.png)
Understanding the environmental impact of food products is essential for tackling sustainability challenges, particularly in industries with significant upstream impacts like agriculture. While Product Carbon Footprints (PCFs) and Life Cycle Assessments (LCAs) both assess the environmental impact of products, they differ in scope and application.
This article explores these differences, highlighting the strengths and limitations of PCFs and demonstrating how LCAs offer a more holistic approach by considering multiple environmental indicators beyond greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. By the end, you'll understand why LCAs are invaluable for driving comprehensive sustainability strategies.
A PCF is a standardized methodology that narrowly focuses on the GHG emissions tied to the life cycle of a single product from its raw material origins to its end-of-life. It is essentially a representative value of the total amount of GHG emissions associated with the production, consumption and disposal of a product.
Granular focus on product-level GHG Emissions:
One of the strengths of PCF is the ability to provide a more granular assessment of a product’s impact on climate change. It is a level deeper than a Corporate Carbon Footprint (CCF) carried out via carbon accounting, which only provides a baseline of an organization’s overall performance where GHG emissions are concerned.
Standardized methodologies:
There are a few different methodologies for carrying out PCFs with the GHG Protocol’s Product Standard and ISO 14067 being the most widely used. It is important to note that the Product Standard’s purpose is for identifying GHG emissions hotspots and not to compare PCFs with other products. On the other hand, the ISO standard has a wider applicability especially since PCFs carried out can be further enriched with LCAs. Another methodology is the PAS 2050, a UK standard for most products, but does not include land use changes.
Reporting- and communication-ready:
As PCFs provide a quantifiable measure of GHG emissions and align with the above-mentioned standardized methodologies, results can be used for mandatory reporting such as the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Device (CSRD) and for product sustainability marketing efforts limiting the risk of greenwashing.
Carbon tunnel vision:
Given the fact that PCF stands for Product Carbon Footprint, this measurement only accounts for GHG emissions, which could inadvertently lead to carbon tunnel vision. While the threat of climate change should not be diminished, other sustainability issues such as depletion of water resources and biodiversity loss deserve just as much consideration. We discuss this topic more and argue for a shift from carbon targets to nature targets in one of our earlier articles.
Especially in the context of the food industry where an average of more than 90% of emissions come from upstream sources, neither corporate-level carbon accounting nor just PCF will cut it when it comes to making significant impact reductions.
Methodological variance:
Methodological variance in PCF calculations, due to differences among standards like ISO 14067, PAS 2050, and the GHG Protocol, can hinder impact assessment comparability across products. This variance arises from differing scopes, assumptions, and calculation rules, making it essential to use the same standard for accurate comparisons. However, frameworks like the EU’s Product Environmental Footprint (PEF), which Carbon Maps follows, aim to address these challenges by harmonizing methodologies.
If you’ve been a loyal reader of Carbon Maps, you’ll have understood that LCA (Life Cycle Assessment) is a scientific methodology that evaluates the environmental impact of a product or system throughout its entire life cycle. What’s more, the scope of LCA also allows taking into account multiple key environmental indicators beyond GHG emissions.
ISO 14067, the most widely recognized standard for PCF, is built on the standards for LCA (ISO 14044/14040). This means that while a PCF calculated under ISO 14067 maintains the scientific rigor and consistency established in ISO 14044 and ISO 14040, it only addresses climate-related impacts.
Put simply, PCF is just a fraction of LCA as it only accounts for GHG emissions whereas a Life Cycle Assessment—especially important in the context of a food product—also looks at the resources and input that were required for its production such as how much water and land was used.
In addition to LCA encompassing inputs (e.g., raw materials, energy) and outputs (e.g., emissions, waste, by-products) of a product, it uses impact assessment models to evaluate environmental impacts across multiple categories and stages throughout the product’s entire life cycle.
Let’s consider a kilogram of rice as an example. Although its climate change impact is relatively low at 2.75 kg CO2e/kg, rice is highly resource-intensive in terms of water and land use. For comparison, white rice has approximately 50 times the impact on water resources and 3 times the impact on land use compared to a kilogram of pasta. This illustrates that a low carbon footprint alone does not capture a product’s overall environmental performance. Focusing solely on carbon emissions risks overlooking critical trade-offs in other areas, such as water depletion and biodiversity loss.
LCA can be enriched with the EU's Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) because PEF builds on the shared methodological foundation of ISO 14040 and 14044. While these standards provide the framework for assessing environmental impacts across a product's life cycle, PEF adds EU-specific guidance, including standardized datasets, predefined rules, and a focus on 16 key environmental indicators such as climate change, resource use, and biodiversity. This harmonized approach enhances consistency, comparability, and regulatory alignment, enabling businesses to meet EU requirements while maintaining the comprehensive insights of LCA for global sustainability strategies.
This is why with every product-level LCA carried out by Carbon Maps, you can also see assessments for all 16 PEF indicators.
Carbon Maps models and displays all 16 PEF indicators on its platform, with an emphasis on two indicators:
The 14 other PEF indicators are detailed on every product's page.
Product Carbon Footprints (PCFs) offer a precise view of a product’s greenhouse gas emissions, making them ideal for reporting and targeted climate action. However, their narrow scope may overlook broader environmental impacts, such as water depletion or biodiversity loss. This is where Life Cycle Assessments (LCAs) excel, providing a comprehensive analysis of a product's environmental footprint across multiple indicators.
Harmonized frameworks like the EU’s Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) further enrich LCAs, ensuring consistency, comparability, and regulatory compliance while maintaining global applicability. Businesses that adopt LCAs strategically can address immediate reporting needs and lay the foundation for holistic sustainability practices.
Carbon Maps specializes in carrying out product-level Life Cycle Assessments of food products and raw material ingredients at scale, which cover PCFs allowing you deeper and more granular insights to help you reach your Net-Zero and greater sustainability targets. Schedule a call with us today to learn more about how we can help.
.svg){kind=icon}
