
company and their stakeholders.
Biogenic emissions include CO2, CH4, and N2O that
are produced as a result of the combustion and/or
degradation of biogenic materials, wastewater treatment,
and a variety of biological sources in soil and water. For
example, if paper degrades in a land f ill, the CO2 and CH4
emitted would be classi f ied as biogenic emissions. Non-
biogenic emissions include all GHG emissions from non-
biogenic (e.g., fossil-based) materials. Biogenic removals
are due to the uptake of CO2 by biogenic materials during
photosynthesis, while non-biogenic removals only occur
if CO2 is removed from the atmosphere by a non-biogenic
product during its production or use stage. Appendix B
provides guidance on calculating land-use change impacts.
If companies are unsure whether emissions are from a
biogenic or non-biogenic source, they should include
those emissions as non-biogenic. In some cases, a product
may have no biogenic emissions, biogenic and non-
biogenic removals, or land-use change impacts. If only
non-biogenic emissions occur in the inventory, companies
may report only the total inventory results and note this
in the inventory report.
6. Calculate cradle-to-gate and gate-to-gate
inventory results separately
In addition to reporting separately the inventory result
components, reporting inventory results by cradle-to-gate
and gate-to-gate gives some insight into what emissions
and removals occur under the control of the reporting
company. However, it is recognized that reporting gate-
to-gate inventory results may jeopardize the reporting
company’s con f identiality. If this is the case, companies
may state this as a limitation to reporting these results
separately. For cradle-to-gate inventories, the total
inventory results are the cradle-to-gate results and
therefore do not need to be repeated here.
11.3.2 O f fsets and avoided emissions
As previously stated, o f fsets are emission credits (in the
form of emission trading or funding of emission-reduction
projects) that a company purchases to o f fset the impact
of the studied product’s emissions. Companies typically
purchase o f fsets for one of two reasons: to meet a
reduction goal that they cannot reach with reductions
alone, or to claim a product as carbon neutral. Companies
are encouraged to set reduction targets and meet these
with absolute reductions. However if a company wishes to
purchase o f fsets for its product inventory, this standard
does allow for o f fsets to be reported separately from the
inventory results. For o f fsets to be reported separately in
a product inventory, the company should:
• Purchase o f fsets based on the GHG Protocol Project
Protocol or similar internationally accepted GHG
mitigation project accounting methodologies for
quantifying the GHG bene f its of climate change
mitigation projects; and
• Clearly separate corporate-level and product-level
o f fset purchases to avoid double counting.
If a company purchases o f fsets to meet their corporate
reduction goals, double counting can occur if the same
life cycle stage
[91]
g
u
i
d
a
n
c
e
CHAPTeR 11 Calculating Inventory Results
o f fsets were reported in a product inventory. Similarly if
a company sells reductions that occur at sources included
in the boundary for use as o f fsets, these should not be
included in tracking performance towards their own
reduction target. Companies should separately report any
sold o f fsets from sources that they own or control that
are part of the product boundary.
In this standard, avoided emissions are quanti f ied as
emissions reductions that are indirectly caused by market
responses to the studied product or process that occurs
in the studied product’s life cycle. For example, consider
a company that performs a GHG inventory on energy-
e f f icient appliances. Avoided emissions can be calculated
by assuming that the energy-e f f icient appliances replace
non-e f f icient appliances in the market place. The company
also installs an energy-e f f icient wood- f ired boiler in the
production facility to reduce emissions. Avoided emissions
can be calculated by assuming that the use of the wood-
f ired boiler reduces the demand for coal- f ired power.
This standard does not allow avoided emissions to be
subtracted from the total inventory results. However,
companies may report avoided emissions separately
in the inventory report. Avoided emissions are often
calculated using the consequential approach, which
among other things considers how emissions might
change as a result of a shift in demand (see chapter 5 for
more information). Companies calculating and reporting
avoided emissions should also consider any indirect
emissions caused by market responses to the studied
product or its life cycle. For example, indirect land-use
change impacts are a form of indirect impact that could
increase the GHG inventory of a product and should also
be reported separately if other avoided emissions are
considered. It is not appropriate to consider only the
emissions savings associated with indirect e f fects.
In LCA, the term avoided emissions is sometimes used
to describe allocation due to system expansion, or
emission reductions due to a reduction project within
the product’s boundary. These cases are not considered
avoided emissions as de f ined by this standard and
therefore are not required to be reported separately
from the inventory results. However, the requirements
for allocation (chapter 9) and performance tracking
(chapter 14) are applicable in these cases.
endnotes
1 Emissions increases can also be indirectly caused by the studied
product or process that occurs in the studied product’s life cycle
and should also be reported separately with avoided emissions.
DuPontTM Sorona® is an advanced polymer that
contains 37 percent renewably sourced (e.g., biogenic)
ingredients by weight and can be used in place of
traditional petrochemical polymers in a wide range
of applications such as f ibers, fabrics, f ilaments, and
engineering resins. Because of the range of functions
and products Sorona® can be used for, DuPont
performed a cradle-to-gate inventory. However, the
resulting fate of the carbon in the molecule is an
important evaluation for any cradle-to-grave inventory
that uses Sorona® as a material input. To ensure
that downstream customers have all the necessary
information to perform a cradle-to-grave assessment,
DuPont included in the inventory report the amount
of carbon (fossil and biogenic) contained within the
product as it leaves the cradle-to-gate inventory
boundary. DuPont also has information on the fate of
the contained carbon in di f ferent end-of-life scenarios
that they included in the inventory report separate
from the cradle-to-gate inventory results as optional
information to help downstream customers de f ine
their end-of-life pro f iles.
DuPontTM
Assurance12
[93]
g
u
i
d
a
n
c
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
12.1 Introduction
A ssurance is the level of con f idence that the inventory results and report are complete, accurate, consistent, transparent, relevant, and without material misstatements. Obtaining assurance over the product inventory is valuable for
reporting companies and other stakeholders when making decisions using the inventory results.
Carefully and comprehensively documenting the inventory process in a data management plan
is a vital step in preparing for assurance.
12.2 Requirements
The product GHG inventory shall be assured
by a f irst or third party.
Three key parties are involved in the assurance process:
1. The reporting company seeking assurance
2. Stakeholder users of the inventory report
3. The assurer(s)
When the reporting company also performs the
assurance, this is known as f irst party assurance. When a
party other than the reporting company performs
the assurance, this is known as third party assurance.
Table 12.1 explains the di f ferences between f irst and
third party assurance.
Both f irst and third party assurers should follow similar
procedures and processes. For external stakeholders,
third party assurance is likely to increase the credibility
of the GHG inventory. However, f irst party assurance can
also provide con f idence in the reliability of the inventory
report, and can be a worthwhile learning experience for
a company prior to commissioning third party assurance.
[94] Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting Standard
r e q u i r e m e n t s
Table [12.1] Types of assurance
Type of assurance Description Independence mechanism
First party assurance Person(s) from within the reporting
company but independent of the GHG
inventory determination process
conducts internal assurance.
Di f ferent lines of reporting
Third party assurance Person(s) from an organization
independent of the product GHG
inventory determination process
conducts third party assurance.
Di f ferent business entity from the
reporting company
Companies shall choose assurance
providers that are independent of, and
have no con f lict of interest with, the
product GHG inventory process.
Assurers are de f ined as person(s) providing assurance
over the product inventory and shall be independent
of any involvement in the determination of the product
inventory or development of any declaration. Assurers
shall have no con f licts of interests, such that they can
exercise objective and impartial judgment.
Inherently, assurance provided by a third party o f fers
a higher degree of objectivity and independence.
Companies receiving f irst party assurance are required
to report how potential con f licts of interests were
avoided during the assurance process (see the assurance
statement reporting requirement below for more
information). Typical threats to independence may
include f inancial and other con f licts of interest between
the reporting company and the assurer. These threats
should be assessed throughout the assurance process.
Companies shall report the assurance
statement in the inventory report. The
statement shall include:
• Whether the assurance was performed
by a f irst or third party
• The level of assurance achieved (limited
or reasonable) including assurance
opinion or the critical review f indings
• A summary of the assurance process
• The relevant competencies of
the assurers
• How any potential con f licts of interest
were avoided for f irst party assurance
[95]
CHAPTeR 12 Assurance
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
Competencies of assurers
Selecting a competent assurer (also known as an assurance
provider) is important for the assurance f indings to have
the credibility needed to support the reporting company’s
business goals and stakeholder needs.
A competent GHG inventory assurer has:
• Assurance expertise and experience using assurance
frameworks
• Knowledge and experience in life cycle assessment
and/or GHG corporate accounting, as well as familiarity
with key steps in the product inventory process
• Knowledge of the company’s activities and
industry sector
• Ability to assess the emission sources and the
magnitude of potential errors, omissions and
misrepresentations
• Credibility, independence and professional skepticism
to challenge data and information
Assurance process
Achieving assurance over the product inventory results
can be achieved through two methods: veri f ication and
critical review.
Veri f ication is an independent assessment of the
reliability of the product GHG inventory. Veri f ication
engagements, whether performed by a f irst or third
party, have common elements, including:
1. Planning and scoping (e.g., determine risks and
material misstatements)
2. Identifying emission sources
3. Performing the assurance process (e.g., gathering
evidence, performing analytics, etc.)
4. Evaluating results
5. Determining and reporting conclusions
The nature and extent of veri f ication procedures can vary
depending on whether the veri f ication engagement is
designed to obtain reasonable or limited assurance (as
described below). Veri f ication of inventory data may take
place in several ways, for example by on-site checking,
reviewing calculations, mass balance calculations, or cross-
checks with other sources.
The critical review process is intended to ensure
consistency between the product inventory and the
principles and requirements of the Product Standard. It
is an established practice in life cycle assessment. The
critical review process ensures that:
• Methods used to carry out the product inventory are
consistent with the Product Standard
• Methods used to carry out the product inventory are
scienti f ically and technically valid
• Data used are appropriate and reasonable for
public reporting
• The inventory report and any conclusions based on the
results are appropriate for GHG-only inventories
• The inventory report is transparent and consistent
There are two types of critical review: those performed
by an internal or external expert, and those performed by
a review panel of interested parties.
For critical reviews conducted by a review panel, the
panel should be comprised of at least three members.
The members may come from life cycle assessment
expert groups, government agencies, non-governmental
organizations, industry groups, and other companies.
Levels of assurance
In veri f ication, the level of assurance refers to the
degree of con f idence that stakeholders can have over
the information in the inventory report. There are two
levels of assurance: limited and reasonable. The level
of assurance requested by the reporting company will
determine the rigor of the veri f ication process and
the amount of evidence required. The highest level of
assurance that can be provided is a reasonable level of
assurance. Absolute assurance is never provided as 100
percent of the inputs to the GHG Inventory are not tested
due to practicality and feasibility limitations.
The thoroughness with which the assurance evidence is
obtained is less rigorous in limited assurance. Table 12.2
provides examples of limited and reasonable assurance
opinions for an assertion of product inventory emissions.
[96] Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting Standard
r e q u i r e m e n t s
Critical review f indings
The critical review f indings include whether the product
inventory is in conformance with the Product Standard
and the methodological choices and assumptions made
are reasonable for public reporting.
For more information on critical review, companies should
refer to the following texts:
1. ISO 14040, section 7
2. ISO 14044, section 6
3. The Society of Environmental Toxicology and
Chemistry’s (SETAC) Guidelines for Life Cycle
Assessment: A ‘Code of Practice’
Table [12.2] Examples of limited and reasonable assurance opinions
Assurance opinion Limited assurance Reasonable assurance
Nature of opinion Negative opinion Positive opinion
Example wording
of opinion
" Based on our review, we are not aware
of any material modi f ications that
should be made to the company’s
assertion that the inventory product’s
emissions are 23 kilograms CO2e and
are in conformance with the
requirements of the GHG Protocol
Product Life Cycle Accounting and
Reporting Standard.”
" In our opinion the reporting
company’s assertion that the
inventory product’s emissions
are 23 kilograms CO2e is fairly
stated, in all material respects,
and is in conformance with
the GHG Protocol Product Life
Cycle Accounting and Reporting
Standard."
[97]
CHAPTeR 12 Assurance
12.3 Guidance
12.3.1 Bene f its of assurance
Assuring product inventory results can provide a variety
of bene f its, including:
• Increased con f idence in the reported information on
which to base reduction targets and related decisions
• Enhanced internal accounting and reporting practices
(e.g., data collection, calculation, and internal
reporting systems), and facilitation of learning and
knowledge transfer within the company
• Increased con f idence in the results by other companies
in the product’s life cycle that may use the results in
their own inventories
• Improved e f f iciency in subsequent inventory update
processes and when undertaking inventories of other
company products
• Greater stakeholder trust in the reported information
12.3.2 Key concepts in assurance
In the assurance f ield many di f ferent terms are used to
describe various assurance processes (e.g., veri f ication,
validation, quality assurance, quality control, audit, etc.).
Though not comprehensive, table 12.3 includes many key
terms and concepts used in the assurance process.
12.3.3 Materiality
A material misstatement occurs when individual
or aggregate known errors, omissions and
misrepresentations have a signi f icant impact on the GHG
inventory results and could in f luence a user’s decisions.
Materiality has both quantitative and qualitative aspects.
The assurer and reporting company should determine
an appropriate threshold or benchmark of materiality
during the assurance process.
Quantitative materiality is typically calculated as a
percentage of the inventory (in total or on an individual
line item basis). In determining the quantitative
materiality benchmark, assurers should contemplate
the risk of a potential misstatement and the history of
previous misstatements. A materiality threshold (e.g., a
point at which a discrepancy becomes material) can be
pre-de f ined by the assurer.
Qualitative misstatements tend to be those that have
immaterial quantitative e f fects but could materially a f fect
the reporting company’s emissions in the future as well
as those that mislead the intended user.
Uncertainty is a separate concept from materiality
because it is not a known error, rather an indicator
of how well the data represents the processes in the
product inventory.
