Compound method based on financial accounts versus process-based analysis in product carbon footprint: A comparison using wood pallets

摘要

Differences between product and corporate carbon footprint seriously hinder its wider implementation. The compound method based on financial accounts is a tiered hybrid analysis developed from advances in ecological footprint which main strength is its capability to calculate both product and corporate carbon footprint in a comprehensive assessment. This work aims to evaluate the compound method based on financial accounts as a tool for product carbon footprint. The objective is twofold: (1) to assess its advantages and disadvantages for product carbon footprint; and (2) to evaluate differences with process-based analysis. EUR-flat wood pallet is selected as the unit of study in a cradle-to-gate life-cycle perspective. Due to method requirements, a Spanish pallet manufacturer that produces and markets 1.6 million EUR-flat wood pallets annually has been selected for an in-depth assessment. Our life-cycle implementation reveals the following findings: (1) emissions from the compound method based on financial accounts are 22% higher than ones from process-based analysis, (2) process-based analysis provides greater detail in first life cycle phases than the compound method based on financial accounts, and (3) calculation time is drastically reduced using the compound method based on financial accounts. This study shows the compound method based on financial accounts as providing a correct assessment of the amount of direct and indirect emissions with easy-to-obtain data. Calculation time is drastically reduced, making it applicable to all shapes and sizes of businesses. It could, therefore, improve the CF in both approaches (product and corporate), stimulating innovation and increasing support for sustainable consumption decisions. Process-based analysis, in contrast, is not so easily implemented due to the large number of units involved in the upstream supply chain, and the use of thresholds hinders comparison. Even with these advantages, MC3 should consider other areas for improvement.