Comparison of product carbon footprint standards with a case study on poinsettia (Euphorbia pulcherrima)

  • Eveli SoodeEmail author
  • Gabriele Weber-Blaschke
  • Klaus Richter



A method to quantify the climate impact of products called product carbon footprint (PCF) has been gaining popularity in recent years. However, variations of this method have resulted in several competing standards to guide the carbon calculation process. The aim of the current paper was to compare PCF results when calculated according to the different standards.


The three leading PCF standards are Publicly Available Specification (PAS) 2050:2011, ISO.DIN 2 14067 and Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting Standard (PARS) 2011. These standards were compared conceptually, and a case study was performed in which the PCF of a poinsettia plant produced in Germany was calculated according to all three standards.

Results and discussion

The PCF results were 0.45–0.50, 0.53–0.58 and 0.53–0.59 kg carbon dioxide equivalent according to PAS 2050:2011, ISO.DIN 2 14067 and PARS 2011, respectively. According to all standards, the life cycle stage contributing the most greenhouse gases (GHGs) was the production of the poinsettia plant, and the single process with the highest emissions was the electricity use in the production. It was found that if nonrenewable fuels were used for heating instead of wood chips, then heating would be the highest GHG contributor—accounting for over 80 % of emissions of the total PCF.


A key finding was that both the production system used and the decisions taken by the person carrying out the PCF calculation result in greater differences in the PCF result than the use of different standards. Differences among the three standards could be harmonised by more specific cut-off rules and exclusion criteria with the publication of ISO.DIN 2 14067, as well as the development and use of product category rules.


Horticulture ISO.DIN 2 14067 PAS 2050 Poinsettia Product carbon footprint (PCF) Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting Standard 



The authors thank Prof. Dr. Klaus Menrad, Hans Haas and Valentin Sauer from the University of Applied Sciences Weihenstephan-Triesdorf for the information and data regarding the poinsettia production systems; project WeGa–Kompetenznetz Gartenbau and TUM Grad School for the support and guidance; and Gaven Meadows for revising the English.


