The DOI matches its Crossref record.
THE ROLE OF INPUT–OUTPUT ANALYSIS FOR THE SCREENING OF CORPORATE CARBON FOOTPRINTS
Abstract
In developing a standardised approach for companies to inventory greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions along their value chains, key challenges identified by stakeholders and technical experts include: which emissions sources a company should include in their inventory and how to calculate them, what constitutes a full list of indirect supply chain activities, and how to determine which activities from such a list are significant by application of a cut-off threshold. Using GHG accounting based on input–output models from Australia and the United States, this work presents specific case study examples and general results for broad industry sectors in both economies to address the development of a complete upstream carbon footprint for screening purposes. This is followed by an analysis of the issues surrounding application of cut-off thresholds and the relationship with system capture rate and efforts in carbon footprint analysis. This knowledge can inform decision makers about where to expend effort in gaining progressively greater accuracy for informed purchasing, investing, claiming carbon credits, and policy-making. The results from this work elucidate several findings: while it is probably true that some companies will know what sources contribute most significantly in the supply chain, this is not likely to be true for all. Contrary to common perception, scope 1&2 emissions are not always more significant than scope-3 sources, and, for some sectors, the largest sources of emissions may be buried further upstream than many companies may have previously perceived. Compiling a list of core elements of significance across all sectors may be problematic because these elements are not necessarily significant for most sectors. Lastly, the application of cut-off thresholds results in highly variable performance in footprint capture rate and is not a reliable criterion for including emission sources in GHG footprints. Input–output analysis is a powerful tool in informing supply-chain GHG accounting, and there is a need for plain language education, training, support materials and information to be made easily accessible to a global business community.
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
Cited by
Carbon accounting: a systematic literature review
Stechemesser, K., & Guenther, E. (2012) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.02.021 · Cited by 411
Fang, K., Heijungs, R., & de Snoo, G. R. (2014) · Ecological Indicators · doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.08.017 · Cited by 355
Consumption-based GHG emission accounting: a UK case study
Barrett, J., Peters, G., Wiedmann, T., Scott, K., Lenzen, M., Roelich, K., & Le Quéré, C. (2013) · Climate Policy · doi:10.1080/14693062.2013.788858 · Cited by 337
Self-citationThe Concept of City Carbon Maps: A Case Study of Melbourne, Australia
Wiedmann, T. O., Chen, G., & Barrett, J. (2016) · Journal of Industrial Ecology · doi:10.1111/jiec.12346 · Cited by 155
Hybrid life-cycle assessment for robust, best-practice carbon accounting
Kennelly, C., Berners-Lee, M., & Hewitt, C. N. (2019) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.09.231 · Cited by 57
Metadata
- Authors
- Huang, Y. A., Lenzen, M., Weber, C. L., Murray, J., & Matthews, H. S.
- Venue
- Economic Systems Research
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2009-09
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 217-242
- ISSN
- 0953-5314 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-5758
- OpenAlex
- W2117100569
- Cited by
- 185
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 6.20
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: THE ROLE OF INPUT–OUTPUT ANALYSIS FOR THE SCREENING OF CORPORATE CARBON FOOTPRINTS. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/09535310903541348
- The paper
- Huang, Y. A., Lenzen, M., Weber, C. L., Murray, J., & Matthews, H. S. (2009). THE ROLE OF INPUT–OUTPUT ANALYSIS FOR THE SCREENING OF CORPORATE CARBON FOOTPRINTS. Economic Systems Research. https://doi.org/10.1080/09535310903541348
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.