The impact of carbon footprinting aggregation on realizing emission reduction targets

  • Josué C. Velázquez-Martínez
  • Jan C. Fransoo
  • Edgar E. BlancoEmail author
  • Jaime Mora-Vargas


A variety of activity-based methods exist for estimating the carbon footprint in transportation. For instance, the greenhouse gas protocol suggests a more aggregate estimation method than the Network for Transport and Environment (NTM) method. In this study, we implement a detailed estimation method based on NTM and different aggregate approaches for transportation carbon emissions in the dynamic lot sizing model. Analytical results show the limitations of aggregate models for both accurate estimation of real emissions and risks of compliance with carbon constraints (e.g., carbon caps). Extensive numerical experimentation shows that the magnitude of errors can be substantial. We provide insights under which limited conditions aggregate estimations can be used safely and when more detailed estimates are appropriate.


Transport carbon footprint Dynamic lot sizing GHG emission factors Carbon caps Supply chain carbon footprint 


  1. Absi N, Dauzère-Pérès S, Kedad-Sidhoum S, Penz B, Rapine C (2011) Lot-Sizing with carbon emission constraints. Working paper—EMSE CMP-SFL 2011(5)Google Scholar
  2. Benjaafar S, Li Y, Daskin M (2010) Carbon footprint and the management of supply chains: insights from simple models. Working paperGoogle Scholar
  3. Bouchery Y, Ghaffari A, Jemai Z, Dallery Y (2010) How to incorporate sustainability issues into traditional operations management models? The sustainable order quantity example. Laboratoire Génie Industriel, Ecole Centrale Paris. Working paperGoogle Scholar
  4. Brahimi N, Dauzere-Peres S, Najid NM, Nordli A (2006) Single item lot sizing problems. Eur J Operat Res 168:1–16CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. CDP (2011a) Carbon disclosure project. Available on Accessed on 21 March 2011
  6. CDP (2011b) Carbon disclosure project. Supply chain report: ATKearney. Available at Accessed on 21 March 2011
  7. Chen X, Benjaafar S, Elomri A (2011) The carbon-constrained EOQ. University of Minnesota, USA. Working paperGoogle Scholar
  8. Cholette S, Venkat K (2009) The energy and carbon intensity of wine distribution: a study of logistical options for delivering wine to consumers. J Cleaner Prod 17(16):1401–1413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. EPA (2011) Environmental protection agency, metrics for expressing GHG emissions. Available at Accessed on 12 April 2011
  10. EU Transport GHG (2007) The contribution of transport to GHG emissions. European Commission. Available at Accessed on 2 June 2011
  11. European Commission (2011) Roadmap to a Single European transport area—towards a competitive and resource efficient transport system. Available at Accessed on 27 May 2011
  12. Florian M, Lenstra J, Rinnooy K (1980) Deterministic production planning algorithms and complexity. Manage Sci 26(7):669–679CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. GHG Protocol Calculation Tools (2011) GHG emissions from transport or mobile sources. Available at Accessed on 11 March 2011
  14. GHG Protocol Core Module Guidance (2008) Climate leaders, greenhouse gas inventory protocol core module guidance. Available at Accessed on 12 April 2011
  15. GHG Protocol Standard (2011) The greenhouse gas protocol. Available at Accessed on 11 March 2011
  16. Hoffman AJ, Woody JG (2008) Climate change: what’s your business strategy? Harvard Business Press, USAGoogle Scholar
  17. IPCC (2007) Climate change 2007: an assessment of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Available at Accessed on 27 May 2011
  18. Jalil M, Zuidwijk R, Fleischmann M, van Nunen J (2011) Spare parts logistics and installed base information. J Oper Res Soc 62(3):442–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lee C-Y, Cetinkaya S, Wagelmans A (2001) A dynamic lot-sizing model with demand time windows. Manage Sci 47(10):1384 (ABI/INFORM Global)Google Scholar
  20. Mooij B, Wagelmans APM, Helmrich MJR (2011) Finding a lagrangean lower bound on the emission lot-sizing problem. PhD thesis. Erasmus University, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  21. NTM Road (2008) Environmental data for international cargo transport-road transport. Accessed on 13 Feb 2011
  22. EPA Road (2011) Climate change—greenhouse gas emissions, on the Road. US Environmental protection agency. Available at Accessed on 2 June 2011
  23. TRL (2010) Information retrieved from ARTEMIS project web site.
  24. Wagelmans A (1990) Sensitivity analysis in combinatorial optimization. PhD thesis, Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  25. Wagner H, Whitin T (1958) Dynamic version of the economic lot size model. Manage Sci 5:89–96CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  26. Xie J, Dong J (2002) Heuristic genetic algorithms for general capacitated lot-sizing problems. Comput Math Appl 44:263–276CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  27. Zangwill W (1969) A backlogging model and multi-echelon model of a dynamic economic lot size production system—a network approach. Manage Sci 18(9):506–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Josué C. Velázquez-Martínez
    • 1
  • Jan C. Fransoo
    • 2
  • Edgar E. Blanco
    • 3
    Email author
  • Jaime Mora-Vargas
    • 4
  1. 1.Instituto Tecnológico y de Estudios Superiores de MonterreySanta Fe, Mexico CityMexico
  2. 2.School of Industrial EngineeringEindhoven University of TechnologyEindhovenThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Center for Transportation & LogisticsMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyCambridgeUSA
  4. 4.Instituto Tecnológico y de Estudios Superiores de MonterreyEstado de MéxicoMexico

Personalised recommendations