12.3.4 Preparing for assurance
Preparing for assurance is a matter of ensuring that the
evidence that the assurer needs is easily accessible. The
type of evidence and documentation requested by the
assurer will depend on the subject matter, the industry,
and the type of assurance being sought. Maintaining
documentation of the inventory process through the use
of a data management plan (see Appendix C) is helpful for
ensuring the assurance evidence is available.
Prior to starting the assurance process, the reporting
company should ensure that the following are prepared
and available to the assurer:
• The company’s written assertion (e.g., inventory
results);
• The completed data management plan; and
• Access to su f f icient and appropriate evidence (i.e.,
invoices, bills of sale, etc.).
Timing of verification
Verification is conducted before the public release of
the inventory report by the reporting company. This
allows for material misstatements to be corrected
prior to the release of the opinion (or revised opinion)
and assertion. The work should be initiated far enough
in advance of the inventory report release so that it is
useful in improving the inventory when applicable. The
period of the verification process is dependent on the
nature and complexity of the subject matter and the
level of assurance.
g
u
i
d
a
n
c
e
[98] Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting Standard
Table [12.3] Key assurance concepts
Assurance
concept
Description examples
Assertion A statement by the reporting company
on the inventory results. The assertion is
presented to the assurer.
• The studied product’s emissions
are 23 kilograms of CO2e. They are
calculated in accordance with the
Product Standard and supplemented
by our company-speci f ic policies
and methodologies described in the
inventory report
Subject matter The inventory results and supporting
information included in the inventory
report. The type of assurance performed
will determine which subject matter(s)
should be assessed.
• Inventory results
• Other information presented in the
inventory report (See chapter 13 for
more information on reporting)
Criteria The benchmarks used to evaluate or
measure the subject matter.
• Requirements of the standard
• Methodological choices
• Data quality and uncertainty (assessed
for appropriateness for a public report)
• Others determined to be suitable by
the reporting company and assurer
Evidence Data sources and documentation used
to calculate emissions and support the
subject matter of the reporting company’s
assertion. Evidence should be su f f icient in
quantity and appropriate in quality.
• Physical observations, such as site
tours to con f irm the existence and
completeness of the sources
• Assurer’s calculations
• Statements by independent parties
and/or the reporting company, such
as an interview with the production
manager about production capacity
• Documents prepared by an
independent party and/or the
reporting company, such as invoices
Assurance
standards
Standards, used by assurers, which set
requirements on how the assurance
process is performed.
• ISO 14064-3 Speci f ication with
Guidance for the Validation and
Veri f ication of Greenhouse Gas
Assertions
Assurance
opinion
The results of the assurer’s assessment
of the reporting company’s assertion (i.e.,
inventory results). If the assurer determines
that a conclusion cannot be expressed, the
statement should cite the reason.
• See table 12.2 for examples of limited
and reasonable assurance opinions
g u i d a n c e
[99]
CHAPTeR 12 Assurance
Timing of the critical review process
Critical review may be performed during the inventory
process (known as an interactive review) or at the end
(a posteriori). An interactive critical review may be useful
in correcting any problems with the inventory before
the inventory’s completion, and it can reduce delays
in publishing the inventory report. A posteriori review
allows the panel members to have a fresh perspective
when reviewing the inventory results. It is important
that the critical review expert(s) remains objective and
independent from the inventory development process
during interactive reviews, and that the critical review
f indings are based on the f inal product inventory report.
12.3.5 Assurance challenges
There are several challenges in assuring product
inventories. Emissions calculations rely on a mixture of
data sources and assumptions. Inventory uncertainty,
especially scenario uncertainty related to use and end-
of-life stage emissions, may a f fect the quality of the
inventory. It is important to consider the state of data
collection systems and the integrity of the data and
methodological choices for assurance.
One of the primary challenges is that the majority of
emission sources are usually outside the reporting
company’s control and the assurer’s ability to obtain
su f f icient appropriate evidence.
Three approaches to addressing this diminished
control are:
1. Change the level of assurance i.e., reasonable to
limited (for veri f ication)
2. Change from veri f ication to critical review
3. Rely on the assurance statement of another assurer
for emission and removal sources outside of the
company’s control (i.e., assurance over a supplier’s
emission sources by a di f ferent assurance f irm)
12.3.6 Assurance statement
The assurance statement conveys the assurer’s
conclusion about the inventory results, and it may take
di f ferent forms depending on whether the company is
conducting critical review or veri f ication, as well as if the
assurance was performed by a f irst or third party. The
required contents of an assurance statement are listed
in the requirements section. An assurance statement
should also include the following:
Introduction
• A description of the studied product
• A reference to the reporting company’s assertion
included in the inventory report
• Description of assurance process
• List of the assurance criteria
• Description of the reporting company’s and
assurer’s responsibilities
• The assurance standard or type of critical review
process used to perform the assurance
• A summary of the work performed
• The materiality threshold or benchmark, if set
Conclusion
• Any additional details regarding the assurer’s
conclusion, including details regarding any exceptions
noted or issues encountered in performing the
assurance
• When there are material departures in the assertion
from the assurance criteria, the reporting company
should report the e f fect of the departures
endnotes
1 Adapted from ISO 14064:3:2006, Greenhouse gases - Part 3:
Speci f ication with guidance for the validation and veri f ication of
greenhouse gas assertions.
2 Adapted from the GHG Protocol Corporate Standard.
3 Adapted from ISO 14040:2006, Environmental Management –Life
Cycle Assessment –Principles and framework.
4 Adapted from ISO 14044:2006, 6.1
g
u
i
d
a
n
c
e
Reporting13
[101]
g
u
i
d
a
n
c
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
13.1 Introduction
R eporting is crucial to ensure accountability and e f fective engagement with stakeholders. This chapter summarizes the various reporting requirements speci f ied in other chapters and identi f ies additional reporting considerations
that together provide a credible reporting framework and enable users of reported data
to make informed decisions. It is essential that the reported information is based on the key
accounting principles (relevance, accuracy, completeness, consistency, and transparency).
13.2 Requirements
Companies shall publicly report the
following information to be in conformance
with the GHG Protocol Product Standard:
General information and scope
• Contact information;
• Studied product name and description;
• The unit of analysis and reference f low;
• Type of inventory, cradle-to-grave or
cradle-to-gate;
• Additional GHGs included in the
inventory;
• Any product rules or sector-speci f ic
guidance used;
• Inventory date and version;
• For subsequent inventories, a link
to previous inventory reports and
description of any methodological
changes; and
• A disclaimer stating the limitations
of various potential uses of the report
including product comparison.
[102] Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting Standard
r e q u i r e m e n t s
Boundary setting
• Life cycle stage de f initions and
descriptions;
• A process map including attributable
processes in the inventory;
• non-attributable processes included
in the inventory;
• excluded attributable processes
and justi f ication for their exclusion;
• Justi f ication of a cradle-to-gate
boundary, when applicable;
• The time period; and
• The method use to calculate land-use
change impacts, when applicable.
Allocation
• Disclosure and justi f ication of the
methods used to avoid or perform
allocation due to co-products or
recycling; and
• When using the closed loop
approximation method, any displaced
emissions and removals separately
from the end-of-life stage.
Data collection and quality
• For signi f icant processes, a descriptive
statement on the data sources, data
quality, and any e f forts taken to improve
data quality.
Uncertainty
• A qualitative statement on inventory
uncertainty and methodological choices.
Methodological choices include:
• Use and end-of-life pro f ile;
• Allocation methods, including allocation
due to recycling;
• Source of global warming potential
(GWP) factors used;
• Calculation models.
Inventory results
• The source and date of the GWP
factors used;
• Total inventory results in units of CO2e
per unit of analysis, which includes all
emissions and removals included in
the boundary from biogenic sources,
non-biogenic sources, and land-use
change impacts;
• Percentage of total inventory results by
life cycle stage;
• Biogenic and non-biogenic emissions and
removals separately when applicable;
• Land use impacts separately when
applicable;
• Cradle-to-gate and gate-to-gate
inventory results separately (or a clear
statement that con f identiality is a
limitation to providing this information);
• The amount of carbon contained in the
product or its components that is not
released to the atmosphere during waste
treatment, when applicable; and
• For cradle-to-gate inventories, the
amount of carbon contained in the
intermediate product.
[103]
CHAPTeR 13 Reporting
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
Assurance
The assurance statement including:
• Whether the assurance was performed
by a f irst or third party;
• Level of assurance achieved (limited or
reasonable) and assurance opinion or the
critical review f indings;
• A summary of the assurance process;
• The relevant competencies of the
assurance providers; and
• An explanation of how any potential
con f licts of interest were avoided for
f irst party assurance.
Setting reduction targets and tracking
inventory changes
Companies that report a reduction target
and/or track performance over time shall
report the following:
• The base inventory and current inventory
results in the updated inventory report;
• The reduction target, if established;
• Changes made to the inventory, if the
base inventory was recalculated;
• The threshold used to determine when
recalculation is needed;
• Appropriate context identifying and
describing signi f icant changes that
trigger base inventory recalculation;
• The change in inventory results as a
percentage change over time between
the two inventories on the unit of
analysis basis; and
• An explanation of the steps taken
to reduce emissions based on the
inventory results.
[104] Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting Standard
g u i d a n c e
13.3 Guidance
13.3.1 Goal of public reporting
The overarching goal of producing a GHG inventory in
conformance with the GHG Protocol Product Standard is to
create positive drivers to pursue GHG emission reductions
across the product life cycle. The full process from
developing the inventory to reporting results is designed to
help improve the understanding of reduction opportunities
as well as facilitate and leverage inputs from stakeholders
to prioritize and reduce emissions. Identifying target
audience and speci f ic business goals is the f irst step and
reporting is the f inal step to achieving this goal.
The following sections provide guidance on
understanding the audience and completing some of
the reporting requirements not included elsewhere in
the standard1. A list of optional reporting elements is
included, and a reporting template is provided at
(www.ghgprotocol.org) to help companies organize
their inventory report.
13.3.2 Identifying the audience
Keeping the audience in mind is important right from
the start as companies set objectives and develop an
inventory. A key opportunity to make a meaningful
connection with the audience is when a company
prepares their inventory report. Helping users understand
the purpose, context, and rationale behind various
accounting decisions as well as the limitations and
potential uses of the inventory results are examples of
objectives that a company should seek to address in the
inventory report.
Audience category/role Audience description
General public Lay person. No understanding or prior experience with LCA/GHG
inventories may be assumed.
GHG inventory / LCA practitioner Practitioner wishing to use the inventory results as data inputs to
another study.
Assurance provider Assurer performing assurance on the inventory.
Report partners Employees, suppliers, product-owning organization, report-
commissioning organization.
Sustainability / environmental
practitioner
General interested party seeking to understand more about a speci f ic
product, a product sector, an industry sector, or other aspects of life
cycle emissions and removals.
Green purchasing Purchasing decision-maker seeking di f ferentiation across products.
Downstream customers Retail decision-maker making purchase decisions that may use the
inventory results.
Environmental/carbon/
GHG labeling organizations
GHG programs that may provide a platform to report, register, and
disseminate inventory results.
Policy makers and government
program administrators
Government stakeholders that may use the inventory results to plan
future programs and policies.
Table [13.1] Potential audiences of a publicly disclosed product GHG inventory report
[105]
CHAPTeR 13 Reporting
g
u
i
d
a
n
c
e
It is important to recognize that public disclosure does
not mean there is one homogenous audience with a
uniform set of requirements. Table 13.1 lists distinct
audiences for a product GHG inventory report, and
identi f ies how the reporting requirements can help
address their needs. This is not an inclusive list as other
audiences not identi f ied here may still f ind value in
reports produced following the reporting requirements
in the Product Standard.
13.3.3 Disclaimer
Providing a disclaimer ensures that readers understand the
scope and intended purpose of the inventory results and
are aware of any limitations. (See box 13.1 for an example.)
13.3.4 Use of results
The audience of the public report may be most
interested in what the company is doing, or plans to
do, to reduce the GHG emissions associated with the
product as a result of the inventory. Additionally, the
The results presented in this report are unique to the
assumptions and practices of company X. The results
are not meant as a platform for comparability to other
companies and/or products. Even for similar products,
di f ferences in unit of analysis, use and end-of-life stage
pro f iles, and data quality may produce incomparable
results. The reader may refer to the GHG Protocol
Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting Standard
(www.ghgprotocol.org) for a glossary and additional
insight into the GHG inventory process.
Box [13.1] Example disclaimer
[106] Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting Standard
g u i d a n c e
audience may be interested in what they can do, as a
user or consumer of the product, to reduce their impact
on the inventory. Therefore, a company should inform
its stakeholders of the steps it plans to implement as
well as measures its customers or users can implement,
in order to reduce emissions based on the inventory
results. If this is a subsequent report, a company should
also provide an overview of any reductions achieved.
This should be brief and highlight key initiatives or
results. Examples include:
• A plan to focus reductions around a few key emission
sources;
• Information on how users/consumers can reduce key
emission sources ( e.g., reuse, following manufacturer
use instructions, purchasing green power, etc.); and/or
• A summary of reductions or increases based on a
previous inventory, highlighting the most e f fective
initiatives or the reasons why emissions have increased.
Increases in emissions over the reduction-reporting period
should be reported with a clear indication that the f igure
represents an increase rather than a reduction. A minus
sign should not be used as this may confuse the audience.
A key step in completing the report is to review the
purposes and context of the study and summarize the
overall conclusions that can be drawn from the inventory.
This step involves evaluating key accounting choices
exercised in developing the inventory and providing a
perspective on the signi f icance and limitations in the
product life cycle study. Companies should also clarify
the purposes that the study sought to ful f ill and the
decisions that were outside its purview.
[107]
CHAPTeR 13 Reporting
g
u
i
d
a
n
c
e
13.3.5 Optional reporting
In addition to required elements, a company should
consider reporting on elements that meet the needs
of its potential audience, its speci f ic business goals, or
the requirements of product rules and sector guideline
developed in conformance with the Product Standard.
