Pathfinder Framework

Guidance for the Accounting

and Exchange of Product Life
Cycle Emissions Powered by

Version 2.0
Collaborators
WBCSD would like to thank the following companies and organizations that have supported and
contributed to the development of the Pathfinder Framework:

THE OPEN GROUP

FORUM

Knowledge partner Technology partner

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions 2
Contents

Foreword 4 5. Assurance and verification

5.1 Context 43

1. Introduction 5.2 Objectives and scope 44

1.1 The challenge 6 5.3 Assurance roadmap 45

1.2 The solution 7 5.4 Evidence 50

1.3 The opportunity 8 5.5 Requirements for SMEs 51

5.6 Process and reporting 52

2. Overview of general setup 5.7 Special cases 53

2.1 Purpose and application 9

2.2 General structure 10 6. Data exchange

2.3 Approach 10 6.1 Required elements for data exchange 54
2.4 Focus 11 6.2 Connecting through technology 56
2.5 Terminology 12 6.3 Incorporating product-level data into
Scope 3 calculations 57
2.6 Summary of guidelines 13

3. Emissions accounting Appendix

A Terms and definitions (glossary)  58
3.1 Existing methods and standards 16
B PCF questionnaire 62
3.2 Scope and boundary 20
C Existing standards and guidance 67
3.3 Guidance for calculating PCFs 22
D Assurance evidence pack 68

E Scope 3 upstream accounting methods 72

4. Data integrity
4.1 Data sources and hierarchy 36

4.2 Data reliability 39

Endnotes 74

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions 3
Foreword
The world has already warmed by 1.1°C and is falling behind in
limiting the temperature increase to 1.5°C. Accurate and transparent
accounting of greenhouse gas emissions and their abatement
within the private sector is fundamental to preventing backsliding
on commitments and pledges aligned with the 1.5°C pathway.

There are still some significant hurdles to exchange primary data-based product carbon
decarbonization, though, even for the most driven footprints (PCFs) across the value chain. The
organizations. Reduction of Scope 3 emissions requirements captured in it seek to further enhance
is a critical challenge, as they typically account data reliability and consistency across industries
for the largest and most diverse share of a and value chains, for instance via the inclusion of
company’s footprint. a verification and assurance roadmap.

Due to a lack of transparency across value chains, It is important to emphasize that the goal to
these emissions are also the hardest to quantify and accelerate decarbonization of value chains
tackle. Solving this Scope 3 emissions challenge cannot be solved by individual actors in isolation.
presents one of the most powerful levers to It requires an aligned, coordinated, and open
accelerate decarbonization. approach, driven jointly by stakeholders across
all industries and value chains, including SMEs.
Regulators are beginning to recognize the power Radical collaboration is key.
and necessity of addressing the global Scope
3 challenge. The European Commission’s Corporate We commend the large and growing number of
Reporting Sustainability Directive (CSRD) requires companies, organizations, and institutions that have
companies to disclose the percentage of primary collaborated on and contributed to this Framework.
data used to calculate Scope 3 emissions. While Thank you to those who provided valuable feedback
as recently as October 2022, the International and insights, as well as McKinsey & Company, our
Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) voted knowledge partner, and SINE, our tech collaborator.
unanimously to require company Scope 3 emissions We urge you to keep these actions up and ensure we
disclosures in addition to Scopes 1 and 2. all continue to join forces on this essential topic.

In order to achieve transparency, we need detailed The uptake of the Pathfinder Framework represents
guidelines to consistently calculate and account significant progress in solving the Scope 3 emissions
for emissions at the most granular level, as well as challenge. Now is the time for targeted and bold
infrastructure to exchange the resulting verified action: we invite you to start applying the Framework
primary data across value chains. within your organizations and to ask key stakeholders
within your value chains to do the same.
As both a global business membership-based
organization and co-convenor of the Greenhouse
Gas (GHG) Protocol, WBCSD has long understood
these challenges and recognized the critical need
for Scope 3 emissions transparency. That’s why, in
collaboration with 50 companies, standard setters,
regulatory bodies, and industry initiatives, we have
developed the Pathfinder Framework.

