Navigating product carbon footprint uncertainties in the flavours & fragrances industry
Natalia Mikosch of BASF describes the importance and methodological challenges of using supplier-specific product carbon footprints
The flavours and fragrances( F & F) industry is actively engaged in efforts to reduce
CO 2 emissions, with companies developing specialised tools to monitor emissions and assess opportunities for reduction not only on corporate level, but on a product level as well. Notable examples include BASF’ s product carbon footprint( PCF) calculation tool SCOTT and Mane’ s Green Motion.
While comprehensive emissions calculation and reporting within organisational boundaries are becoming standard, effectively managing value chain emissions- specifically Scope 3.1 emissions linked to the production of purchased goods- remains a significant challenge. A survey conducted by the International Fragrance Association( IFRA) and the International Organisation of the Flavor Industry( IOFI) revealed that although 71 % of companies are measuring their greenhouse gas emissions( GHG), only 42 % can quantify all three scopes, with the remainder concentrating solely on Scopes 1 and 2.1
Importantly, Warr indicates that the majority of a fragrance mixture’ s carbon footprint is attributable to Scope 3.1 emissions. 2 Consequently, there is growing emphasis on collecting primary data by requesting product carbon footprints( PCFs) at individual product level from suppliers. According to the IFRA-IOFI survey, 86 % of responding companies either already request or plan to request
ISO 14067 & GHG Protocol
General guidance and principles for PCF quantification Goal: PCF calculation and reporting
Partnership for Carbon Transparency( PACT)
Sector: Cross-industry Goal: Comparability of calculated PCFs to enable consistent PCF exchange
Figure 1 – PCF calculation methodologies: Level of detail & focus
PCFs for purchased products from their suppliers. 1
In line with the growing demand for PCF data, digital platforms such as SiGreen have emerged to facilitate efficient PCF exchanges throughout the value chain. These online platforms streamline the communication of PCFs, proving particularly advantageous when managing extensive product portfolios. With an increasing share of primary data, the role of supplierspecific PCFs in procurement decarbonisation strategies significantly increases, thereby elevating the critical importance of data accuracy.
This article examines key challenges affecting the reliability of supplier-specific data by analysing
Together for Sustainability(T fS)
Sector: Chemical industry Goal: Comparability of calculated PCFs to enable consistent PCF exchange in chemical sector
PCR
Sector: Cross-sector, product-specific Goal: Comparability of calculated PCFs
two underlying causes of PCF inconsistencies: differences in methodology( or standard) used for PCF calculation and uncertainty associated with secondary databases. Furthermore, it highlights the importance of using primary data by means of a case study quantifying the PCF of L-Menthol produced via similar routes, but with differing utilities and raw materials.
Differences in calculation methodology
Multiple frameworks have been established to guide PCF calculations( Figure 1). Among the most widely adopted are ISO 14067 and the Greenhouse Gas( GHG) Protocol Product Standards. While both standards outline foundational
46 SPECIALITY CHEMICALS MAGAZINE ESTABLISHED 1981