These elements may be added to the public report or
made available upon request and may include:
• Business goals met by performing a GHG inventory
• Additional background information on inventory
results and how they are calculated
• Additional disclaimers around proper use of results
SKU, NAICS code, UNSPSC code or other unique
product/service identi f ier
• Additional details around why a particular unit of
analysis was chosen
• The country(ies) where the raw material acquisition,
production, and distribution stages occur
• Information on data collected from suppliers,
including:
• Percent engagement from supplier surveys
• Data collection techniques and sources
• Quantitative uncertainty assessments
• Data for other GHGs that may be relevant to the
studied product
• Inventory results using a 20 or 500 year GWP factor
or other impact assessment metrics such as global
temperate potential (GTP)
• If the functional unit and subsequent inventory
results are applicable to multiple product varieties
(e.g., di f ferent f lavors or colors), information on those
varieties
• Indirect land-use change impacts reported separately
from the inventory results
• Additional disaggregation of GHG impacts.
Examples include:
• CO2e emissions reported as a fraction of all GHG
components (i.e., grams of CO2, N2O, CH4, etc.)
• For speci f ic attributable processes or material,
energy and service inputs, such as product
packaging
• The sum of transportation occurring throughout
the life cycle
• Weighting factors for delayed emissions
• Information on o f fsets that have been purchased
or developed outside the inventory boundary and
reported separately from the inventory results. This
information should:
• Disaggregate o f fsets by emissions reductions and/
or removals
• Specify the types of o f fset project/s
• Specify geographical and organizational origin
• Specify how o f fsets have been quanti f ied
• Specify how double counting of o f fsets has
been avoided
• Specify whether they have been certi f ied
or recognized by an external GHG program
(e.g., the Clean Development Mechanism) and
• Specify whether and to what extent purchased
o f fsets were used to meet reduction targets
(if established)
• Information on any reductions sold as o f fsets from
sources within the inventory boundary that are owned
or controlled by the reporting company
• Avoided emissions and/or emissions caused by sources
outside the inventory boundary reported separately
from the inventory results
• Other emissions or removals calculated by
consequential modeling reported separately from
the inventory results
• Additional guidance on how the results should be
interpreted and used
• Detailed reduction plans for future inventories
• A summary and explanation of any increase in
emissions or decrease in removals since the last
inventory, including what plans the company has to
achieve inventory reductions in the future
endnote
1 More information on reporting outputs from a speci f ic inventory
step are included in their respective chapters.
14 Setting Reduction Targets and Tracking Inventory Changes
[109]
g
u
i
d
a
n
c
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
14.1 Introduction
T his standard is designed to help improve the quality and consistency of product inventories and public reporting with the ultimate goal of helping companies and other stakeholders reduce emissions of the products they design, manufacture, sell,
purchase, and use. This step in the inventory process allows companies to set and meet
reduction targets by consistently and accurately tracking inventory changes and identifying
reduction opportunities.
14.2 Requirements
Companies can publicly report a GHG inventory in
conformance with the Product Standard without setting a
reduction target and tracking inventory changes. However,
companies that do set reduction targets and track
inventory changes shall abide by these requirements.
To set reduction targets and track inventory changes over time, companies shall:
• Develop and report a base inventory that
conforms with the requirements of this
standard;
• Recalculate the base inventory when
signi f icant changes in the inventory
methodology occur and report those
changes;
• Complete and disclose an updated
inventory report including the updated
results, the base inventory results, and
the context for signi f icant changes; and
• Use a consistent unit of analysis to enable
comparison and track performance over time.
[110] Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting Standard
g u i d a n c e
14.3 Guidance
14.3.1 Steps for setting reduction targets and
tracking changes
Setting reduction targets and tracking changes involves
the following steps:
1. Complete and report a base inventory done in
conformance with the requirements of this standard.
2. Identify reduction opportunities.
3. Set a reduction target.
4. Achieve reductions and account for these by
performing an updated inventory.
5. Recalculate the base inventory as needed when
signi f icant changes in the inventory occur, including,
but not limited to: changes in the product’s boundary;
quality of data; and allocation or recycling methods.
6. Complete and disclose an updated inventory report
including the updated results and the base inventory
results. Companies should report the inventory results
as a percentage change over time on the unit of
analysis basis.
The following section describes each step in more detail.
Step 1: Complete and report a base inventory
The f irst step is to ensure that a base inventory has been
completed and publically reported in conformance with
this standard. The base inventory does not have to be
the f irst inventory a company performs on a product; for
example, companies may want to improve data quality
before f inalizing the base inventory. Once a company has
identi f ied the base inventory, however, any changes made
that warrant a recalculation should be done following the
guidance in step 5.
[111]
CHAPTeR 14 Setting Reduction Targets and Tracking Inventory Changes
g
u
i
d
a
n
c
e
Step 2: Identify reduction opportunities
Companies can begin identifying potential emissions
reduction opportunities along the product’s life cycle
while creating the base inventory. These opportunities
can then be assessed based on the magnitude of the
reductions and the company’s level of in f luence. In
general, companies have the largest in f luence on
processes they control and therefore, a f irst step may be
to identify energy savings or fuel switching opportunities
within those processes.
In many cases the largest potential for improvement
comes from processes that are under the control of
suppliers and customers along the product’s life cycle.
To address these emissions, companies should identify
suppliers and customers to engage with, based on both
their level of in f luence and reduction potential. For use
and end-of-life processes, the company may determine
that improvements are in f luenced primarily by the design
of a product and less by the behaviors of customers. In
this case, companies should engage their product design
or research and development team.
Step 3: Set a reduction target
A robust business strategy often includes setting
targets for revenues, sales, and other core business
indicators, as well as tracking performance against
those targets. Likewise, although performance tracking
a GHG product inventory over time can be done without
a reduction target, e f fective GHG management involves
setting a GHG target.
Companies should set a reduction target for the total
product’s life cycle to avoid the perception of cherry-
picking. In addition companies may also set individual
targets for stages or processes. A target should include
both a completion date and a target level - the numeric
value of the reduction target per unit of analysis (e.g.,
20 percent reduction). In general, companies should set
an ambitious target that reaches signi f icantly beyond
business-as-usual. “Stretch goals” tend to drive greater
innovation and are seen as most credible by stakeholders.
It is important to note that all reduction targets set for
a product inventory are made on the basis of the unit
of analysis, and the unit of analysis cannot change when
comparing inventories over time. This means that if an
improvement made along the product’s life cycle changes
its unit of analysis, then a new inventory is completed and
the company needs to rede f ine the base inventory and
reduction goal based on the new unit of analysis.
Step 4: Achieve and account for reductions
Companies may achieve reductions in di f ferent ways, such
as working within the company to improve the processing
or design of the product or engaging with customers
and suppliers. For the latter, the f irst step is to set up a
strategy for supplier and customer engagement (See
www.ghgprotocol.org for further guidance). Companies
should work with partners along the product’s life cycle
to identify emissions reduction opportunities. This may
include working with a supplier to help them manage
and reduce their corporate (scope 1, 2, and 3) emissions.
Other opportunities can include working with suppliers
to come up with substitute materials that are less GHG
intensive during production and/or reduce GHG impacts
further upstream (e.g., a lighter car panel that reduces
fuel use in the product use stage).
To account for reductions in emissions, companies
are referred to the data collection requirements of
this standard (chapter 8). Any reductions should be
assessed using collected direct measurement data,
activity data, or emission factors that abide by the
attributional approach of the standard (i.e., historical,
fact-based, and measurable) and have occurred prior
to the updated inventory.
One limitation of a GHG product inventory is that it
focuses on a single environmental impact. Before
making a decision to reduce GHG emissions by
making changes in the product life cycle, companies
should consider whether any environmental trade-
o f fs could occur as a result of that change - for
example, switching from a GHG intensive processing
step to one that uses more water resources.
Box [14.1] Trade-o f fs between environmental impacts
[112] Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting Standard
g u i d a n c e
Step 5: Recalculate the base inventory
Overtime, changes and improvements may occur
to activity data, emission factors1, data quality, and
methodologies. When such parameter or methodological
changes in f luence the results of the base inventory,
the base inventory should be recalculated to ensure
comparability of emissions information over time. These
changes may include rede f ining attributable processes,
collecting higher quality data, or changing allocation or
recycling methodologies. As required above, any changes
made that warrant recalculation of the base inventory are
reported in the updated inventory report.
Before recalculating a base year inventory, companies
should develop a recalculation policy to clearly articulate
the basis and context for any recalculation. Companies are
required as part of reporting (see chapter 13) to disclose
the threshold for insigni f icance above which a change
warrants recalculation. For example, if a new emission
factor is published that when used has a one percent
impact on the inventory results, a company may decide
that is below the threshold and opt not to recalculate
the base inventory. If a threshold for insigni f icance was
already established for justi f ied exclusions (see chapter 7)
then the same threshold should be used here.
If a change is made that causes the unit of analysis to be
rede f ined, the base inventory cannot be recalculated. In
this case, companies need to create a new base inventory
and set a new reduction target.
Step 6: Update the inventory report
Once reductions have occurred, new data has been
collected, and the base inventory has been recalculated
(if needed), the inventory report should be updated to
include results from both the new and base inventories.
The updated inventory report must meet the requirements
of the reporting chapter and include the same reporting
elements as the base inventory. The introduction should
be updated to re f lect the purpose of the update including
the reduction target, and any information that has changed
since the base inventory should be clearly noted. The
number of updated inventory reports for the studied
product should be reported, with a link to previous reports
as available. If the base inventory is recalculated, all changes
are listed. If the base inventory was not recalculated,
companies are required to report the threshold under
which no recalculation was warranted. In either case, both
the base inventory results and the updated results are
included in the updated inventory.
In addition to the base inventory reporting requirements,
companies should report a reduction percentage by
taking the di f ference between the base inventory and the
new inventory divided by the base inventory.
In the case that GHG emissions have actually increased
since the last inventory, companies should report these
results, adding an explanation for their stakeholders as to
why the emissions increased and what plans the company
has to reduce this value in the future.
[113]
CHAPTeR 14 Setting Reduction Targets and Tracking Inventory Changes
g
u
i
d
a
n
c
e
14.3.2 Using o f fsets to achieve reduction targets
Companies should strive to achieve their reduction
targets entirely from emission sources within the
inventory boundary. If the company is unable to meet
the target through those reductions, it can use o f fsets
that are generated from sources external to its inventory
boundary. Any purchased, sold, or banked o f fsets relevant
to the inventory results are subject to the same reporting
requirements as de f ined in chapter 13 and therefore are
reported separately from the inventory results.
Although the inventory results are presented on a unit of
analysis basis, companies that purchase o f fsets for their
products should do so for all products sold in a particular
time frame (e.g., a year). For example, a company
produces a million products a year at 50 kg CO2e per unit
of analysis. To meet a zero-carbon reduction target for
this product, the company needs to purchase 50,000
tons of o f fsets each year. In this case, the company would
report the inventory results per unit of analysis and the
total amount of products that are o f fset over the selected
time frame. Companies should also disclose information
on the credibility of the o f fset, including:
• The type of project
• Geographical and organizational origin
• How o f fsets have been quanti f ied
• How double counting of o f fsets has been avoided
• Whether the o f fsets have been certi f ied or recognized
by external programs
It is important to ensure the o f fsets used to meet a
reduction target are based on credible accounting
standards. In addition, companies should ensure steps to
avoid double counting of reductions by multiple entities
or in multiple targets. For example, if a company sells
o f fsets that occur at sources included in its inventory
boundary, these reductions should not be included in
tracking performance towards a reduction target that is
applicable to the same sources.
For additional guidance on using o f fsets that are based
on credible accounting methodologies and standards
see GHG Protocol Guideline for Project Accounting and
to avoid double counting in achieving targets see the
Corporate Standard (chapter 11, pp 81-83).
endnote
1 If a change in emission factor represents an actual change in
emissions, then the base inventory does not need to be updated.
However, if an emission factor is updated to be more complete or
have less uncertainty, this may warrant a base inventory recalculation.
Appendices
[115]
T he quanti f ication of GHG emissions and removals across a product’s life cycle is complex and the results are highly dependent on methodological choices and assumptions. Valid product comparison requires the use of equivalent methodologies that minimize the
methodological variability. In order to compare products on a fair and valid basis, companies
need to supplement use of the Product Standard.
As stated in chapter 1, this standard is intended to support
performance tracking of one product over time. For
other types of product comparison – including consumer
and business purchasing decisions, product labels, and
performance claims – additional speci f ications are needed.
Claims regarding the overall environmental superiority or
equivalence of one product versus a competing product,
referred to in ISO 14044 as comparative assertions, are
not supported by the Product Standard. Table A.1 provides
descriptions and examples of types of product
comparison, and table A.2 illustrates the applicability of
this standard for each comparison type.
For companies and stakeholders that choose to
perform product comparison, the following additional
speci f ications are recommended.
Performance tracking:
• The unit of analysis should be identical
• If the parameters and methodologies change, the
previous inventory shall be adjusted to permit
comparison on the same basis
Appendix A. Guidance on Product Comparison
Comparison type Description example
Performance tracking Comparing the performance of the same
product over time.
Product X emits 8 lbs. of CO2e per unit
of analysis in 2010 compared with a
2005 base inventory of 10 lbs. CO2e
per unit of analysis, demonstrating a
20-percent improvement.
Consumer and business
purchasing decisions
A consumer or business changes
purchasing habits based on the GHG
performance of one product compared
with a competing product.
A retailer increases milk purchases from
the milk producer with the lowest GHG
product inventory.
Product labels A label printed on a product making a
claim (either quantitative or qualitative)
about the life cycle performance of
the product.
A label on a bag of popcorn states the
product GHG emissions are 7 grams.
Performance claims Advertising the GHG bene f its of a
product by the company performing
the inventory or a third party.
A consumer group advertises on
their website a list of products they
claim emit less GHG emissions than
competing products.
Table [A.1] Types of comparisons that can be made using a product GHG inventory
[116] Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting Standard
See chapter 14 for more information on performance
tracking and setting reduction targets.