The Pathfinder Framework builds on the long-

standing work with the World Resources Institute
under the GHG Protocol to take a cross-sectoral Dominic Waughray
approach to help organizations develop and Executive Vice President, WBCSD

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions 4
The best time
to accurately
account for,
exchange,
and reduce
Scope 3 emissions
was yesterday.
The second best
time is now.
1. Introduction
Current efforts to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are
insufficient to meet the Paris Agreement targets. Accounting for
and exchanging reliable and consistent GHG emissions data is key
to supercharging decarbonization efforts.

1.1 The challenge Data accounting: Room for

interpretation and inconsistency in
Accurately quantifying and reducing emissions, existing methods and standards
particularly those in value chains (Scope 3), are key
enablers for changing the global warming trajectory Many companies lack Scope 3 primary data to
and avoiding the worst effects of climate change. accurately account for emissions arising within their
value chains. Secondary emission factor databases
However, while Scope 3 emissions often constitute are used to fill this gap, though the average or typical
the lion’s share of companies’ carbon footprints data these provide are often not specific enough to
(Figure 1)1, organizations are still struggling to meet the data needs of companies, which range from
adequately understand and address these. When climate risk assessments to the implementation and
accounting for Scope 3 emissions, companies share tracking of decarbonization strategies and targets.
a common challenge: a lack of sufficiently granular, High-quality product life cycle accounting, considered
accurate, and verified primary product-level data. the most accurate approach to account for value
This is caused by issues with emissions accounting chain emissions, is also inhibited by the inconsistent
and data sharing as well as by the increasingly use of approaches to account for product emissions,
complex ecosystem of stakeholders emerging in the with existing standards and protocols (such as ISO,
emissions accounting space. GHG Protocol, or Product Environmental Footprint
standards) leaving room for interpretation.

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions 6
Figure 1: Percent of total Scope 1 to 3 emissions, 2019, based on self-reported CDP data

Cement and concrete 82 18

Air transport 78 22
Pharma 26 74
Printing and packaging business 25 75
Fertilizera 21 79
Chemicals 19 81
Oil and gas 8 92
Fast-moving consumer goods 7 93
Mining 5 95
Apparel 5 95
Retail 4 96
Automotive 2 98

Scope 1 and 2 Scope 3

a. Includes agricultural chemicals.

Source: McKinsey & Company analysis, drawing on select data from CDP and McKinsey’s Catalyst Zero solution

Accounting standards and guidelines that are not Regulatory bodies (e.g., US Securities and Exchange
fully consistent create challenges for a streamlined, Commission, European Commission, International
scalable application. This results in inconsistent Sustainability Standards Board) and companies are
accounting, which in turn leads to insufficient searching for and developing individual approaches,
reporting and exchange of emissions data. industry-focused associations are addressing their
members’ most pressing concerns, and the broader
ecosystem has also started identifying the role it can
Data access: Complex value chains
play. A lack of integration and harmonization across
and lack of interoperability between the ecosystem is a major roadblock to transparency,
technology2 solutions given that no single company, association, or
ecosystem stakeholder can achieve this without
While value chains often span multiple the others.
(international) stakeholders from different
industries, most corporate systems are not able to As a result of the above challenges, companies’
exchange GHG emissions data with other systems Scope 3 decarbonization efforts are inhibited. It is
(and across company boundaries), resulting in high impossible to track and reduce Scope 3 emissions
transaction costs for manual efforts in the form at the scale needed without determining and
of surveys or spreadsheets. New GHG accounting understanding emissions associated with products
technology and data exchange platforms, while a and services that are transferred from one company
step in the right direction, still lack one essential to the next in the value chain.
feature: interoperability, i.e., the ability to connect to
one another, exchange information, and understand
the information exchanged (or “speak the same 1.2 The solution
language”). In practice, this means companies will
typically only be able to access each other’s data if An infrastructure developed in close collaboration
they use the same technology solution. with stakeholders is needed to enable the consistent
calculation and exchange of accurate, primary, and
verified product-level emissions data across all value
Ecosystem alignment: Growing number
chains and industries.
of stakeholders seeking to tackle the
transparency challenge This infrastructure should be comprised of
standardized approaches and common guidelines
There has been significant momentum to resolve across both methodology (product-level emissions
the challenges around Scope 3 emissions.