  1. Brécard D, Hlaimi B, Lucas S, Perraudeau Y, Salladarré F (2009) Determinants of demand for green products. An application to eco-label demand for fish in Europe. Ecol Econ 69(1):115–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. British Standards Institution (2011) PAS 2050:2011 Specification for the assessment of the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of goods and services. Accessed 10 Aug 2012
  3. British Standards Institution (2012) PAS2050-1:2012 Assessment of life cycle greenhouse gas emissions from horticultural products 13.020.40. Accessed 05 Apr 2012
  4. Carbon Trust (2008) Product carbon footprinting: the new business opportunity. Experience from leading companies. Accessed 30 Oct 2012
  5. Carbon Trust (2012) Carbon footprinting. The next step to reducing your emissions. Accessed 03 Nov 2012
  6. Dangelico RM, Pujari D (2010) Mainstreaming green product innovation. Why and how companies integrate environmental sustainability. J Bus Ethics: JOBE 95(3):471–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dias AC, Arroja L (2012) Comparison of methodologies for estimating the carbon footprint—case study of office paper. J Clean Prod 24:30–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ecoinvent Centre (2010) Life cycle inventory database ecoinvent version 2.2Google Scholar
  9. Feifel S, Walk W, Wursthorn S (2010) Die Ökobilanz im Spannungsfeld zwischen Exaktheit, Durchführbarkeit und Kommunizierbarkeit. Umweltwiss Schadst Forsch 22(1):46–55. doi: 10.1007/s12302-009-0107-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Galeano SF (2009) International standardization of CFP status of ISO 14067. Accessed 03 Nov 2012
  11. Greenhouse Gas Protocol (2011a) Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting Standard. Accessed 10 Aug 2012
  12. Greenhouse Gas Protocol (2011b) Quantifying the greenhouse gas emissions of products. PAS 2050 & the GHG Protocol Product Standard. A short guide to their purpose, similarities and differences. Accessed 10 Aug 2012
  13. Hansen J, Sato M, Kharecha P, Beerling D, Berner R, Masson-Delmotte V, Pagani M, Raymo M, Royer DL, Zachos JC (2008) Target atmospheric CO2: where should humanity aim? TOASCJ 2(1):217–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. International Organization for Standardization (2012) Carbon footprint of products—requirements and guidelines for quantification and communication 13.020.40(14067)Google Scholar
  15. International Organization for Standardization (2006a) Environmental management—life cycle assessment—principles and framework (ISO 14040:2006)Google Scholar
  16. International Organization for Standardization (2006b) Environmental management—life cycle assessment—requirements and guidelines (ISO 14044:2006)Google Scholar
  17. IPCC (2007) Salomon S (ed). IPCC fourth assessment report: climate change 2007. The physical science basis: contribution of Working Group I to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  18. JEMAI (2009) Draft of 2nd Edition of Japanese Technical Specification (TS Q0010). General principles for the assessment and labeling of carbon footprint of products. Provisional translation. Accessed 03 Nov 2012
  19. Kägi T, Wettstein D (2010) Ökobilanz von Balkonerde. Accessed 10 Mar 2013
  20. Paavola J (2001) Economics, ethics and green consumerism. In: Cohen M, Murphy J (eds) Exploring sustainable consumption. Elsevier, Oxford, pp 79–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Page G, Ridoutt B, Bellotti B (2012) Carbon and water footprint tradeoffs in fresh tomato production. J Clean Prod 32:219–226. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.03.036 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. PCF World Forum (2012) 7th PCF World Summit. From environmental footprinting to implementation renewable energy in the value chain, Berlin, 17–18 April 2012Google Scholar
  23. PE International (2011) Life cycle assessment software GaBi including professional database. Version 5, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  24. Peters GP (2010) Carbon footprints and embodied carbon at multiple scales. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 2(4):245–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Reinhardt G, Gärtner S, Münch J, Häfele S (2009) Ökologische Optimierung regional erzeugter Lebensmittel: Energie- und Klimagasbilanzen. Accessed 05 Nov 2012
  26. Röös E, Sundberg C, Hansson P (2011) Uncertainties in the carbon footprint of refined wheat products: a case study on Swedish pasta. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16(4):338–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sachs J (2009) Common wealth. Economics for a crowded planet. Penguin, LondonGoogle Scholar
  28. Schäfer F, Blanke M (2012) Farming and marketing system affects carbon and water footprint—a case study using Hokaido pumpkin. J Clean Prod 28:113–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Schmidt H (2009) Carbon footprinting, labelling and life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14(S1):6–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sinden G (2009) The contribution of PAS 2050 to the evolution of international greenhouse gas emission standards. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14(3):195–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Stichnothe H (2009) Carbon Footprint - Der britische "Standard" PAS 2050 im Spiegel der Ökobilanz-Methodik und weitere Normierungsbestrebungen. Accessed 05 Nov 2012
  32. Theurl MC (2011) Product-Carbon-Footprint von Lebensmitteln in Österreich: biologisch und konventionell im Vergleich. In: Leithold G (ed) Boden - Pflanze - Umwelt. Lebensmittel und Produktqualität. Köster, Berlin, pp 123–126Google Scholar
  33. Weidema BP, Thrane M, Christensen P, Schmidt J, Løkke S (2008) Carbon footprint. J Ind Ecol 12(1):3–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Westermeier, Hofmann (2011) Bericht zur Abfallwirtschaft im Landkreis Freising 2010. Accessed 31 Oct 2012
  35. Williams A (2007) Comparative study of cut roses for the British market produced in Kenya and the Netherlands. Précis report for world flowers. Accessed 10 Aug 2012

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eveli Soode
    • 1
    Email author
  • Gabriele Weber-Blaschke
    • 2
  • Klaus Richter
    • 1
  1. 1.Munich Wood Research InstituteMunichGermany
  2. 2.Munich Wood Research InstituteFreisingGermany

Personalised recommendations