Consumer and business purchasing decisions, quantitative
product labeling, and performance claims:
• The unit of analysis should be identical
• The system boundaries and temporal boundary should
be equivalent
• The same allocation methods should be used for
similar processes
• The data types used and the data quality and
uncertainty of data should be reported and assessed to
determine if a fair comparison can be made
• The temporal and geographical representativeness of
the inventories should be assessed to determine if a
fair comparison can be made
• Third party assurance should be performed
ISO labels and declarations:
• Environmental Labels (Type I)1, Self-declared
Environmental Claims (Type II)2, Environmental Product
Declarations (Type III)3, and comparative assertions4
should meet the accounting and communication
requirements of the respective standards
A.1 Role of product rules
Product rules provide additional speci f ications that enable
valid comparisons of two or more products. Product rules
may vary in quality. When developing a new product
rule or evaluating the quality of an existing product rule
before use, criteria to consider include whether:
• The rule is developed by a diverse group of
stakeholders with relevant subject matter expertise
• The rule is peer-reviewed by quali f ied experts
• There are safeguards in place to prevent con f lict
of interest
• The rules apply internationally so they can be adopted
by other programs and policies
• A policy is in place to determine when product rules
are updated
endnotes
1 International Organization for Standardization, ISO 14024:1999,
Environmental labels and declarations -- Type I environmental
labeling -- Principles and procedures. Geneva.
2 International Organization for Standardization, ISO 14021:1999,
Environmental labels and declarations -- Self-declared
environmental claims (Type II environmental labeling). Geneva.
3 International Organization for Standardization, ISO 14025:2006,
Environmental labels and declarations -- Type III environmental
declarations -- Principles and procedures. Geneva.
4 International Organization for Standardization, ISO 14044:2006,
Life Cycle Assessment: Requirements and Guidelines.
Table [A.2] The use of Product Standard for product comparisons
Supported by the Product
Standard “as-is”
Supported by the Product Standard with additional GHG
program speci f ications or product speci f ic guidance
Performance tracking
Consumer and business purchasing decisions
Product labels
Performance claims
[117]
Appendices
T his appendix provides guidance on identifying when land-use change impacts are attributable to the studied product. If they are attributable, guidance is also included for calculating and allocating those impacts.1
For studied products whose life cycle includes biogenic
materials (materials produced by living organisms
or biological processes, not fossilized or from fossil
sources), attributable processes associated with those
materials include emissions and removals associated
with agricultural and forestry practices such as growth,
fertilizer application, cultivation, and harvesting. In
addition to these agricultural and forestry practices,
land-use change impacts may be attributable to a studied
product’s material acquisition and preprocessing stage.
Land-use change impacts2 include the following:
• Biogenic CO2 emissions and removals due to carbon
stock change occurring as a results of land conversion
within or between land-use categories
• Biogenic and non-biogenic CO2, N2O, and CH4
emissions resulting from the preparation of converted
land, such as biomass burning or liming3
This appendix provides guidance for two situations: when
the speci f ic land that the product or product component
originates from is known, and when it is not. The
concepts of assessment period, amortization period, and
distribution of impacts are used across both situations.
It is important to note that while this appendix focuses
on agricultural and forest products, signi f icant land-use
change impacts are not limited to biogenic products.
Any company with a studied product that uses a large
amount of land, such as a new settlement, should
use this guidance to determine whether the land use
changed within the assessment period and whether
that had any impact on the area’s carbon stocks.
As referenced in chapter 7, companies are required to
disclose the method used to calculate land-use change
impacts in the inventory report.
Appendix B. Land-Use Change Impacts
Box [B.1] Key concepts in land-use impacts
Carbon stock refers to the total amount of carbon
stored on a plot of land at any given time in one or
more of the following carbon pools: biomass (above
and below ground), dead organic matter (dead wood
and litter), and soil organic matter.4 A change in carbon
stock can refer to additional carbon storage within
a pool, the removal of CO2 from the atmosphere
to the carbon stock, or the emission of CO2 to the
atmosphere from the carbon stock.
Land-use change occurs when the demand for a
speci f ic land use results in a change in carbon stocks
on that land. A change in carbon stock can occur from
one land-use category to another (e.g., converting
forest to cropland) or within a land-use category (e.g.,
converting a natural forest to a managed forest or
converting agricultural land from till to no-till). Land-
use change does not include changes in crop cover or
crop rotations that occur within the cropland category
or forest harvesting and regeneration into the same
general forest type, for which the regenerated forest
is expected to have comparable carbon stocks to the
harvested forest. Land-use categories include forest
land, cropland, grassland, wetlands, settlements, and
other lands such as bare soil, rock, ice, etc.5
Land-use change impacts are the emissions and
removals due to land-use change.
[118] Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting Standard
B.1 When the speci f ic land is known
B.1.1 Determining attributable land-use impacts
Land-use impacts are attributable to a product if the
following are true:
• The carbon stock change is the direct result of
extraction or production of biogenic material to create
a product
• The carbon stock change was caused by human
intervention with the intent of creating a product
• The carbon stock change occurred within the
assessment period – 20 years or a single harvest period
from the extraction (e.g., harvesting) of a biogenic
product or product component, whichever timeframe
is longer
e x A M P L e S
1. A product is made from an annual crop that was
harvested in 2010. The crop is from a plot of land
where the last known carbon stock change occurred 50
years ago. In this case no land-use change impacts are
attributable to the product.
2. A product is made from wood that is extracted from a
naturally grown forest (extraction and production occur
in the same year). If the extraction of above-ground
biomass causes a change in carbon stock of the land,
the impacts of the land-use change are attributable to
the product.6
3. A product is made from wood that is grown on a
plantation. The wood takes 28 years to grow, and is
harvested in 2010 from a plot of land that was converted
from a natural growth forest in 1982. Because the
length of the harvest cycle is longer than 20 years, the
company must consider any carbon stock changes that
may have occurred up to 28 years ago (from 2010 to
1982). Therefore, the impacts of the land-use change (i.e.,
the original clearing of the natural growth forest) are
attributable to the product.
4. A product is made from a bi-annual crop that was
harvested in 2010. The plot of land used to grow the crop
was converted from forest in 2000 due to a naturally
occurring f ire.7 Because the carbon stock change was
not caused by human intervention with the intent of
creating a product, the land-use change impacts are not
attributable to the product.
B.1.2 Calculating land-use change impacts
When information about the speci f ic land is available,
collecting data for land-use change impacts follows
the same data collection and quality requirements
given in chapter 8 of this standard. For example, if the
reporting company owns the land from which a product is
harvested, primary data are required. Primary data from a
supplier is preferred for land not owned by the reporting
company. These types of data are collected directly from
the production site, with actual areas and the mass or
volume of inputs used.
Even with primary data from the production site, it is
unlikely that primary data is available for the measurement
of carbon stock changes and emissions from soils. In some
cases secondary data is available in peer-reviewed journals;
otherwise, common sources include:
• Sector-speci f ic activity data/emission factors: These
data are usually provided by associations, cooperatives,
and institutes representing a particular sector. It can
include aggregate activity data/emissions from site-
speci f ic sources.
• Country-speci f ic activity data/emission factors:
Information that re f lects country-speci f ic biomes,
agricultural practices, climate conditions, soil types,
vegetation groups, etc. This can be further broken
down into regional data. This type of information can
be found in national greenhouse gas inventories and
other o f f icial government publications, as well as from
country experts.
• Generic activity data/emission factors: These are
default values provided by the IPCC8, FAOSTAT9, etc.
These data refer to broad categories, such as high
activity clay soils and tropical rainforest, and usually
include carbon stock change impacts as well as land-
use change practice emissions within the default
emission factor.
Figure B.1 is a simpli f ied illustration to show how carbon
stock information can be used to calculate land-use
change impacts. In this example, forest land is converted
into cropland, creating a 150-ton release of carbon due
to the change in carbon stock. If several carbon stock
changes occur within the assessment period, then the
overall impact of all changes must be considered. If
[119]
Appendix B. Land-Use Change Impacts
wood is harvested from a forest that is not converted
(forest remaining forest), a carbon stock change can
be calculated based on the change in forest density.
To complete the land-use change impact calculation,
companies need to consider what emissions may have
occurred as a result of the carbon stock or land-use
change unless these are already included in the default
emission factors.
B.1.3 Distribution of land-use change impacts
Once land-use change impacts are deemed attributable
and impacts are identi f ied, a company needs to distribute
those impacts between the studied product and other
co-products that are outputs of the land. This is because,
in most cases, land-use change occurs on land that
produces products over many years, and therefore it is
not appropriate to apply all the land-use change impacts
to the f irst products generated within the area. Using the
example from f igure B.1 above, a company has calculated
a carbon stock change associated with the product (in this
example, a crop) of 150 tons. The next question is how
to distribute those emissions to the products that are
harvested from that land. Figure B.2 illustrates three ways
land-use change impacts can be distributed over time:
A) single year, B) 20 year constant, or C) 20 year decline.
In this standard, land-use change impacts are distributed
using option B: evenly over an amortization period of
either 20 years or the length of one harvest (whichever
is longer). This option was chosen as the most consistent
way to distribute impacts for use in a GHG inventory,
as both option A and option C create an incentive for
companies to delay inventory reporting in an e f fort to
reduce land-use change impacts. It is recognized that
applying any time period to amortize emissions creates
an arbitrary cut o f f after which companies are free to
grow products on the land without a land-use change
burden. However, identifying no time period would create
additional uncertainties and inconsistent inventories.
There are several ways a company may distribute land-use
change impacts using the amortization period depending
on the harvested product:
1. For an annually harvested crop, a company applies
1/20th of the impacts to the products produced from
each yearly harvest
2. For a semi-annual crop or herbaceous plant, a company
may estimate the production of the land over 20 years
and then apply the impacts to each ton of harvested
biomass
3. For biomass with an extended harvest period (greater
than 20 years) or where additional cultivation of the
land is not planned, all of the land-use change impacts
are applied to the harvested products from the f irst
harvest period
Methods 1 and 2 can be used for both annual and semi-
annual crops depending on the preference of
the company.
B.1.4 Forestry and wood products
Some forest products are grown on managed forest
plantations that are harvested over relatively short time
Figure [B.1] Simpli f ied illustration of a carbon stock change calculation
200
150
50tons C total carbon tons C
tons C
forest stock crop stock
20 years (or length of harvest)
stock change
[120] Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting Standard
frames, while others may be extracted from natural
forests that take over 100 years to grow. Some forests
are removed with the intent of producing annual crops,
while others are removed for the stock of wood that
can be extracted at the time of removal. Depending
on the type of product or wood being studied and the
location where that wood is cultivated, vastly di f ferent
harvesting techniques occur which have a signi f icant
e f fect on the amount and distribution of land-use change
impacts. Furthermore, co-product allocation (as de f ined
in chapter 9) may be needed during land-use change if
the converted land also produces biogenic co-products.
If the studied product is a crop but the land-use change
event created a co-product of wood, a company needs
to accurately allocate these emissions. The following
scenarios provide some insight into the correct
distribution and allocation10 of land-use impacts due to
forest and wood products.
Scenario A: A forest is harvested for wood
but the land is not converted into another category
or the future use of the land is unknown.
In this scenario, any stock change that is calculated based on
the density change of the forest is attributable to the products
created from the harvested wood. No distribution is needed
because additional growth is not planned, or is unknown.
Scenario B: A forest is harvested for wood then
converted into another managed land category.
In this scenario, land-use change impacts should be distributed
to all products produced by the land within the amortization
period. Consider an example in which a stock change of
150 tons of carbon is calculated with an initial harvest of
100 tons of wood and an annual harvest of 1 ton of crop for
the remaining 19 years of the amortization period. This means
that 150 tons of carbon are distributed among 119 tons
of products. The additional impacts of land-use change (e.g.,
liming applications) may also need to be distributed. This
scenario is only applicable when the converted land is managed
and the production of that land is known. In this context,
managed refers to land that is continuously maintained for the
purpose of cultivating and harvesting a product. Distribution
is not applicable for forest land that has been harvested and
replanted but is not maintained, or for a plot that is replanted
and managed but with an extensive harvest period (greater
than 50 years). In both cases the uncertainty associated with
the eventual production of the replanted product makes it
most accurate to apply all land-use change impacts to the f irst
harvest of wood.
Scenario C: A forest is converted to another land category
and the wood is not harvested into a co-product.
In this scenario, a company may not allocate any land-use
change impacts to the wood as it was not used to create
a co-product. All land-use change impacts (including the
burning of the wood not recovered) must be distributed to
the product produced on the converted land. If a company
does not have data that justi f ies the use of scenario B (i.e.,
proof that the wood was harvested and used for a product)
then scenario C is used.
Figure [B.2] Distributing GHG impacts over a 20 year time period
time
20 year constant
0.0
100
time
20 year decline
0.0
100
C a
llo
cation (%
)
time
single year
0.0
100
Source: Zaks, D.P.M., C. C. Barford, N. Ramankutty and J. A. Foley, “Producer and consumer responsibility for greenhouse gas emissions from
agricultural production –a perspective from the Brazilian Amazon.”Environmental Research Letters. 4 (2009).
Option A
GHG Dist
ribution (%
) Option B Option C
[121]
B.2 When the speci f ic land use is unknown
When a company has limited information on the speci f ic
land from which the product or product components
are extracted or harvested, it can be di f f icult to
determine how to attribute or distribute impacts.
This situation occurs when a company buys crops or
biomass from a supplier who receives indistinguishable
shipments from a wide range of land-based sources.
Under such circumstances, primary data are not
available and secondary data are used to calculate stock
changes and determine how much land-use change
impacts should be distributed to a product.
The f irst step in estimating land-use changes impacts
is to determine in what location the crops or biomass
were likely grown. If the crop or biomass is grown only
in certain locations due to climates and soil types, those
locations should be used. If the crop or biomass is grown
in many locations, a company may choose the largest
producing location or the most likely location (e.g., due
to proximity to the production facility). Companies are
encouraged to perform scenario uncertainty if more than
one location is plausible. Companies may also take an
average of locations if data are available to support that
calculation (e.g., all locations have carbon stock change
data available). Once the location has been determined,
companies may use the following data to estimate the
carbon stock and land-use change impacts:
• Land-use imaging and/or agricultural demand-
based models
• Average data, including:
• International statistics
• Country- or region-speci f ic statistical databases
• Statistical yearbooks
Land-use imaging and/or agricultural demand-based
models include using remote sensing11 or GIS data to
estimate land-use change in a particular location or
market-based models12 to estimate land-use change
based on the market trends of a crop or wood product.