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions 7
accounting) and technology (product-level Specifically, PACT:
emissions data exchange):
• Creates convergence and harmonization on
• On the methodology side, this is to ensure upstream Scope 3 emissions transparency
product-level emissions are calculated in a to ensure an integrated and aligned global
comparable and consistent manner, resulting in ecosystem with close collaboration between
accurate, high-quality data. all stakeholders
• On the technology side, there is a need for • Establishes the Pathfinder Framework
common data exchange guidelines and (methodological guidelines) by building on the
technical specifications for interoperable data GHG Protocol and other existing standards
exchange across global companies and complex to enable consistent product-level emissions
value chains. accounting and primary data exchange

Furthermore, the creation of a free and open digital

• Defines the Pathfinder Network (common
technology infrastructure) for the secure
network will significantly facilitate data exchange
exchange of product-level emissions data
(upstream to downstream, but also downstream to
across technology solutions and data
upstream) and strengthen quality and credibility.
exchange platforms, linking global value chains
and industries.
1.3 The opportunity Transparency on carbon data can also set the
foundations for greater transparency on other
Access to more granular data can unlock a host of
environmental factors. If organizations are ready
use cases that reinforce internal business decision
to embark on this journey together, the rewards will
making and support corporate accountability.
be significant—not least for the climate. This work,
Transparency can, for example, positively influence
therefore, has the potential to be a game changer.
the bottom line, mitigate (climate-related) risk, or
drive competitive advantages.

This is precisely why the Partnership for Carbon

Transparency (PACT) was established. PACT seeks
to turn the Scope 3 emissions challenge into an
opportunity for companies and organizations by
enabling consistent calculation and exchange of
primary data of product cradle-to-gate emissions
across value chain partners.

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions 8
2. Overview
of general setup
This section gives an overview of the general setup of the
Framework with the aim of easing navigation and providing
essential context.

The Framework should thus be seen as a

2.1 Purpose and application supplement to the existing methods and standards
referenced in Section 3.1 and shall be used in
The Pathfinder Framework was created with the
conjunction with these. The Framework has been
aim of addressing one of the key existing carbon
drafted as a blueprint applicable to different
accounting challenges: the exchange of consistent
industries. It, therefore, constitutes a foundation to
supplier-specific product carbon footprint (PCF)
build on to meet additional sector-specific needs. As
data across the value chain. It seeks to help
alignment in this context is critical, PACT has been
businesses develop a better understanding of
set up to support this process.
their value chain emissions by encouraging and
guiding the exchange of primary carbon footprint
While the Framework is designed to be a guidance
data across value chains. The Framework builds
document and is therefore voluntary in nature,
on existing frameworks and standards to provide
its application will lead to greater emissions data
guidance on accounting, verification, and exchange
consistency for all stakeholders across industries.
of cradle-to-gate PCFs with the aim of creating
To further encourage broad application and facilitate
more granular, comparable, and consistent
scaling, the Framework has been published openly
emissions data.
for everyone to freely access and use.

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions 9
The Framework should be applied by stakeholders A summary of key takeaways for each section can be
such as: found below (Figure 2).
• Businesses wishing to better understand and
exchange the carbon footprint of their products
as well as the products they purchase
2.3 Approach
• Auditors supporting businesses in the above The Pathfinder Framework has been developed
endeavor by verifying carbon footprint following a collaborative approach and is the result of
data exchanged an iterative stakeholder consultation process that also
included a pilot testing exercise of the first version of
• Technology companies creating solutions for the
the Framework (published in November 2021).
calculation or exchange of such carbon footprints
• Initiatives driving industry-focused approaches This updated version of the Pathfinder Framework
to data transparency and developing additional builds on the first version to incorporate further clarity
methodological guidance or technological and additional guidance in the following key areas:
solutions for data exchange in this context
1. Hierarchy for the application of product category
• Policy makers wishing to align their regulations to rules (PCRs)
PCF methodologies validated and implemented
2. Quality safeguards for PCRs and secondary
industry-wide
data sources
3. More specific PCF accounting guidance on:
2.2 General structure a. Exemption rules
b. Allocation
The Pathfinder Framework is divided into three key
c. Biogenic emissions
parts, which together drive forward the ambition of
creating more transparency: emissions accounting, 4. Data quality indicators
creating integrity, and data exchange (Figure 2).
5. Assurance and verification roadmap
While the first part provides some additional context
and outlines fundamental guardrails for suppliers’ 6. Incorporation of PCFs into Scope 3 inventories
calculation of PCFs by building on existing standards,
part two details key steps in the process toward As the development of consistent rules requires some
creating trust in the data and transparency across the trial and error, additions or adjustment revisions may
value chain. The third part provides details on how be necessary—e.g., as a result of the pilot testing
the Pathfinder Framework could be integrated as part and the practical implementation of the guidance or
of an IT infrastructure to facilitate application of the to remain aligned with the evolving industry needs
Framework and enable the standardized exchange of around emission reduction opportunities and the
emissions data (Section 6). landscape of carbon accounting and reporting.

