IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/ijlctc/v9y2014i3p237-243..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A comparative study of carbon footprint and assessment standards

Author

Listed:
  • Tao Gao
  • Qing Liu
  • Jianping Wang

Abstract

This paper focuses on the research methods and steps involved in carrying out studies on different types of carbon footprints. Furthermore, a comparative study of different carbon footprint assessment standards was carried out to identify their similarities, differences and deficiencies. Goals, principles, research boundaries, calculation methods, data selection and other aspects of organizations footprint and product carbon footprint were analysed, respectively. Organizations carbon footprint assessment standards—ISO14064 and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) protocol and product carbon footprint assessment standards—PAS2050, TSQ0010, ISO14047 and Product and Supply Chain GHG Protocol were analysed comparatively. The selection of GHG, system settings, quantification and carbon footprint, selection of date and treatment of specific emissions are the most important part of the study of the carbon footprint and assessment standards, especially for organizations and products. Guidelines had been made on these issues from existing assessment standards, but further improvement is still needed.

Suggested Citation

  • Tao Gao & Qing Liu & Jianping Wang, 2014. "A comparative study of carbon footprint and assessment standards," International Journal of Low-Carbon Technologies, Oxford University Press, vol. 9(3), pages 237-243.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:ijlctc:v:9:y:2014:i:3:p:237-243.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/ijlct/ctt041
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Shanshan Wang & Weifeng Wang & Hongqiang Yang, 2018. "Comparison of Product Carbon Footprint Protocols: Case Study on Medium-Density Fiberboard in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-14, September.
    2. Aditya Prana Iswara & Aulia Ulfah Farahdiba & Rachmat Boedisantoso & Anwar Rosyid & Sunu Priambodo & Lin-Han Chiang Hsieh, 2023. "Carbon footprint of offshore platform in Indonesia using life cycle approach," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(10), pages 11263-11284, October.
    3. Natalia V. Starodubets & Irina S. Belik & Natalia L. Nikulina & Tamila T. Alikberova, 2023. "Assessment and Forecasting of Metallurgical Enterprises Carbon Footprint in the Sverdlovsk Region," Journal of Applied Economic Research, Graduate School of Economics and Management, Ural Federal University, vol. 22(3), pages 572-599.
    4. Lukasz Skowron & Monika Sak-Skowron, 2021. "Environmental Sensitivity and Awareness as Differentiating Factors in the Purchase Decision-Making Process in the Smartphone Industry—Case of Polish Consumers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-19, January.
    5. Rainer Kasperzak & Marko Kureljusic & Lucas Reisch & Simon Thies, 2023. "Accounting for Carbon Emissions—Current State of Sustainability Reporting Practice under the GHG Protocol," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-17, January.
    6. Fang, Zigeng & Yan, Jiayi & Lu, Qiuchen & Chen, Long & Yang, Pu & Tang, Junqing & Jiang, Feng & Broyd, Tim & Hong, Jingke, 2023. "A systematic literature review of carbon footprint decision-making approaches for infrastructure and building projects," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 335(C).
    7. Fengsong Pei & Rui Zhong & Li-An Liu & Yingjuan Qiao, 2021. "Decoupling the Relationships between Carbon Footprint and Economic Growth within an Urban Agglomeration—A Case Study of the Yangtze River Delta in China," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-15, September.
    8. Xiaorong Sun & Xueping Pan & Chenhao Jin & Yihan Li & Qijie Xu & Danxu Zhang & Hongyang Li, 2022. "Life Cycle Assessment-Based Carbon Footprint Accounting Model and Analysis for Integrated Energy Stations in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(24), pages 1-20, December.
    9. Allen H. Hu & Chia-Hsiang Chen & Lance Hongwei Huang & Ming-Hsiu Chung & Yi-Chen Lan & Zhonghua Chen, 2019. "Environmental Impact and Carbon Footprint Assessment of Taiwanese Agricultural Products: A Case Study on Taiwanese Dongshan Tea," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-13, January.
    10. Oliver Lange & Julian Plath & Timo F. Dziggel & David F. Karpa & Mattis Keil & Tom Becker & Wolf H. Rogowski, 2022. "A Transparency Checklist for Carbon Footprint Calculations Applied within a Systematic Review of Virtual Care Interventions," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(12), pages 1-14, June.
    11. Thomas Wiedmann, 2017. "On the decomposition of total impact multipliers in a supply and use framework," Journal of Economic Structures, Springer;Pan-Pacific Association of Input-Output Studies (PAPAIOS), vol. 6(1), pages 1-11, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:ijlctc:v:9:y:2014:i:3:p:237-243.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/ijlct .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.