Interviews

Hochfeld: When it comes to their products’ climate relevance, the responsibility of manufacturers and retailers does not stop at the factory gates. Carbon footprinting helps companies establish their products’ climate footprint throughout their life cycle – from obtaining the necessary raw materials, the manufacturing process, and distribution, to the use of goods or services by customers and consumers, and their ultimate disposal. This enables companies to analyze at what stage the highest greenhouse gas emissions are generated by their products and the most effective and efficient way of reducing these emissions. This in turn helps lower product risks and enables companies to stand out from competitors on the market by offering more climate-friendly products.

Hochfeld: The quality of data and the care with which it is obtained ensure that the carbon footprint results calculated are of a high quality and hold up to examination. The associated costs are roughly comparable to those of an environmental life-cycle assessment. In the course of the Product Carbon Footprint (PCF) pilot project, however, we found that the information obtained was well worth the cost involved. Obtaining primary data from suppliers or partner companies often also had the positive effect of making people in general aware, or more aware, of this issue as an aspect of the quality of the value added chain. Having said that, it will be virtually impossible for the foreseeable future for manufacturers or retailers with a wide product range to establish a carbon footprint for every single product. In such cases, we recommend starting with the product groups that are of strategic relevance to the company.

Hochfeld: One criticism of carbon footprinting is that it focuses exclusively on the greenhouse effect. Is there not a risk of ignoring other environmental effects such as air and water pollution? During the PCF pilot project, we worked with companies from all kinds of industries on establishing and assessing product carbon footprints. We analyzed many different products – from a cup of coffee and a detergent to phone and Internet tariffs. In many cases, the findings are used to optimize the relevant products’ climate footprint. If this also results in a reduction in power consumption, there are additional cost benefits.

However, the findings are also used to define standards for purchasing raw materials that generally improve quality in the value added chain. Some companies also work with suppliers or customers to optimize products based on the results, thereby reinforcing business relations. Most of the companies involved in the pilot project are using the findings to make consumers more aware of the relevant issues and provide them with information on climate-friendly product usage to assist with purchasing decisions and not least to improve customer loyalty.

Hochfeld: Carbon footprinting, which only establishes the impact of products on the climate, cannot replace an environmental life-cycle assessment or an assessment of economic or social indicators throughout the life cycle. It can only be part of a holistic product sustainability assessment. We recommend that anyone also looking to explore the interaction between the impact on the climate and other environmental or sustainability aspects should include this in an assessment based on the established methods. They need to be careful, though. Some of the areas we are currently questioning in the methods used to calculate carbon footprints have not been adequately clarified in existing environmental life-cycle assessment processes either.

In the medium term, we will also use the findings from product carbon footprinting to update the approaches used for such assessments. One positive aspect of carbon footprinting in our experience is that many more companies are now considering the environmental impact of their products throughout the life cycle for virtually the first time. The carbon footprint is giving new impetus to the eco-balance debate, something that we very much welcome.

Hochfeld: In principle, carbon footprints can be established for all product groups but they are particularly relevant for products with energy- or CO₂-intensive manufacturing processes, such as paper products, and for energy-consuming products that generate fewer greenhouse gas emissions in the utilization phase, such as detergents for use at low temperatures. In the case of the energy-consuming equipment itself – electrical household appliances for instance – the carbon footprint is determined largely by the energy requirements in the utilization phase and these energy requirements therefore remain an appropriate indicator for these products’ climate relevance.
As we see it, the greatest need for clarification when it comes to determining and assessing the carbon footprint is for many foodstuffs.

Hochfeld: In our opinion, PAS 2050 – which is roughly equivalent to a preliminary national standard in the U.K. – does not constitute an appropriate basis for the international standardization and harmonization of the methods for establishing the carbon footprint of goods and services. It still fails to provide satisfactory clarification on a number of key method-related issues such as taking into account indirect changes in land use when cultivating biomass and including power generation from renewable energy sources in the assessment. We are therefore in favor of a better, binding regulation within the framework of the standardization processes at ISO level and the Greenhouse Gas Protocol. However, compulsory directives cannot be expected before 2011, and we will then no doubt also need to augment these with Product Category Rules (PCRs) in order to make establishing and assessing carbon footprints as accurate and comparable as possible.

Even without an internationally binding standard, however, carbon footprints will become much more important by 2011. During this period in particular, the challenge for companies when it comes to Product Carbon Footprinting will be making the methods for establishing and assessing footprints as transparent as possible so that the results have the necessary credibility. In our opinion, gathering practical experience in cooperation with others involved in the process can help companies in this respect.

Hochfeld: Climate protection will become much more important to individual consumers in future. Consequently, they will need reliable information on the climate relevance of products and their usage that will enable them to make decisions on what to purchase. In particular in view of the fact that there are still no international standards, we do not currently consider a product label with the actual carbon footprint to be the right way forward. Given the challenges that still remain in terms of the methods applied, this figure in isolation is not sufficiently comparable and meaningful. Indicating the carbon footprint on products at the moment may therefore result in incorrect purchasing decisions or confuse consumers, especially given that they are not yet sufficiently well-versed in interpreting what the “product CO₂” actually entails.

Building on our experience with numerous partner companies in the PCF pilot project, however, we consider the carbon footprint to be a very good starting point from which to look for new, innovative alternatives to a CO₂ label, to inform customers and consumers, and to enable more climate-friendly consumption. We are still taking our first tentative steps in this regard and are therefore focusing among other things on our work following on from the PCF pilot project – work that will start in the fall.