The hidden complexity of product carbon footprints

In the age of climate consciousness, product carbon footprint (PCF) assessments have emerged as critical tools for companies seeking low carbon products and transparency and for regulators looking to incentivize low-carbon products and economies. Yet, for those attempting to implement PCF assessments across sprawling global supply chains, the experience often feels like trying to complete a puzzle with half the pieces missing—and no picture on the box.

Why is it so complex?
This article explores the multi-dimensional challenges organizations face when calculating PCFs and outlines what a "magic wand" solution might look like—one that is digital, smart, credible, and scalable.

Missing and inconsistent data
At the heart of PCF assessment complexity lies a fundamental challenge—acquiring the right data.

The first obstacle is understanding what type of data is required—and recognizing the gap between what is needed and what is readily available. A second major hurdle is the time it takes to access the data. For instance, collecting activity data from manufacturing facilities can be a slow and labor-intensive process. With limited staff capacity and outdated systems, it may take weeks or even months to compile the necessary information.

The challenge becomes even more pronounced with supplier-related data, as an understanding of their products’ carbon intensities is essential to accurate PCF calculation and product footprint reduction action. In many sectors—such as chemicals, fuels, and manufacturing—material consumption accounts for the majority of a product’s carbon footprint. Yet many suppliers lack the tools or expertise to accurately calculate their own PCFs, or they use inconsistent methodologies with limited transparency. As a result, the data provided is often incomparable—or even unusable.

Lack of methodological standardization
Even when the data is available, comparability is far from guaranteed. Each company may make different methodological choices—ranging from system boundaries to the time horizon used for global warming potential (GWP), to which set of values to apply from successive Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment Reports (AR4, AR5, AR6), or the selection of emission factors and related methodological choices.

This leads to a fundamental consistency issue. As one contributor shared:
“A service provider developed a calculation for CO₂, and then [SLB] presented [theirs], and we realized that they were as different as night and day.”

While there are international standards—such as ISO 14067 and PACT guidelines, they often allow a degree of flexibility or are not yet universally adopted or enforced. In parallel, the proliferation of working groups, industry associations, and regulatory bodies has created a fog of competing methodologies, further adding to the confusion.

The result? Each actor defines their own rules, undermining comparability.

Manual, fragmented, and costly workflows
The reality for many teams performing a PCF assessment is a labor-intensive, often spreadsheet-centric process. Data is manually entered, and tracked through emails or siloed systems, often lacking both structure and traceability.

Sune Balle Hansen, partner—sustainability, NMS described their process as:
“We receive CO2 related data by email from suppliers every month and manually update our central sustainability data [spreadsheet] file. For CO2 calculations and reporting we pull compiled data from the central sustainability data [spreadsheet] file to a [spreadsheet]-based CO2 calculator and pull the CO2 data back to combine in an emissions computation spreadsheet in our central sustainability data [spreadsheet] file.”

These workflows don’t scale, and they’re highly prone to error.

Many software tools currently in use lack the flexibility to accommodate custom data models or evolving methodologies. Some even restrict input formats, forcing teams to reverse-engineer their data just to make it fit within rigid system constraints.

Add in the growing requirement for third-party verification, and the effort becomes not only inefficient but also unnecessarily costly.

The vision: what an ideal digital solution looks like

So, we ask ourselves, if we could wave a magic wand, what would the ideal PCF solution look like?

It would be simple, clear, and didactic, accessible to more than just a handful of experts. Lifecycle assessment is a powerful but complex exercise. Making it easier to understand and apply would empower more teams to participate and accelerate progress.

The path forward should follow a principle of progressive complexity, starting simple and scaling up as user maturity and data quality grow, with four key elements:

1. Simplicity and automation
The future is automated. Data collection and updates would be streamlined to reduce human error and eliminate manual input. Instead of chasing spreadsheets for weeks, updates would occur at the click of a button.

Automation would enable:

• Real-time integration of plant data.
• The seamless integration of supplier data.
• Embedded methodological rules to ensure consistency and integrity of results.

2. Traceability and auditability
Trust is critical. PCF systems must provide traceability down to the batch level, ensuring transparency throughout the value chain.

Such systems should:

• Ensure robust claims by ensuring that calculations are third-party verified.
• Provide ready documentation for auditing bodies.
• Associate a specific carbon intensity with each product unit.

3. Standardized supplier data collection

A critical enabler is the automation and standardization of supplier data collection.

Imagine a world where every supplier enters their emissions data through a shared, guided interface, one aligned with an international methodology. This data would flow seamlessly into customer models, enabling consistent, comparable, and verified PCFs across the value chain.

The goal would be to eliminate fragmented requests and enable available, reliable, and comparable data from the start.

4. Decision-driven and reduction-focused

The true value of PCF assessments lies not only in compliance but also in improved decision-making.

Digital tools should identify emissions hotspots, evaluate decarbonization strategies, and simulate trade-offs, before decisions are made. PCFs should evolve from reports to insight engines that power reduction plans.

Key features might include:

• Scenario planning for raw material substitution or energy shifts.
• Evaluation of supplier options based on emissions and cost.
• Tracking of reduction initiatives against targets.

Sunaina Ocalan, energy transition expert, put it well:
“PCFs could be used for decision-making if one could see the impact of one’s action proactively.”

What’s needed to get there?

The building blocks exist. Now they must be integrated, invested in, and embedded in daily business.

Cross-industry and cross-organization collaborations

No company can tackle this challenge alone, collaboration is essential to drive efficiency and turn ambition into action. Initiatives like Together for Sustainability (TfS) demonstrate how collective industry efforts can accelerate alignment, reduce duplication, and move the entire sector forward.

By jointly defining PCF and lifecycle assessment (LCA) methodologies, and establishing and testing common verification frameworks, industries can collectively manage the complexity and enable systemic progress.

Moreover, PCF assessments can no longer sit with isolated sustainability teams. They must evolve and involve:

• Operations engineers (data and process understanding).
• Procurement (supplier engagement).
• Regulatory and finance (risk and compliance).
• Product management (portfolio management).

One stakeholder noted:
“Sustainability has no idea how carbon emissions are created, and commercial has no idea how sustainability goals are achieved.” That disconnect must be resolved.

A practical roadmap might include piloting intra-industry programs along the value chain, with the inclusion of operational and procurement data streams.

From chaos to clarity
Performing a PCF assessment is difficult because the value chain is complex, and still largely manual. But digitalization can be the great enabler.

With the right systems, standards, and skills, companies can shift PCF assessments from a compliance obligation to a strategical exercise. They can not only measure what matters, but use that insight to act, reduce, and lead. The PCF journey mirrors the broader decarbonization challenge, it demands coordination, collaboration, and the courage to transform.