Figure 2: Overview of sections within the Pathfinder Framework

Section 3 Section 4 Section 5 Section 6

Emissions Data Assurance Data
accounting integrity and verification exchange

Existing methods and Data sources and Assurance Required elements for
standards hierarchy and verification PCF data exchange

Scope and boundary Data reliability Connecting through

technologya

Calculating product Incorporating PCFs into

carbon footprints Scope 3 inventories

a. Out of the Scope of the Pathfinder Framework.

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions 10
 This Framework focuses on emissions and removals
2.4 Focus generated during a product’s life cycle and does
not address avoided emissions or actions taken
The Framework builds on existing product-level
to mitigate released emissions. This standard
accounting standards and contains guidance
is also not designed to be used for quantifying
for the calculation of cradle-to-gate PCFs to
GHG reductions from offsets or claims of
further enhance consistency, data integrity, and
carbon neutrality.
comparability. It also covers requirements regarding
the exchange of PCF data, in particular focusing
on data quality requirements and assessment
thereof, verification and assurance of data, and data
elements to be exchanged downstream (Figure 3).

Figure 3: Focus of the Pathfinder Framework

Guidelines for emissions accounting

Relating to existing product standards and methods Additional elements
 Hierarchy of application  Hierarchy of allocation approaches
 Unification of relevant approaches  Approach to secondary data sources
 Exemption rules

Company A PCF Company B PCF Company C

Guidelines for data integrity Guidelines for data exchangea

 Hierarchy of data types  Temporal validity of exchanged PCFs
 Data quality assessment based on data  Minimum required data elements for
quality matrix exchange
 Calculation process for determination of
primary data share in PCFs
 Assurance and verification guidelines

Exchange of PCFs along the value chain

a. Additional technological guidelines and mechanisms for standardized data exchange have been developed in parallel by the Pathfinder Network
(e.g., technical data specifications, company onboarding mechanism, or governance structure for the extension of required data elements).

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions 11
 Additional definitions of frequently used terms
2.5 Terminology throughout the Framework can be found in the
glossary (Appendix A).
The Pathfinder Framework uses different
terms to differentiate between requirements,
recommendations, and permissible or allowable
options (Table 1).

Table 1: Pathfinder Framework terminology

Term Definition

“Shall” Indicates which rules need to be followed by companies applying the Pathfinder Framework

“Should” Indicates which rules are recommendations

“May” Indicates an option that is permissible or allowable

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions 12
2.6 Summary of guidelines

Table 2: Summary of guidelines

Emissions accounting

3.1  The Pathfinder Framework shall be read in conjunction with

existing methods and standards listed in Section 3.1 for the
Existing methods and assessment of PCFs
standards  PCRs or sector-specific rules shall be prioritized for the calculation
and allocation of PCFs
 PCRs shall only be considered valid if they comply with the
Pathfinder Framework’s quality safeguards
 If multiple PCRs are applicable, companies shall follow the PCR
hierarchy laid out by the Pathfinder Framework
 Where no regulations or product- or sector-specific rules exist,
companies shall follow the Pathfinder Framework requirements
 For elements not specifically addressed by the Pathfinder
Framework, the PCF calculation shall be compliant with the sector-
agnostic standards