For example, if the studied product is a crop assumed to
be produced in New Zealand, and satellite imagery shows
that land use for that crop has remained constant in New
Zealand for the past 20 years, then the company can
assume that no land-use change impacts are attributable
to their product. While these methods may be the most
accurate, they are often complex, time consuming, and
not freely available. Additionally, they may not provide an
accurate representation for some countries. If a company
has access to these tools they are encouraged to use
them to determine land-use change impacts as long as
the modeled results are justi f ied and transparent.
When a company does not have access to models or
imaging data, it may use average statistics to estimate
land-use change impacts. For example, companies may
use the agricultural or forestry statistic for the assumed
location to determine the change in land occupation
for the studied product versus the total land change
in that location. The following example shows the
steps companies can follow to use agricultural data
to determine whether land-use change has occurred.
The same technique may be used for managed wood
products using forestry data. If the crop or biomass that
is being studied is shown to occupy less land over the
20-year assessment period, the company can assume that
no land-use change has taken place. If the amount of
land occupied by the crop or biomass being studied has
increased, then land-use change impacts are attributable.
In this case the company needs to assume what the
original land category was. This should be based on the
type of land present in the assumed location and when
more than one land type is possible the conservative
choice should be made.
It is important to note that any assumptions made
about land-use change impacts are only estimations
and subject to much uncertainty. Because these
estimation techniques cannot identify when the land-
use change occurs, companies should always assume
1/20th of the land-use change impact, as shown in
the following examples. Companies may also choose
not to make any assumptions about land-use change
and only use the worst case scenario (e.g., all land is
converted from the most carbon rich land category).
Information on the methods used to determine
land-use change impacts should be included in the
inventory report for transparency.
Appendix B. Land-Use Change Impacts
[122] Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting Standard
Box [B.2] Estimating land-use change impacts without speci f ic data
Source: FAO, FAOSTAT. Available from http://faostat.fao.org/site/567/DesktopDefault.aspx?PageID=567#ancor, 2011.
Table [B.1] Area harvested for crops grown in Malaysia in 2008 that contribute more than 1 percent
individually to total harvested hectares (ha).
In this example, the following steps were taken to
determine whether land-use change impacts are
attributable to palm oil and rice, and, if so, to produce
the land-use impact estimate. The Food and Agriculture
Organization’s (FAO) statistical database is used to make
the estimations, and both products are assumed to come
from Malaysia. (See FAO website for more information:
http://faostat.fao.org/site/567/default.aspx#ancor.)
1. Determine the most-planted crops
in the assumed location
The f irst step is to determine the country pro f ile for
the most-planted crops. Because many agricultural
products are harvested in Malaysia, only crops that on
their own contribute more than 1 percent of the countries’
harvested area are considered. If the studied crop is not
within the top 1 percent of area harvested in the location,
this is an indication that the assumed location is not
appropriate. Companies should assume a location where
a large amount, if not the largest amount, of the studied
product is harvested from each year. Table B.1 shows
these statistics, where the crops not shown (because they
are less than 1 percent individually) contribute 4 percent
to the total acreage.
2. Collect historical land-use data
for the studied product.
The second step is to collect historical land-use data for
the studied products to determine whether their land
use has increased or decreased over the assessment
period (20 years in this example). Because statistical
land-use data are often published a few years behind
schedule (e.g., 2008 data published in 2010), companies
can use the data as long as the unknown period does not
exceed three years. If the unknown period does exceed
three years, companies should either supplement the
data with more recent statistics or consider another
method to estimate land-use change impacts.
In f igure B.3, the total change in the area harvested
for rice paddy over the 20-year period remains fairly
steady (e.g., does not exceed a 1-percent increase). It
can be assumed that land-use change did not occur in
Crop Area harvested 2008 [ha] Percent total area harvested
Cassava 41000 1%
Coconuts 174000 3%
Co f fee, green 50000 1%
Natural rubber 1247000 19%
Oil palm fruit 3900000 60%
Oilseeds 150000 2%
Rice, paddy 667656 10%
Total 6478175 100%
[123]
Box [B.2] Estimating land-use change impacts without speci f ic data (continued)
Figure [B.3] Area harvested (1000 ha) for rice
paddy production in Malaysia for the
period from 1988-2008
Source: FAO, FAOSTAT. Available from http://faostat.fao.org/site/567/
DesktopDefault.aspx?PageID=567#ancor, 2011.
Figure [B.4] Area harvested (1000 ha) for oil palm
fruit production in Malaysia for the
period from 1988-2008
Source: FAO, FAOSTAT. Available from http://faostat.fao.org/site/567/
DesktopDefault.aspx?PageID=567#ancor, 2011.
Malaysia due to rice production over the assessment
period. Assuming the GHG inventory is being assessed
in 2010 companies should also consider whether
any recent changes in land use in Malaysia may have
caused an increase in rice production over the past
two years not shown in the data. If there is no reason
to believe this is the case, the company can assume
that no land-use change impacts are attributable to
the studied product rice.
Taking the same approach for palm oil, it is obvious from
f igure B.4 that there has been an increase in land used for
palm production over the assessment period.
At this point a company can either assume that all the land
is converted from a di f ferent land category (e.g., forest,
grassland) to palm (see step 4), or they can estimate
what percentage of land is converted within the cropland
category and therefore not subject to land-use change.
3. Determine what percentage of land-use change is
due to converted cropland
Looking at the major crops dynamics in Malaysia over the
past 20 years, table B.2 shows a decrease in harvested
area for some crops and an increase in harvested area for
palm oil. This indicates that the total growth of harvested
area in the country is driven by increases in palm oil
production.
As table B.2 suggests, around 27 percent of the overall
land-use growth could potentially come from the
conversion of other cropland where area is decreasing.
Therefore the company may assume that 72 percent
of the palm oil produced in Malaysia comes from
areas converted from a di f ferent land category. This
assumption should not be made if the total area of
cropland is decreasing, or if the country has speci f ic
e f forts in place to convert degraded cropland to pasture
land or another type of land category. In these cases, the
decrease in other cropland may be due to those e f forts
and conversion to the studied product.
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
19
90
19
95
20
00
20
05
year
710
700
690
680
670
660
650
640
630
620
610
19
90
19
95
20
00
20
05
ar
ea
h
ar
ve
st
ed
(1
00
0
ha
)
ar
ea
h
ar
ve
st
ed
(1
00
0
ha
)
year
Appendix B. Land-Use Change Impacts
[124] Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting Standard
Table [B.2] Top crops and the di f ference in areas harvested (ha) from 1988 to 2010 in Malaysia
Source: FAO, FAOSTAT. Available from http://faostat.fao.org/site/567/DesktopDefault.aspx?PageID=567#ancor, 2011.
Product Area harvested
1988 [ha]
Area harvested
2008 [ha]
Di f ference [ha]
Coconuts 327,812 174,000 -153,812
Natural rubber 1,660,000 1,247,000 -413,000
Oil palm fruit 1,530,905 3,900,000 2,369,095
Rice, paddy 671,755 667,656 -4,099
Others in sum 566,686 489,519 -77,167
Total growth 2,369,095
Total decrease 648,078
% growth that can be
covered by crop to
crop conversion
27.4
4. Determine type of land converted
Malaysia has a tropical climate, and according to statistics
the majority of land is forest (66 percent) or cropland
(31 percent).13 Therefore, it should be assumed that
the land-use change occurred from tropical forest to
cropland to meet the increased demand for palm oil fruit.
Companies can use the IPCC default values to determine
what the carbon stock change associated with this land-
use change would be. The company also needs to assume
what the land-use change practices would typically be
when forest land is converted to cropland in Malaysia –
for example, whether the forest biomass is burned during
conversion and what fertilizers are applied to prepare the
land for crop production.
In some cases identifying the type of land converted may
not be as straightforward. In such cases, companies
should perform a scenario uncertainty analysis to show
the impact of di f ferent assumptions. For example, if a
crop is being produced in a country with tropical forest
land and grassland that could be converted, companies
should assume the tropical forest is being converted and
use grassland conversion for an uncertainty calculation.
5. Distribute land-use change impacts
Unless the default data collected in step 4 is on an annual
basis, the company needs to distribute the land-use
change impacts across the amortization period for the
product. Assuming palm oil is harvested on an annual
basis, 1/20th of the land-use change impacts are applied
to a yearly harvest of palm oil. This value is further
normalized to the reference f low basis for inclusion in the
inventory results.
Box [B.2] Estimating land-use change impacts without speci f ic data (continued)
[125]
Appendix B. Land-Use Change Impacts
B.2.1 Estimating signi f icance
for land-use change impacts
When speci f ic land data are not available, companies may
also chose to estimate the potential signi f icance of land-
use impacts on their products to determine if a justi f iable
exclusion is appropriate. For example, a product that uses
a bio-based polymer as an input could estimate the impact
of land-use change assuming the worst case scenario (e.g.,
all comes from land that was converted from natural forest)
and determine whether this is insigni f icant, applying the
same rules as described in chapter 7. If land-use impacts are
deemed signi f icant using this estimation, the company can
either include the worst case values in the report or go back
and try to estimate the potential impact using statistical
data. If land-use impacts are insigni f icant, then this should
be included as a justi f iable exclusion in the inventory report.
B.3 Soil carbon
When land-use change occurs, some of the carbon stock
change that results is due to changes in the carbon stock of
the soil. For example, converting natural land to cultivated
land reduces the amount of carbon the soil can store. The
IPCC factors for calculating carbon stock changes due to
land-use change include estimates of soil carbon change.
However, soil carbon loss can continue even after land-use
change as a result of land-use practices such as harvesting
and fertilizer application. On the other hand, switching land-
use practices can improve the carbon stock of soil, resulting
in CO2 removal. Companies may include soil carbon change
as a result of land-use practices in their inventory results
if they are able to reasonably estimate the emissions or
removals. Companies should report whether the soil carbon
change is included in the inventory results.
endnotes
1 The guidance presented here is based on methodologies and
guidelines given in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National GHG
Inventories, Volume 4: Agriculture, Forestry, and Other Land
Use. A company is encouraged to look to the most recent
IPCC guidelines to ensure accurate and up-to-date accounting
of land use and land-use change emissions. However, it is
important to note that while the IPCC guidelines have useful and
comprehensive information, their focus is on national inventories
and therefore some details are not applicable.
2 It is recognized that a change in carbon stock can result in either a
removal or emission of carbon from or to the atmosphere. However,
because this standard accounts for the GHG inventory of a product,
it is more likely that the use of biomass (and not the planting or
re-growth of biomass) will results in GHG emissions than removals.
Growing biomass to create a GHG credit is not attributable to a
product following this standard methodology. However in some
cases, such as a carbon stock change from till to no-till crop rotation)
or use of degraded lands, a company may see a net positive land-use
change impact (e.g., more removal than emissions).
3 This refers only to biomass burning, liming, and other practices
used to prepare converted land. Biomass burning and fertilizer
application due to agricultural and forestry practices are also
included in the inventory as attributable processes, separate from
land-use change impacts.
4 IPCC, 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories, vol.4, Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use,
eds. H.S. Eggleston, L. Buendia, K. Miwa, T. Ngara and K. Tanabe
(Hayama, Japan: IGES,2006).
5 IPCC, 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories, vol.4, Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use,
eds. H.S. Eggleston, L. Buendia, K. Miwa, T. Ngara and K. Tanabe
(Hayama, Japan: IGES,2006).
6 The 2006 IPCC guidelines give values for forest land above and
below a certain density of biomass. If the removal of biomass does
not cause a change in carbon stock value, then land-use change
impacts may be calculated as zero.
7 It is important to note that nearly all fires in tropical forests are man-made.
8 IPCC, 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National GHG Inventories, vol. 4:
Agriculture, Forestry, and Other Land Use.
9 FAO, FAOSTAT. Available from http://faostat.fao.org, 2011.
10 Distribution is used in reference to land-use change impacts to
refer to the apportionment of impacts over the amortization
period. Allocation is de f ined in chapter 9 as portioning inputs and
outputs of a common process to its product and co-products.
Both can occur when calculating land-use change impacts.
11 Remote sensing is when current multispectral sensors provide
spectral data for identifying and mapping the crop types allowing
for precise monitoring of land-use changes. Current drawbacks of
this method are the relatively recent systematic data collection
(no regular multispectral coverage for 20 years ago timeframe),
and the costs of images and processing.
12 Some examples of market-based models for the agriculture
and forestry sector include the Food and Agricultural Policy
Research Institute (FAPRI) and the Forest and Agricultural Sector
Optimization Model (FASOM).
13 World Resources Institute, EarthTrends: Environmental
Information. Available from http://earthtrends.wri.org.
Washington DC: World Resources Institute.2007.
[126] Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting Standard
A data management plan documents the product inventory process and the internal quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) procedures in place to enable the preparation of the inventory from its inception through to f inal
reporting. It is a valuable tool to manage data and track progress of a product inventory
over time, and can also be useful as an assurance readiness measure since it contains
much of the data needed to perform assurance.
This appendix provides guidance to help companies
create and maintain an e f fective data management plan.
Companies may already have similar procedures in place
for other data collection e f forts, such as meeting ISO
standards or corporate GHG accounting requirements.
Where possible, these processes should be aligned to
reduce data management burdens.
C.1 Overview of the data
management plan
The quality control portion of the data management
plan outlines a system of routine technical activities
to determine and control the quality of the product
inventory data and the data management processes.
The purpose is to ensure that the product inventory
does not contain incorrect statements by identifying
and reducing errors and omissions; providing routine
checks to maximize consistency in the accounting
process; and facilitating internal and external inventory
review and assurance.
