This article breaks down key concepts behind Product Carbon Footprints (PCFs), their role in Scope 3 reporting, the importance of BOMs, and how tools like LCAs, EPDs, and Cradle to Cradle complement product-level climate strategies.
A question that often comes up in sustainability discussions is: “Is a PCF the same as Scope 3 emissions?” The answer is no, but they are closely connected.
Scope 3 emissions include all indirect greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that occur across a company’s entire value chain, broken down into 15 categories. They frequently comprise the lion’s share of a company’s emissions, sometimes accounting for as much as 90%.
PCFs, by contrast, focus on the full life cycle emissions of individual products, from raw material extraction and transportation through manufacturing, use, and end-of-life – typically referred to as cradle-to-grave. Partial assessments include cradle-to-gate (from raw materials to the factory gate) and gate-to-gate (specific production steps).
While Scope 3 emissions are reported at the corporate level, particularly under the GHG Protocol Corporate Standard, PCFs typically follow standards like ISO 14067 or the GHG Protocol Product Standard, both of which recommend a cradle-to-grave approach.
Despite being distinct in scope and methodology, PCFs can serve as key building blocks for Scope 3 inventories. For example, when calculating emissions from purchased goods and services, companies can aggregate the carbon footprints of all the underlying products to obtain more precise data, rather than relying on generic emission factors or spend-based estimates.
A typical PCF – especially when calculated cradle-to-grave – captures emissions from multiple Scope 3 categories. These usually include:
Since many of the largest emission sources – especially Scope 3 categories 1 and 11 – are directly tied to the products a company makes or buys, PCFs can drive action where it matters most. As such, PCFs can help:
Key Takeaway
A thorough PCF assessment serves as a detailed subset of a company’s Scope 3 inventory, seen through the lens of an individual product. This makes the PCF a granular, actionable tool for addressing emissions where they actually occur.
At the core of any credible PCF analysis lies one critical data source: the Bill of Materials (BOM). A BOM is a comprehensive list of all raw materials, components, and sub-assemblies that make up a finished product. Each entry typically includes material specifications, quantities, and sometimes also supplier or processing information. In short: a BOM is the blueprint of a product’s material structure, and thus a key input for modeling its environmental footprint.
When calculating a PCF, especially using a cradle-to-gate or cradle-to-grave system boundary, companies must trace GHG emissions across every part of the product. The BOM provides the structural framework to do that.
Example: For a laptop, the BOM would detail semiconductors, metals, plastic parts, packaging, and other inputs – each of which has an associated carbon footprint.
BOMs serve multiple roles in PCF calculation:
Despite their value, BOMs are not always easy to work with. Many companies face real challenges:
Overcoming these hurdles often requires close collaboration between sustainability, procurement, engineering, and IT teams – and increasingly, digital solutions.
While BOMs are the most preferred data source for PCF assessments, they may not always be available. Alternative approaches include spend-based estimates and industry averages, process-based LCA models, supplier-provided PCF insights, Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs), or AI-inferred product details.
Many companies combine the different methods in a tiered approach – starting broad and refining it over time. At the same time, they increasingly apply modern technologies such as ERP-integrated tools – that incorporate BOM data directly into emissions models – or AI-powered solutions – that extract BOMs from specs, datasheets, or legacy documentation – to make assessments easier and more scalable.
Key Takeaway
In sectors that manufacture physical products, BOMs are the gold standard for PCF calculation. They provide the precision, traceability, and product-specific structure required for accurate emissions analyses.
That said, BOMs are only as good as their underlying data. Companies must invest in data quality, cross-functional integration, and the digital infrastructure to keep BOMs accurate, complete, and up to date.
When it comes to assessing, interpreting, and communicating a product’s environmental impact, three overarching concepts dominate the landscape:
While all three are interconnected, they serve distinct purposes, follow different standards, and are used in different contexts.
An LCA represents the underlying methodology used to evaluate a product’s environmental impacts throughout its life cycle – from raw material extraction to production, use, and disposal. It examines multiple impact categories, including GHG emissions, water use, acidification, eutrophication, resource depletion, toxicity, and more – for a holistic view of product sustainability. LCAs provide critical raw data for PCFs and EPDs.
A PCF is a single-impact result of an LCA. It measures the total GHG emissions associated with a product across its life cycle, while disregarding other environmental impacts. Similar to the LCA, a PCF requires clear system boundaries and a life cycle inventory analysis of inputs and outputs.
An EPD is a standardized, third-party verified document that summarizes the results of an LCA and follows strict rules – so-called Product Category Rules (PCRs) – to ensure that environmental claims can be benchmarked across products.
It includes various environmental indicators – ranging from GHG emissions to energy use, water consumption, and more – and is frequently required in procurement, building certifications, and competitive tenders.
Key Takeaway
The three concepts – LCAs, PCFs, and EPDs – pursue different goals, but they support and complement each other. Together, they form the core toolkit for sustainable product strategies – from internal design choices to regulatory compliance and market differentiation.
When we talk about PCFs, the conversation often centers on linear system boundaries like cradle-to-grave, cradle-to-gate, or gate-to-gate. These models help quantify emissions at different life cycle stages, but they don’t challenge the underlying structure of how products are made.
This is where cradle to cradle (C2C) comes into play. Unlike the PCF – a measurement tool designed to quantify the climate impact of products – C2C describes a design philosophy.
While the two concepts look at fundamentally different aspects of product sustainability, they can complement each other in meaningful ways.
C2C is a regenerative design philosophy that goes beyond traditional notions of sustainability. It treats waste as a design flaw and envisions products that can be reused, remanufactured, recycled, or safely returned to nature. The C2C Certified framework evaluates products based on five key dimensions:
At its core, C2C is about creating lasting value through continuous material reuse.
When used together, C2C and PCFs can support decarbonization strategies, SBTi targets, and compliance with legislation such as the EU’s Eco-Design for Sustainable Products Regulation (ESPR).
The following examples illustrate how C2C-driven design decisions translate into measurable emissions reductions:
The integrated use of C2C and PCF concepts is applied in industries such as apparel and textiles, electronics, packaging, and building and construction. Products are designed with circular principles in mind, while PCF assessments identify emission hotspots. These hotspots can then be addressed using targeted C2C strategies.
Key Takeaway
C2C and PCF originate from different sustainability paradigms, but they are highly complementary. C2C provides the vision and design criteria for circular, regenerative products, while the PCF offers the data and diagnostic insight to quantify and optimize climate impacts. Together, they offer a strong foundation for credible, low-carbon sustainability strategies.
Product Carbon Footprints (PCFs) offer a practical, measurable way to understand and reduce emissions at the product level. Whether used to support Scope 3 reporting, guide sustainable product design, or drive compliance, PCFs are most powerful when integrated with high-quality data (like BOMs) and aligned with broader sustainability tools such as LCAs, EPDs, and Cradle to Cradle. For companies committed to credible climate action, PCFs are no longer optional, they are a strategic necessity.
May 2025
Learn about the critical role of Scope 3 emissions for companies, why supplier-specific data entails many benefits and find out about the fundamental importance of supplier engagement and collaboration.
July 2025
Wizz Air streamlines supply chain sustainability management using the IntegrityNext due diligence solution and SAP Ariba integration, reducing supplier risk assessment time by 70% while boosting transparency, automation, and compliance.
May 2025
Join us for a practical session on how to streamline carbon management across Scope 1-3 and product-level emissions — while engaging suppliers, enhancing compliance, and driving real-world reductions.