3.2  Companies shall account for all GHGs identified within the GHG
Protocol
Scope and boundary  Their respective 100-year global warming potential (GWP; including
carbon feedbacks) shall be derived from the latest
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment
Report publication
 Companies shall report cradle-to-gate PCF, comprising all
upstream stages of the product life cycle up to the reporting
company’s gate (including upstream transportation), excluding
downstream emissions from product use and end-of-life
 PCFs shall be exchanged upstream to downstream, providing kg of
CO2e per unit of analysis

3.3 3.3.1  All attributable processes shall be identified

Guidance  Companies shall collect relevant activity data and emission factors
Accounting for
for PCFs based on identified attributable processes
product GHG
emissions  Manufacturing of production equipment, buildings and other capital
goods, business travel by personnel, travel to and from work by
personnel, and research and development activities should not be
included within the boundaries of the PCF, unless materially significant
 Companies shall be able to exclude individual attributable processes
representing less than 1% of the total cradle-to-gate PCF
 In aggregate, exclusions shall represent less than 5% of the total
cradle-to-gate PCF emissions
 If necessary: allocation of emissions to outputs should follow the
Pathfinder Framework allocation hierarchy

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions 13
Table 2: Summary of guidelines (continued)

Emissions accounting

3.3 3.3.2 Biogenic emissions and removals

Guidance  Biogenic emissions and removals associated with the following
Additional
for PCFs shall be calculated and included as part of the “PCF (incl. biogenic
guidance
emissions and removals)” metric from 2025 onwards:
— Direct land-use change (dLUC)
— Land-management-related changes (including land carbon
pools and other non-CO2 emissions related to land
management)
— Other biogenic GHG emissions not covered in dLUC and land
management
— Biogenic CO2 withdrawals
 The biogenic carbon content of the product (mass of carbon) shall
be calculated and reported separately as part of the data exchange
form
 GHG emissions associated with indirect land-use change (iLUC)
emissions may be calculated and reported separately as part of the
data exchange form. iLUC emissions shall not be included as part
of the PCF
 To support transparency, all of the metrics above shall also be
reported separately whether they are included in the PCF or not

Transportation emissions
 Upstream and direct transportation emissions within the cradle-to-
gate boundary, including storage, shall be calculated and included
in the PCF
 Only transportation emissions relating to the fuel—also known as
well-to-wheel emissions—and the energy consumed by storage
facilities shall be included (i.e., the manufacturing of the vehicles
used for the transport of goods shall not be included)

Waste treatment and recycling emissions

 All production emissions shall be allocated to the outputs with
economic value, rather than to the waste or recyclable material
itself
 Emissions resulting from waste treatment as part of the
production process shall be calculated and included in the PCF of
the company that manufactured the product and generated the
waste
 Emissions from the end-of-life stage of the products shall not be
included in the PCF boundary
 Since the Pathfinder Framework’s boundary is cradle-to-gate, the
“recycled content” method should be used for the allocation of
emissions from recycling materials and energy recovery

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions 14
Table 2: Summary of guidelines (continued)

Creating integrity

4.1  Pathfinder Framework definitions shall be used by companies to

determine the nature of activity data and emissions
Data sources and hierarchy  Activity data that is used to calculate PCF shall be company-specific
 Secondary emission factors used shall be compliant with
Pathfinder Framework safeguards
 Companies may use proxy data to bridge minor data gaps

4.2
 Companies shall either assess the primary data share (PDS) or the
data quality of the PCF until 2025; after 2025, both KPIs shall be
Data reliability calculated and exchanged
 If calculated, the PDS shall be based on both the nature of the
activity data and the emission factors used
 If calculated, the data quality ratings (DQRs) shall use the
Framework’s data quality assessment matrix, excluding any inputs
representing less than 5% of the total PCF

Assurance and verification

5  Verification of the PCF shall be done by an independent third party

following the considerations laid out in the Pathfinder
Assurance and verification Framework’s roadmap

Data exchange

6.1  Data owners shall exchange their cradle-to-gate PCFs alongside a

set of minimum required data elements listed by the Pathfinder
Requirements for PCF data Framework downstream in the value chain
exchange

6.2  Companies that have calculated their PCFs should exchange

these using the Pathfinder Network
Connecting through
technology

6.2  Companies should incorporate PCFs into their corporate Scope 3

footprints by multiplying the PCFs provided by suppliers with the
Incorporating product-level number of product units purchased from them
data into Scope 3 calculations

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions 15
3. Emissions
accounting
In order to foster better understanding of emissions, companies
shall calculate their cradle-to-gate PCF and exchange this along
the value chain.