The quality assurance portion of the data management
plan involves peer review and audits to assess the quality
of the inventory. Table C.2 includes recommended quality
assurance and control procedures. Peer review involves
reviewing the documentation of the product accounting
methodology and results, but typically does not rigorously
review the data used or the references. This review aims
to reduce or eliminate any inherent error or bias in the
process used to develop the inventory and assess the
e f fectiveness of the internal quality control procedures.
The review evaluates whether the inventory complies
with the quality control speci f ications outlined in the data
management plan. Peer reviews and audits should be
conducted by someone not involved in the development
of the product inventory to reduce bias. Establishing data
management plans is helpful in the product inventory
assurance process and they should be made available to
assurance providers (whether internal or external).
At a minimum the data management plans should contain
the following items:
• Description of the studied product, unit of analysis,
and reference f low
• Information on the entity(ies) or person(s) responsible
for measurement and data collection procedures
• All information that describes the product’s inventory
boundary
• Criteria used to determine when a product inventory is
re-evaluated
• Data collection procedures
• Data sources, including activity data, emission factors
and other data, and the results of any data quality
assessment performed
• Calculation methodologies, including unit conversions
and data aggregation
• Length of time the data should be archived
• Data transmission, storage, and backup procedures
• All QA/QC procedures for data collection, input and
handling activities, data documentation, and emissions
calculations
Appendix C. Data Management Plan
[127]
The process of setting up a data management system
should involve establishing standard procedures to
address all of the data management activities, including
the quality control and quality assurance aspects of
developing a product inventory.
C.2 Creating a data management plan
To develop a data management plan, the following steps
should be undertaken and documented.
1. Establish a product accounting quality person/
team. This person/team should be responsible for
implementing and maintaining the data management
plan, continually improving the quality of product
inventories, and coordinating internal data exchanges
and any external interactions (such as with relevant
product accounting programs and assurance
providers). The person/team may be responsible for all
product inventories undertaken by a company or for
an individual product inventory.
2. Develop a data management plan. For publicly-
disclosed product inventories, the plan should cover
the components outlined in the section above (also
see table C.1) Documenting this information should
assist with completing repeat product inventories and
assessing and improving the quality of the current
product inventory.
Development of the data management plan
should begin before any data is collected to ensure
all relevant information about the inventory is
documented as it proceeds. The plan should evolve
over time as data collection and processes are re f ined.
3. Perform generic data quality checks based on
the data management plan. Generic checks
should be applied to all aspects of the inventory
process, focusing on data quality, data handling,
documentation, and calculation procedures.
4. Perform speci f ic data quality checks. Speci f ic checks
are more in-depth than generic and should be made
for those sources, processes, and/or activities that
are major contributors to the product inventory and/
or have high levels of uncertainty (see chapter 10 on
assessing uncertainty).
5. Review f inal product inventory and reports. Review
procedures should be established that match the
purpose of the inventory and the type of assurance
performed. Internal reviews should be undertaken
in preparation for the assurance process by the
appropriate department within a company, such as
an internal audit or accounting department.
6. Establish formal feedback loops to improve data
collection, handling, and documentation processes.
Feedback loops are needed to improve the quality
of the product inventory over time and to correct any
errors or inconsistencies identi f ied in the review process.
7. Establish reporting, documentation, and archiving
procedures. Establish record-keeping processes for
what and how data should be stored over time, what
information should be reported as part of internal
and external inventory reports, and what should be
documented to support data collection and calculation
methodologies. The process may also involve aligning
or developing relevant database systems for record
keeping. Systems may take time to develop, and it is
important to ensure that all relevant information is
collected prior to the establishment of the system and
then transferred to the system once it is operational.
The data management plan is likely to be an evolving
document that is updated as data sources change,
data handling procedures are re f ined, calculation
methodologies improve, product inventory
responsibilities change within a company, or the business
objectives of the product inventory change.
Table C.1 outlines which components should be included
in a data management plan and can be used as a guide for
creating a plan or for pulling together existing documents
to constitute the plan.
Appendix C. Data Management Plan
[128] Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting Standard
Table [C.1] Data management plan checklist
Component Information Rationale
Responsibilities Name and contact details of persons
responsible for:
• Management of product inventory
• Data collection for each process
• Internal review or audit procedures
• Assurance procedures
This ensures institutional knowledge
is maintained and allows relevant
person(s) to be identi f ied as
accountable for:
• Con f irming and checking
information during any internal or
external audit procedures
• Producing consistent future
product inventory
Product description • Description of the product and
functional unit
To provide internal auditors, assurance
providers, and those doing future
product inventories, with information
on the product/functional unit
Inventory boundary • Inventory boundary description (e.g.,
cradle-to-grave or cradle-to-gate)
• How the boundary was derived
• Attributable processes included in the
inventory
• Attributable processes excluded from
the inventory (including rationale for
exclusion)
• Information on how the product
use and end-of-life pro f ile was
determined
To provide internal auditors, assurance
providers, and those doing future
product inventories with su f f icient
information to understand and
replicate boundary decisions
Allocation • Allocation methodologies used and
where they were used
To provide internal auditors, assurance
providers, and those doing future
product inventories with su f f icient
information to understand and
replicate allocation decisions
• Data collection procedures, including
data sources for each process
Records all data sources and allows
others to locate data sources (for audit
or future product inventories). Also
provides information on what suppliers
have been approached for data
• How data quality assessment and
uncertainty assessment were
undertaken
Enables data quality to be tracked over
time and improved
Data summary
[129]
Table [C.1] Data management plan checklist (continued)
Component Information Rationale
• Data sources where better quality
data is preferable and plan for how to
improve that data
Identi f ies where data sources should
be improved over time (e.g., needed
emissions for laptop computer but
could only obtain desktop computer
information), including those suppliers
who were asked to provide data and
those that were not
• Criteria used to determine when
an inventory is to be re-evaluated,
including the relevant information,
changes to the system to be tracked
over time, and how these changes
should be tracked
This allows data and information
sources to be tracked and compared
over time. It may also involve
identifying a system (e.g., document
tracking and identi f ication system) to
ensure data and information is easily
located and under what conditions
this information/data was used
or collected
• Calculation methodologies used
(and references). This includes
documenting where the calculation
methodology for any data used was
not available.
Provides internal auditors, assurance
providers, and those doing future
product inventories with details on
how emissions were calculated
Inventory results
calculations
• Calculation methodologies and
changes in methodologies over time
Noting methodological changes allows
for easier baseline recalculation when
tracking inventory improvements
• GWP values used Allows for consistency over time
Performance tracking • When tracking performance, details
of the base inventory adjustment
policy
Prescribes clearly a trigger for
adjusting a base inventory enabling
tracking of performance over time
Data storage
procedures
• How and where data is stored Allows information to be easily located
• Length of time data is to be archived Keeps a record of how long
information is stored to prevent
looking for information that is no
longer kept
• Backup procedures Ensures backup procedures are
implemented
QA/QC procedures • QA/QC procedures used
(see table C.2 for detailed guidance)
Ensures that adequate processes are
in place to check data collection, input
and handling, data documentation, and
emissions calculations
Data summary
(continued)
Appendix C. Data Management Plan
[130] Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting Standard
Table [C.2] Recommended quality assurance/quality control procedures
Activity Procedure
Data collection, input,
and handling activities
• Transcription errors
in data collection
• Check a sample of input data in each process for transcription errors
• Uncertainty
estimates
• Check that the calculated uncertainties are complete and calculated correctly
Data documentation
• Transcription errors
in references
and storage of all
references used
• Con f irm that bibliographical data in references are properly cited.
• Ensure that all relevant references are archived
• Storing information
on inventory
methodology, data,
and data quality
• Check that inventory boundary, base inventory (if relevant), GHGs included,
allocation methodology uses, data sources, and any relevant assumptions are
documented and archived
• Check that all data quality indicators are described, documented, and archived for
each process
• Check for consistency in emissions sources and data sources to similar product
inventories
• Recording parameter
and unit information
• Check that all units are appropriately labeled in calculation sheets
• Check that all units are correctly transferred through all calculations and
aggregation of emissions in all processes
• Check that conversion factors are correct
• Check any temporal or spatial adjustment factors are appropriate and correctly used
• Recording calculation
methodologies
• Check that all calculation methodologies are documented
• Check that any changes to calculation methodologies are documented
• Database/calculation
sheet integrity
• Ensure all f ields and their units are labeled in database/calculation sheet
• Ensure the database/calculation sheet is documented and the structure and
operating details of the database/calculations sheets are archived
• Review of internal
documentation and
archiving
• Check there is su f f icient internal documentation to support the estimates and
enable the reproduction of the emissions and data quality assessment, and
uncertainty estimations
• Check that all data, supporting data and records are archived and stored to
facilitate a detailed review
• Check that the archive is securely stored
[131]
Table [C.2] Recommended quality assurance/quality control procedures (continued)
Activity Procedure
Calculating emissions
and checking calculations
• Aggregation
of emissions
• Emissions trends • Where possible, compare emissions from each process (or total product emissions)
to previous estimates. If signi f icant departures, check data inputs, assumptions and
calculation methodologies
• Where possible, compare material and energy purchases for each process (or in
total) against generic industry averages
Calculation
methodologies
• Reproduce a sample set of emissions and removals calculations to cross-check the
application of calculation methodologies
• Where possible, cross-check calculation methodologies used against more or less
complex methodologies to ensure similar results are achieved
Appendix C. Data Management Plan
• Ensure that the aggregation of emissions from all processes is correct
[132] Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting Standard
Abbreviations
BSI British Standards Institution
CH4 Methane
CO2 Carbon Dioxide
CO2e Carbon Dioxide Equivalent
DEFRA UK Department of Environment Food and
Rural A f fairs
EEIO Environmentally Extended Input-Output
EPD Environmental Product Declaration
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization
GHG Greenhouse Gas
GIS Geographic Information System
GTP Global Temperate Potential
GWP Global Warming Potential
HFCs Hydro f luorocarbons
ILCD International Reference Life Cycle Data
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
ISO International Organization for Standardization
kg Kilogram
LCA Life Cycle Assessment
LCI Life Cycle Inventory
MW Megawatt
NAICS North American Industry Classi f ication System
NGO Non-Governmental Organization
N2O Nitrous Oxide
O&M Operation and Maintenance
PAS 2050 Publicly Available Speci f ication 2050
PCR Product Category Rule
PET Polyethylene Terephthalate
PFCs Per f luorocarbons
QA/QC Quality Assurance/Quality Control
R&D Research and Development
SETAC Society of Environmental Toxicology and
Chemistry
SF6 Sulfur Hexa f luoride
SKU Stock-Keeping Unit
UNEP United Nations Environment Programme
UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change
UNSPSC United Nations Standard Products and
Services Code
WBCSD World Business Council for Sustainable
Development
WRI World Resources Institute
[133]
Glossary
Allocation The partitioning of emissions and removals from a common process between the studied
product’s life cycle and the life cycle of the co-product(s).1
Assurance The level of con f idence that the inventory results and report are complete, accurate,
consistent, transparent, relevant, and without material misstatements.
Assurer A competent individual or body who conducts the assurance process, whether internally
within the company or externally.
Attributable processes Service, material, and energy f lows that become the product, make the product, and
carry the product through its life cycle.
Attributional approach An approach to LCA where GHG emissions and removals are attributed to the unit of analysis
of the studied product by linking together attributable processes along its life cycle.2
Audit trail Well organized and transparent historical records documenting how the GHG inventory
was compiled.
Biogenic Produced by living organisms or biological processes, but not fossilized or from
fossil sources.3
Carbon stock The total amount of carbon stored on a plot of land at any given time in one or more of
the following carbon pools: biomass (above and below ground), dead organic matter
(dead wood and litter), and soil organic matter.4 A change in carbon stock can refer to
additional carbon storage within a pool, the removal of CO2 from the atmosphere, or the
emission of CO2 to the atmosphere.
Common process One process that has multiple valuable products as inputs and/or outputs including the
studied product and co-product(s).
Comparative assertion An environmental claim regarding the superiority or equivalence of one product versus a
competing product that performs the same function.5
Consequential approach An approach to LCA where processes are included in the life cycle boundary to the extent
that they are expected to change as a consequence of a change in demand for the unit
of analysis.6
Consumer An individual that purchases and uses a product.
Co-product A product exiting the common process that has value as an input into another product’s
life cycle.
[134] Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting Standard
Cradle-to-gate inventory A partial life cycle of an intermediate product, from material acquisition through to
when the product leaves the reporting company’s gate (e.g., immediately following the
product’s production).
Cradle-to-grave inventory Removals and emissions of a studied product from material acquisition through to
end-of-life.
Customer An entity that purchases, rents, or uses the products of another entity (i.e., a supplier).
Direct emissions data Emissions released from a process (or removals absorbed from the atmosphere)
determined through direct monitoring, stoichiometry, mass balances, or similar methods.
Downstream GHG emissions or removals associated with processes that occur in the life cycle of a
product subsequent to the processes owned or controlled by the reporting company.7
Emissions factor GHG emissions per unit of activity data.
End-of-life stage A life cycle stage that begins when the used product is discarded by the consumer and
ends when the product is returned to nature (e.g., incinerated) or allocated to another
product’s life cycle.
Environmentally extended Emission factors developed through the analysis of economic f lows and used to estimate
input-output (EEIO) GHG emissions for a given industry or product category.8
Extrapolated data Data speci f ic to another process or product that has been adapted or customized to
resemble more closely the conditions of the given process in the studied product’s life cycle.
Final product Goods and services that are ultimately consumed by the end user rather than used in the
production of another good or service.
Financial activity data Monetary measures of a process that result in GHG emissions or removals.
First party (self or Assurance performed by a person(s) from within the reporting company but independent
internal) assurance of the GHG inventory determination process.
Function The service provided by the studied product.
Functional unit The quanti f ied performance of the studied product.9
Gate-to-gate The emissions and removals attributable to a studied product while it is under the
ownership or control of the reporting company.
GHG impact The results calculated when GHG emissions and removals are multiplied by the relevant
global warming potential (GWP).
[135]
Glossary
Global warming potential A factor used to calculate the cumulative radiative forcing impact of multiple speci f ic
(GWP) GHGs in a comparable way.10
Indirect land-use change When the demand for a speci f ic land use induces a carbon stock change on other lands.
