The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Importance of Carbon Footprint Estimation Boundaries
Open accessAbstract
Because of increasing concern about global climate change and carbon emissions as a causal factor, many companies and organizations are pursuing "carbon footprint" projects to estimate their own contributions to global climate change. Protocol definitions from carbon registries help organizations analyze their footprints. The scope of these protocols varies but generally suggests estimating only direct emissions and emissions from purchased energy, with less focus on supply chain emissions. In contrast approaches based on comprehensive environmental life-cycle assessment methods are available to track total emissions across the entire supply chain, and experience suggests that following narrowly defined estimation protocols will generally lead to large underestimates of carbon emissions for providing products and services. Direct emissions from an industry are, on average, only 14% of the total supply chain carbon emissions (often called Tier 1 emissions), and direct emissions plus industry energy inputs are, on average, only 26% of the total supply chain emissions (often called Tier 1 and 2 emissions). Without a full knowledge of their footprints, firms will be unable to pursue the most cost-effective carbon mitigation strategies. We suggest that firms use the screening-level analysis described here to set the bounds of their footprinting strategy to ensure that they do not ignore large sources of environmental effects across their supply chains. Such information can help firms pursue carbon and environmental emission mitigation projects not only within their own plants but also across their supply chain.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
System Boundary Selection in Life-Cycle Inventories Using Hybrid Approaches
Suh, S., Lenzen, M., Treloar, G. J., Hondo, H., Horvath, A., Huppes, G., Jolliet, O., Klann, U., Krewitt, W., Moriguchi, Y., et al. (2004) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/es0263745 · Cited by 1,025
Cited by
Carbon Footprint of Nations: A Global, Trade-Linked Analysis
Hertwich, E. G., & Peters, G. P. (2009) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/es803496a · Cited by 1,715
Cowls, J., Tsamados, A., Taddeo, M., & Floridi, L. (2023) · AI & SOCIETY · doi:10.1007/s00146-021-01294-x · Cited by 552
Cowls, J., Tsamados, A., Taddeo, M., & Floridi, L. (2021) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3804983 · Cited by 552
Quantifying Carbon Footprint Reduction Opportunities for U.S. Households and Communities
Jones, C. M., & Kammen, D. M. (2011) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/es102221h · Cited by 450
Reducing greenhouse gas emissions through operations and supply chain management
Plambeck, E. L. (2012) · Energy Economics · doi:10.1016/j.eneco.2012.08.031 · Cited by 302
Metadata
- Authors
- Matthews, H. S., Hendrickson, C. T., & Weber, C. L.
- Venue
- Environmental Science & Technology
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2008-08-01
- Volume
- 42
- Issue
- 16
- Pages
- 5839-5842
- ISSN
- 0013-936X (ISSN-L)
- 1520-5851
- OpenAlex
- W2083174705
- Cited by
- 571
- References
- 1
- Type
- other
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.