3.1 Existing methods • ISO standards (14044/40, 14067, 14025)

and standards • Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) method

and Product Environmental Footprint Category
Rules (PEFCRs) by the European Commission
The Pathfinder Framework builds on existing
(see Box 2)
methods and standards to provide guidance on which
methods to use and when and to provide additional • PCRs by Environmental Product Declaration
guidance where existing guidelines offer flexibility. (the International EPD System) and other
program operators
3.1.1 Relationship • Any other product- or sector-specific rules that
are compliant with the GHG Protocol rules
The Framework leverages and builds on existing
methods and standards for the calculation and The Pathfinder Framework builds on these with
allocation of product-level emissions, including: the aim of ensuring PCF accounting consistency
and comparability. Please refer to Appendix C
• Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting
for examples.
Standard (GHG Product Standard) and
Corporate Value Chain (Scope 3) Standard
(GHG Scope 3 Standard) by WBCSD and World
Resources Institute under the GHG Protocol

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions 16
3.1.2 Hierarchy of application

In general, existing methods and standards can be

classified into three types:
1. Product-specific rules (e.g., PEFCRs)
2. Sector-specific rules (e.g., Together for
Sustainability or PlasticsEurope)
3. Overarching sector-agnostic or cross-sectoral
protocols and standards (e.g., GHG Protocol
standards, ISO standards, PEF method)

Application of these rules follows the hierarchy

shown in Figure 4, whereby three scenarios
are envisaged. Please note that product-level
regulations applicable to any given product
or company (e.g., depending on the sector
they operate in) should be prioritized over
other existing methods and standards.

Figure 4: Prioritization of methods and standards

1 2 3

Product-specific rules Sector-specific rulesa Cross-sectoral standardsb

Most prescriptive, product- Sector-specific guidelines built Most-used guidelines in

specific guidelines (e.g., on recognized standards to practice, but not sufficiently
PEFCRs or PCRs) compliant cater to sectoral specificities specific (e.g., GHG Product
with PCR quality safeguards Standard, ISO 14067, PEF)

+ Pathfinder Framework requirements

a. Sector-specific rules should align with Pathfinder Framework requirements and build from them. In cases where sectoral guidance does not
fully align, aspects not in alignment should be highlighted.
b. Elements specifically addressed by the Pathfinder Framework (e.g., allocation) shall be prioritized over cross-sectoral standards.

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions 17
Product-specific rules exist • PCRs shall be reviewed at least every five years
to ensure they are up to date with the latest
According to ISO 14067, 3 a PCR is a “set of specific methodological developments, standards, and
rules, requirements and guidelines for carbon market expectations.
footprint of a product or partial carbon footprint of a
product quantification and communication for one or
• PCRs shall be applicable to the geography where
the product is being marketed or produced.
more product categories.”
Please note, in some cases, the methodology
Where product-specific rules exist, their application
presented by a PCR may be relevant and appropriate
should always be prioritized for the cradle-to-gate
for a given product while their accompanying
PCF calculation, as they provide the most detailed
databases may not be. For example, the methodology
guidance in relation to a specific product and hence
presented by a PEFCR may be relevant for a product
can contribute to increasing the accuracy and
manufactured in a non-European region, whereas the
consistency of data exchanged across value chains.4
European data sets may not be the most accurate
for that given region. In such cases, companies shall
PCRs will most likely overlap with the requirements
communicate whether a company has followed only
of Section 3.3 of this document. In such cases, in line
the methodological requirements of a PCR but not
with the hierarchy, the PCRs should be prioritized.
the accompanying data set.
To ensure robustness and reliability, only PCRs
meeting the following safeguards shall be Sector-specific rules exist
considered valid for the purpose of this guidance:
Where no product-specific rules exist, companies
• PCRs shall be developed in accordance with the
shall prioritize the use of sector-specific rules built
ISO 14000 series or other cross-sectoral guidance
on cross-sectoral standards (i.e., ISO, GHG Protocol,
to be considered an eligible PCR.
PEF) for the calculation of PCFs. Please note that
• PCRs shall be developed through a the development of new sector-specific guidance
multistakeholder process and independently should build on and seek alignment with the proposed
peer reviewed. Pathfinder Framework requirements and further refine
them to cater to sectoral specificities (e.g., Together
for Sustainability guidance for the chemical sector).5