Insigni f icance threshold The threshold below which a process, input, or output can be considered insigni f icant to
the studied product’s life cycle inventory.
Intermediate products Goods that are used as inputs to the production of other goods or services.
Inventory report The full reporting requirements, plus any optional information, reported publicly in
conformance with the Product Standard.
Inventory results The GHG impact of the studied product per unit of analysis.
Land use categories Forest land, cropland, grassland, wetlands, settlements and other lands.11
Land-use change Occurs when the demand for a speci f ic land use results in a change in carbon stocks
on that land, due to either a conversion from one land-use category to another or a
conversion within a land-use category.
Land-use change impacts Emissions and removals due to land-use change.
Level of assurance The degree of con f idence stakeholders can have over the information in the
inventory report.
Life cycle Consecutive and interlinked stages of a product system, from raw material acquisition or
generation of natural resources to end-of-life.
Life cycle assessment Compilation and evaluation of inputs, outputs and potential environmental impacts of a
product system throughout its lifecycle.12
Life cycle stage A useful categorization of the interconnected steps in a product’s life cycle for the
purposes of organizing processes, data collection, and inventory results.
Material acquisition and A life cycle stage that begins when resources are extracted from nature and ends when
pre-processing stage the product components enter the gate of the studied product’s production facility.
Material misstatement Individual or aggregate errors, omissions, and misrepresentations that signi f icantly
impact the GHG inventory results and could in f luence a user’s decisions.
Non-attributable processes Processes and services, materials and energy f lows are not directly connected to the
studied product because they do not become the product, make the product, or directly
carry the product through its life cycle.
[136] Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting Standard
Primary data Data from speci f ic processes in the studied product’s life cycle.
Process activity data Physical measures of a process that result in GHG emissions or removals.
Product Any good or service.
Product category Group of products that can ful f ill equivalent functions.13
Product distribution A life cycle stage that begins when the f inished studied product leaves the gate of the
and storage stage production facility and ends when the consumer takes possession of the product.
Product GHG inventory Compilation and evaluation of the inputs, outputs, and the potential GHG impacts of
a product system throughout its life cycle.
Product rule A document containing additional speci f ications needed to enable comparisons or
declarations about a product or product category.
Production stage A life cycle stage that begins when the product components enter the production
site for the studied product and ends when the f inished studied product leaves the
production gate.
Proxy data Data from a similar activity that is used as a stand-in for the given activity. Proxy data can
be extrapolated, scaled up, or customized to represent the given activity.
Recycling processes Processes that occur as a result of a product or material being reused or recycled as a
material input into another product’s life cycle.
Reference f low The amount of studied product needed to ful f ill the function de f ined in the unit of analysis.14
Removal The sequestration or absorption of GHG emissions from the atmosphere, which most
typically occurs when CO2 is absorbed by biogenic materials during photosynthesis.
Reporting company The company performing the product GHG inventory in conformance with the
Product Standard.
Same inherent properties When a recycled material has maintained its properties (e.g., chemical, physical) such that
(recycling) it can be used as a direct replacement of virgin material.
Scope 3 inventory A reporting organization’s indirect emissions other than those covered in scope 2.
A company’s scope 3 inventory includes the upstream and downstream emissions of the
reporting company.
Secondary data Process data that are not from speci f ic processes in the studied product’s life cycle.
Sector guidance A document or tool that provides guidance for performing a product GHG inventory
within a given sector.
Glossary
[137]
Service life The amount of time needed for a product to ful f ill the function de f ined in the unit of
analysis.
Studied product The product for which the GHG inventory is performed.
Third party (external) Assurance performed by a person(s) from an organization independent of the product
assurance GHG inventory determination process.
Time period The period of time when attributable processes occur during the studied product’s life
cycle, from when materials are extracted from nature until they are returned to nature at
the end-of-life (e.g., incinerated) or leave the studied product’s life cycle (e.g., recycled).
Qualitative uncertainty A general and imprecise term which refers to the lack of certainty in data and
methodology choices, such as the application of non-representative factors or methods,
incomplete data on sources and sinks, lack of transparency, etc.
Quantitative uncertainty Measurement that characterizes the dispersion of values that could reasonably be
attributed to a parameter (adapted from ISO 1995).15
Unit of analysis The basis on which the inventory results are calculated; the unit of analysis is de f ined as
the functional unit for f inal products and the reference f low for intermediate products.
Upstream GHG emissions or removals associated with processes that occur in the life cycle of a
product prior to the processes owned or controlled by the reporting company.16
Use stage A life cycle stage that begins when the consumer takes possession of the product and
ends when the used product is discarded for transport to a waste treatment location or
recycled into another product’s life cycle.
Waste An output of a process that has no market value.
[138] Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting Standard
endnotes
1 Adapted from ISO 14044:2006.
2 Adapted from UNEP and SETAC, Global Guidance Principles for Life Cycle Assessment Databases. 2011.
3 Adapted from British Standards Institution et al. PAS 2050:2008: Speci f ication for the assessment of life
cycle greenhouse gas emissions of goods and services.
4 IPCC, 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National GHG Inventories, Volume 4: Agriculture, Forestry, and Other
Land Use.
5 International Organization of Standardization, ISO 14044:2006, Life Cycle Assessment: Requirements
and Guidelines.
6 Adapted from UNEP and SETAC, Global Guidance Principles for Life Cycle Assessment Databases. 2011.
7 Adapted from British Standards Institution et al. PAS 2050:2008: Speci f ication for the assessment of life
cycle greenhouse gas emissions of goods and services.
8 Adapted from British Standards Institution et al. PAS 2050:2008: Speci f ication for the assessment of life
cycle greenhouse gas emissions of goods and services.
9 Adapted from ISO 14044:2006.
10 Adapted from IPCC, IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, 2007.
11 IPCC, 2006, Guidelines for National GHG Inventories, Volume 4: Agriculture, Forestry, and Other Land Use.
12 International Organization of Standardization, ISO 14044:2006, Life Cycle Assessment: Requirements
and Guidelines.
13 International Organization for Standardization, ISO 14025:2006, Environmental labels and declarations--
Type III environmental declarations -- Principles and procedures.
14 Adapted from ISO 14044:2006.
15 International Organization for Standardization, 1995, ISO/IEC Guide 98:1995. Guide to the expression of
uncertainty in measurement (GUM).
16 Adapted from British Standards Institution et al. PAS 2050:2008: Speci f ication for the assessment of life
cycle greenhouse gas emissions of goods and services.
[139]
Atherton, John. “Declaration by the Metals Industry on
Recycling Principles.” International Journal of Life Cycle
Assessment, 12 no. 1 (2007):59-60.
British Standards Institution et al. PAS 2050:2008:
Speci f ication for the assessment of life cycle greenhouse
gas emissions of goods and services.
European Commission - Joint Research Centre - Institute
for Environment and Sustainability. “International
Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook
- General guide for Life Cycle Assessment - Detailed
guidance.” First edition, March 2010. Luxembourg:
Publications O f f ice of the European Union, 2010.
FAO. FAOSTAT. Available from http://faostat.fao.org/
site/567/default.aspx#ancor, 2011.
Greenhouse Gas Protocol. Corporate Accounting and
Reporting Standard. 2004.
Huijbregts, Mark A. J. “Application of uncertainty
and variability in LCA. Part I: A General Framework
for the Analysis of Uncertainty and Variability in Life
Cycle Assessment.”International Journal of Life Cycle
Assessment, 3 no. 5 (1998):273 – 280.
International Working Group. Life Cycle Inventory Analysis:
Enhanced Methods and Applications for the Products of
the Forest Industry. Washington DC: American Forest and
Paper Association, 1996.
International Organization for Standardization. ISO
14021:1999, Environmental labels and declarations --
Self-declared environmental claims (Type II environmental
labeling). Geneva.
International Organization for Standardization. ISO
14024:1999, Environmental labels and declarations —
Type I environmental labeling — Principles and
procedures. Geneva.
International Organization for Standardization. ISO
14025:2006, Environmental labels and declarations —
Type III environmental declarations — Principles and
procedures. Geneva.
International Organization for Standardization. ISO
14044:2006, Life Cycle Assessment: Requirements and
Guidelines. Geneva.
International Organization for Standardization. ISO
14049:2000, Environmental management — Life cycle
assessment — Examples of application of ISO 14041 to
goal and scope de f inition and inventory analysis. Geneva.
International Organization for Standardization. ISO
14064-3: 2006, Greenhouse gases - Part 3: Speci f ication
with guidance for the validation and veri f ication of
greenhouse gas assertions. Geneva.
International Organization for Standardization. ISO/IEC
Guide 98:1995, Guide to the expression of uncertainty in
measurement (GUM). Geneva.
IPCC. Fourth Assessment Report. 2007.
IPCC. Summary for Policymakers. In Climate Change 2007:
Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change, ed. B. Metz, O.R. Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R.
Dave, L.A. Meyer. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New
York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
IPCC. 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories, vol.4, Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land
Use, eds. H.S. Eggleston, L. Buendia, K. Miwa, T. Ngara and
K. Tanabe (Hayama, Japan: IGES,2006).
UNEP and SETAC. Global Guidance Principles for Life
Cycle Assessment Databases. 2011.
Weidema, B.P. and M.S. Wesnaes. Data quality
management for life cycle inventories - an example
of using data quality indicators. Journal of Cleaner
Production. 4 no. 3-4 (1996): 167-174.
World Resources Institute. “EarthTrends: Environmental
Information.” Available from http://earthtrends.wri.org.
Washington DC: World Resources Institute.2007.
Zaks, D.P.M., C. C. Barford, N. Ramankutty and J. A.
Foley.”Producer and consumer responsibility for
greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural production –
a perspective from the Brazilian Amazon.”Environmental
Research Letters. 4 (2009).
References
[140] Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting Standard
Product Standard Technical Working Group Members
Patrick Wood, AgRefresh
Johan Widheden, AkzoNobel
Cyrille de Labriolle, API-HK
Deirdre Wilson, Applied Sustainability International, LLC
Richard Sheane, Best Foot Forward
Craig Simmons, Best Foot Forward and Footprinter
Marcelo Valadares Galdos, Brazilian Bioethanol Science
and Technology Laboratory
Gabrielle Ginér, BT plc
Glyn Stacey, BT Group plc
Connie Sasala, Cameron-Cole, LLC
Pierre Boileau, Canadian Standards Association
Steve Marsden, Carbon Step Change (Chair)
Scott Kaufman, Carbon Trust
Thomas Wiedmann, Centre for Sustainability Accounting Ltd.
Laura Verduzco, Chevron Energy Technology Company
Richard Mendis, Clear Standards
J. Renee Morin, ClearCarbon
Steve Davis, The Climate Conservancy (Chair)
Tashweka Anderson, Computacenter
Recognitions
Advisors
Fabio Peyer, Amcor Ltd.
Jannie Bell, Dell Inc.
Björn Hannappel, Deutsche Post DHL
Carina Alles, DuPont
Lisa Grice, ENVIRON International Corporation
Matthew Bateson, World Business Council
for Sustainable Development
Jennifer Morgan, World Resources Institute
Janet Ranganathan, World Resources Institute
Ranping Song, World Resources Institute
Road Testing Companies
3M
Acer
AkzoNobel
Alcoa
Amcor Ltd.
Anvil Knitwear
Baosteel Group Corporation
BASF
Belkin International, Inc.
Bloomberg LP
BT plc
Deutsche Post DHL
Deutsche Telekom AG
Diversey
DuPont
Ecolab, Inc.
Edelweiss
GE Global Research
GNP Company
Herman Miller, Inc.
Italcementi Group
Kunshan Tai Ying Paint
Lenovo
Levi Strauss & Co.
Mitsubishi Chemical Holdings Corporation
New Belgium Brewing
PepsiCo
Procter & Gamble
Quanta Shanghai Manufacturing City, Tech-Front
(Shanghai) Computer Co. Ltd.
Rogers Communications
RSA Insurance Group plc
Shanghai Zidan Printing Co., Ltd
Shell
Suzano Pulp & Paper
Swire Beverages (Coca-Cola Bottling Partner)
TAL Apparel
Verso Paper Corp.
WorldAutoSteel
[141]
Recognitions
Jannick H Schmidt, The Danish Centre for Environmental
Assessment, Aalborg University
Atsushi Inaba, Department of Environmental and Energy
Chemistry, Kogakuin University
Emelia Holdaway, Ecofys
Yves Loerincik, Ecointesys - Life Cycle Systems
Catarina Furtado, Ecoprogresso
Lisa Brady, EMC Corporation
Kathrin Winkler, EMC Corporation
Brenna Zimmer, EMC Corporation
Vivek Dhariwal, Emergent Ventures India
Mary Stewart, Emergent Ventures India
Liu Qiang, Energy Research Institute, China’s National
Development and Reform Commission
Lisa Grice, ENVIRON International Corporation
Dave Covell, ENVIRON UK Ltd
Ronjoy Rajkhowa, Ernst & Young
Pere Fullana, Escola Superior de Comerc Internacional
Niels Jungbluth, ESU-services Ltd.
Alex Loijos, FoodPrint
Angela Fisher, GE Global Research
William P. Flanagan, GE Global Research
Jacob Park, Green Mountain College
Shannon Binns, Green Press Initiative
Prasad Modak, Green Purchasing Network of India
Shantanu Roy, Green Purchasing Network of India
Tom Baumann, Greenhouse Gas Management Institute
Michael Gillenwater, Greenhouse Gas
Management Institute
Pablo Päster, Hara
Terrie K. Boguski, Harmony Environmental, LLC
Paul Shabajee, Hewlett-Packard
Olle Blidholm, IKEA Group
Xander van der Spree, IKEA Group
Luis G. Huertas, Independent Architect
Angeline de Beaufort-Langeveld,
Independent Consultant
Scott Stewart, Intel
Marlen Bertram, International Aluminium Institute
Kurt Buxmann, International Aluminium Institute
Georgios Sarantakos, International Union
for Conservation of Nature
Mankaa Nangah Rose, Italcementi Group
David V. Spitzley, Kimberly-Clark Corporation (Chair)
Suzie Greenhalgh, Landcare Research NZ Ltd. (Chair)
Taylor Wilkinson, LMI (Chair)
Paul Smith, LRQA Ltd.
Oliver Ferrari, MarionEco
Edgar E Blanco, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Kiyoshi Matsuda, Mitsubishi Chemical Corporation
Je f frey Mittelstadt, National Council
for Advanced Manufacturing
Caroline Gaudreault, NCASI
Reid Miner, NCASI
Hans H. Wegner, National Geographic Society
Anthony D’Agostino, National University of Singapore
Alison Watson, New Zealand Ministry
of Agriculture and Forestry
Jostein Soreide, Norsk Hydro
Wilson Korol, Nortel Networks
Tim Moore, Northwest Carbon
Karen Oxenbøll, Novozymes A/S
Christian Hochfeld, Öko Institut
Dietlinde Quack, Öko Institut
Philippe Letherisien, Orange
Eloise Brauner, PE INTERNATIONAL
Sabine Deimling, PE INTERNATIONAL
Harald Florin, PE INTERNATIONAL
Hannes Partl, PE INTERNATIONAL
Julia P f lieger, PE INTERNATIONAL
Michael Spielmann, PE INTERNATIONAL
Liila Woods, PE INTERNATIONAL
Haixiao Zhang, PE INTERNATIONAL
Duncan Noble, PE INTERNATIONAL, Inc. & Five Winds
Strategic Consulting
Robert ter Kuile, PepsiCo
Stephanie Adda, PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP
Helen Slinger, PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP
Getachew Assefa, Royal Institute
of Technology – Stockholm
Jonas Dennler, SAP
Jim Sullivan, SAP
Kevin Ramm, SAP AG
Andreas Vogel, SAP Labs
Chris Librie, SC Johnson
Valerie A Slomczewski, SC Johnson
Lisa Brough, SGS
Jan Minx, Stockholm Environment Institute
Product Standard Technical Working Group Members (continued)
[142] Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting Standard
Evan Andrews, Sylvatica
Pascal Lesage, Sylvatica/CIRAIG
Wilhelm Wang, Transreg, LLC
Henry King, Unilever
Sarah Sim, Unilever
Bhawan Singh, Université de Montréal
David Guernsey, United Parcel Service
John Kimball, United States Department of Energy
Vince Camobreco, United States Environmental
Protection Agency
Verena Radulovic, United States Environmental
Protection Agency
Kathleen Vokes, United States Environmental
Protection Agency
Sarah Froman, United States Environmental
Protection Agency
Wayne Wnuck, United Technologies Corporation
Sangwon Suh, University of California Santa Barbara
Craig Liska, Verso Paper
Je f frey Rice, Walmart Stores, Inc.
Contributors
Stefanie Giese-Bogdan, 3M
Sam Lin, Acer
Fiona van den Brink, AkzoNobel
Marc Luijten, AkzoNobel
Sara Tollin, AkzoNobel
Johan Widheden, AkzoNobel
Paola Kistler, Alcan
Tony Christopher, Alcoa
Casey Wagner, Alcoa
Fabio Peyer, Amcor Ltd.
Gerald Rebitzer, Amcor Ltd.
Caterina A. Conti, Anvil Knitwear
Arturo Cepeda, Artequim
Shuichiro Sugimoto, Asahi Glass Co., Ltd.
Hiroo Takahashi, Asahi Glass Co., Ltd.
Tao Liu, Baosteel Group Corporation
Yinghao Liu, Baosteel Group Corporation
Hongzhi Shi, Baosteel Group Corporation
Giuliana Angonoa-Doehnert, BASF
Nicola Paczkowski, BASF
Anthony Edwards, Belkin International, Inc.
Gregory LeMay, Beverage Industry
Environmental Roundtable
Hans Blonk, Blonk Milieu Advies
Lee Ballin, Bloomberg LP
Gabrielle Ginér, BT plc
Glyn Stacey, BT Group plc
Ryan Schuchard, Business for Social Responsibility
Annalisa Schilla, California Air Resources Board
Ian Lipton, The Carbon Accounting Company
James Leaton, Carbon Tracker Initiative
Patricia Ludewig, Caterpillar
Claude Loréa, CEMBUREAU
Thomas Wiedmann, Centre for Sustainability Accounting Ltd.
Meg Crawford, CERES
Jianhua Chen, China National Institute of Standardization
Liang Chen, China National Institute of Standardization
Mei Liu, China National Institute of Standardization
Corinne Reich-Weiser, Climate Earth
Christopher Gleadle, The CMG Consultancy
Christoph Meinrenken, Columbia University
Tony Siantonas, dcarbon8 Ltd.
Steven Moore, Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited
Björn Hannappel, Deutsche Post DHL
Klaus Hufschlag, Deutsche Post DHL
Markus Igel, Deutsche Post DHL
Mathis Lapenküpper, Deutsche Post DHL
Patric Pütz, Deutsche Post DHL
Stephan Schlabinski, Deutsche Post DHL
Hans-Jürgen Gerhardy, Deutsche Telekom AG
Reiner Lemke, Deutsche Telekom AG
Michael Zalan, Deutsche Telekom AG
Daniel A. Daggett, Diversey
Carina Alles, DuPont
Dawn Rittenhouse, DuPont
Susanne Veith, DuPont
Bo Weidema, Ecoinvent
Matt Molinaro, Ecolab, Inc.
Ali Rivers, Ecometrica
Marc Zanter, Edelweiss
Nigel Carter, En-Venture
Lixiao Hu, Energy Systems International
Product Standard Technical Working Group Members (continued)
[143]
Recognitions
Ines Sousa, ENXSUITE
Camile Burel, European Bioindustry Association
Jonathan Newton, Ford Motor Company
William Flanagan, GE Global Research
Angela Fisher, GE Global Research
Paul Helgeson, GNP Company
Juergen Ritzek, GreenBusinessConsulting
Thaddeus Owen, Herman Miller, Inc.
Yoshiaki Ichikawa, Hitachi, Ltd.
Hemant Bundele, ibLaunch Energy, Inc.
Tim Higgs, Intel
Ted Reichelt, Intel
Silvana Paniagua Tu f inio, Intelligence for Business
Chris Bayliss, International Aluminium Institute
Rose Nangah Mankaa, Italcementi Group
Manuela Ojan, Italcementi Group
Sunil Kumar, ITC
Yoshikazu Kato, The Japan Gas Association
Wenlin Wang , Kunshan Tai Ying Paint
John Andrews, Landcare Research NZ
Craig McCutcheon, Landcare Research NZ
Barruch Ben-Zekry, Levi Strauss & Co.
Colleen Kohlsaat, Levi Strauss & Co.
Xun Gong, Lenovo
William Guthrie, Lenovo
Mads Stensen, Maersk Line
Kara E.Reeve, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Kenji Shima, Mitsubishi Chemical Holdings Corporation
Leah Fry, National Grid
David B. Goldstein, Natural Resources Defense Council
Jenn Orgolini, New Belgium Brewing
Claus Frier, Novozymes A/S
Stefan Seum, Öko-Institut, Germany
Je f f Stein, Open Data Registry
Robert TerKuille, PepsiCo
Eros Artuso, PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP
Christopher Ho, PricewaterhouseCoopers
Hong Kong/China
Annie Weisbrod, Procter & Gamble
Diederik Schowanek, Procter & Gamble Environmental
Stewardship Organization
Aimee Ding, Quanta Shanghai Manufacturing City, Tech-
Front (Shanghai) Computer Co. Ltd.
Larry Li, Quanta Shanghai Manufacturing City, Tech-Front
(Shanghai) Computer Co. Ltd.
Josephine Przewodnik, RECARBON Deutschland GmbH.
Brian Au, RESET Carbon
Hicham Elhalaby, Rogers Communications
Paul Pritchard, RSA Insurance Group plc
Alyssa Farrell, SAS
Barbara Nebel, Scion
Robin Li, SGS-CSTC Standards Technical Services Co., Ltd.
Danny Wong, SGS Hong Kong Limited
Fei Han, Shanghai Zidan Printing Co., Ltd.
Yadi Shen, Shanghai Zidan Printing Co., Ltd.
Marieke Groenendaal, Shell
Stephen Kinder, Shell
Xavier Riera-Palou, Shell
Zoltán Hajdu, Soltub, Ltd.
Mariana Carlini, Suzano Pulp & Paper
Samuel Kwong, Swire Beverages
(Coca Cola Bottling Partner)
Thomas Yip, TAL Apparel
Yutaka Yoshida, TOKYO GAS CO., LTD.
Javier Fajardo, USDA/FAS/OSTA
Laurence Hamon, Veolia Environnement
Research & Innovation
Guillaume Arama, Veolia Water
David Houdusse, Veolia Water
Craig Liskai, Verso Paper Corp.
Lisbeth Dahllöf, Volvo Technology
Edie Sonne Hall, Weyerhaeuser
George Coates, WorldAutoSteel
Antonia Gawel, World Business Council for Sustainable
Development
Bernhard Gruenauer, World Business Council for
Sustainable Development
Varun Vats, World Business Council for Sustainable
Development
Wee Kean Fong, World Resources Institute
Taryn Fransen, World Resources Institute
Lauren Gritzke, World Resources Institute
Stacy Kotorac, World Resources Institute
Eliot Metzger, World Resources Institute
Michelle Perez, World Resources Institute
Laura Pocknell, World Resources Institute
Neelam Singh, World Resources Institute
Clare Broadbent, World Steel Association
Contributors (continued)
[144] Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting Standard
In-kind Road Testing Support
The Carbon Trust
China National Institute of Standardization
DNV
KPMG
PE Consulting
PRé Consultants
PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP
SGS-CSTC Standards Technical Services Co., Ltd.
SGS Hong Kong Limited
Consultants
China National Institute of Standardization
PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP
Quantis
RESET Carbon
Copyright © World Resources Institute and World
Business Council for Sustainable Development,
September 2011
ISBN 978-1-56973-773-6
Printed in USA
Printed on 70# Chorus Art Silk text and 80# cover
(30% post consumer recycled) with soy-based inks.
WRI and WBCSD would like to thank the following organizations for their generous f inancial support: Alcoa Foundation, BP
Foundation, Dell Inc., EMC Corporation, Intel Corporation, Kimberly Clark Corporation, PepsiCo, PricewaterhouseCoopers,
LLP, Robertson Foundation, SC Johnson & Son, Inc., Siemens, United States Agency for International Development
(USAID), United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), United Technologies Corporation, UPS Foundation,
and Walmart Foundation. WBCSD, funded by its member companies, also provided direct f inancial support.
Design: Alston Taggart, Studio Red Design
Cover: Futerra Sustainability Communications
World Resources Institute (WRI)
The World Resources Institute is a global environmental
think tank that goes beyond research to put ideas into
action. We work with governments, companies, and
civil society to build solutions to urgent environmental
challenges. WRI’s transformative ideas protect the earth
and promote development because sustainability is
essential to meeting human needs and ful f illing human
aspirations in the future.
WRI spurs progress by providing practical strategies
for change and e f fective tools to implement them.
We measure our success in the form of new policies,
products, and practices that shift the ways governments
work, companies operate, and people act.
We operate globally because today’s problems know
no boundaries. We are avid communicators because
people everywhere are inspired by ideas, empowered by
knowledge, and moved to change by greater understanding.
We provide innovative paths to a sustainable planet through
work that is accurate, fair, and independent.
WRI organizes its work around four key goals:
• People & Ecosystems: Reverse rapid degradation
of ecosystems and assure their capacity to provide
humans with needed goods and services.
• Governance: Empower people and strengthen
institutions to foster environmentally sound and
socially equitable decision-making.
• Climate Protection: Protect the global climate system
from further harm due to emissions of greenhouse
gases and help humanity and the natural world adapt
to unavoidable climate change.
• Markets & Enterprise: Harness markets and
enterprise to expand economic opportunity and
protect the environment.
In all its policy research and work with institutions,
WRI tries to build bridges between ideas and action,
meshing the insights of scienti f ic research, economic and
institutional analyses, and practical experience with the
need for open and participatory decision-making.
World Business Council
for Sustainable Development (WBCSD)
The WBCSD is a CEO-led, global coalition of some
200 companies advocating for progress on sustainable
development. Its mission is to be a catalyst for
innovation and sustainable growth in a world where
resources are increasingly limited. The Council provides
a platform for companies to share experiences
and best practices on sustainable development
issues and advocate for their implementation,
working with governments, non-governmental and
intergovernmental organizations. The membership
has annual revenues of USD 7 trillion, spans more
than 35 countries and represents 20 major industrial
sectors. The Council also bene f its from a network
of 60 national and regional business councils and
partner organizations, a majority of which are based in
developing countries.
Disclaimer
The GHG Protocol Product Life Cycle Accounting and
Reporting Standard, is designed to promote best
practice GHG accounting and reporting. It has been
developed through an inclusive multi-stakeholder
process involving experts from businesses, non-
governmental organizations (NGOs), governments,
and others convened by the World Resources
Institute (WRI) and the World Business Council for
Sustainable Development (WBCSD). While WBCSD
and WRI encourage use of the Product Standard by all
corporations and organizations, the preparation and
publication of reports or program speci f ications based
fully or partially on this standard is the full responsibility
of those producing them. Neither WBCSD and WRI,
nor other individuals who contributed to this standard
assume responsibility for any consequences or damages
resulting directly or indirectly from its use in the
preparation of reports, program speci f ications, or the
use of reports based on the Product Standard.
www.wri.org www.wbcsd.org www.ghgprotocol.org
The Greenhouse Gas Protocol
provides the foundation for
sustainable climate strategies
and more e f f icient, resilient and
pro f itable organizations. GHG
Protocol standards are the most
widely used accounting tools
to measure, manage and report
greenhouse gas emissions.
Product Life Cycl
e Ac
counting and R
eporting Standar
d
G
H
G
P
R
O
TO
C
O
L
W
R
I
W
B
C
S
D