Box 1: Hierarchy of PCRs

While the aim of PCRs is to provide more granular 2. If there is a global sector-specific initiative
product-specific guidance to facilitate accuracy validating PCRs, these should be prioritized
and consistency, in some instances several (e.g., TfS, Catena-X).
PCRs compliant with the quality safeguards may
3. If the calculation is to be done for commercial
exist for a product or product category (e.g., two
purposes and no sector-specific guidance
PCRs covering the same product but in different
on PCRs exists, companies should base their
regions). The applicability of these different
PCR choice on the market in which the product
PCRs for companies may vary depending on
is intended to be manufactured or sold. For
the purpose behind the development of the
instance, if it is intended for the global market,
PCF. For example, a region-specific PCR may
companies should prioritize PCRs from global
be able to better capture nuances around the
program operators (e.g., EPD International
manufacturing process of a product in a given
Program), but if the intended market is a specific
region, while a PCR from a global operating
country or region, companies should prioritize
association may be better suited to ensuring
PCRs applicable to that given geography (e.g.,
accounting consistency worldwide. For the
PEFCRs being used for EU market).
purpose of this guidance, companies should thus
base their choices on the following hierarchy: 4. If the intended market is unclear, companies
should prioritize more globally accepted PCRs
1. If the calculation is to be done for compliance
to favor consistency and broader acceptance.
purposes, PCRs’ compliance with the
regulation should be followed (e.g., PEFCRs).

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions 18
Only overarching rules exist All of the above standards shall be compliant
with ISO 14040 and ISO 14044, which provide
Where no product- or sector-specific rules exist, foundational requirements and guidelines for life
companies shall follow the Pathfinder Framework cycle assessments (LCAs) and may be consulted as
accounting requirements for more consistency of a reference. In parallel, businesses are encouraged
PCF calculation. to develop more detailed product or sectoral rules
in collaboration with other stakeholders to address
For elements not explicitly addressed by the any sector- or product-specific needs and drive
Pathfinder Framework, the methodology used further consistency in the PCF calculation of any
to calculate PCFs shall be compliant with the given product.6
cross-sectoral standards (GHG Product Standard,
ISO 14067, or PEF).

Box 2: EU PEF method and PEFCRs

Background Use
While the demand for environmental declarations From 2013 to 2019, the European Commission
at the product (and organizational) level has led a pilot phase for 26 product categories. The
increased in recent years, so far there has not development phase is now entering a transition
been a single, widely adopted approach, resulting stage where the PEFCRs will be implemented on
in a lack of comparability and consistency. The a larger scale, which will determine if and how the
European Commission has sought to address PEFCRs will come into effect or be required by
this gap through the development of accounting law within the European Union.
methodologies captured within the PEF and the
accompanying PEFCRs.a Link to the Pathfinder Framework
The Pathfinder Framework promotes the
As defined in the PEFCR Guidance:
application of PEFCRs where available. Notably,
• The PEF is based on an LCA method to PEF methodology and PEFCRs include a set
quantify the relevant environmental impacts of overarching and product-specific rules,
of products (goods or services). definitions, and proprietary secondary data
sources, as well as further life cycle impact
• PEFCRs are rules based on product category
categories, which are an addition to the general
and life cycle rules that complement
framework stipulated here. In order to meet the
general methodological guidance for
additional requirements from the PEF and PEFCR
PEF assessments by providing further
methodology, companies should refer to the PEF
specifications at the level of a specific
method and respective PEFCR documentation.
product category.
Any developments by the European
Commission in this context will be closely
To date, PEFCRs have been developed for more
monitored to evaluate and assess the further
than 20 different product categories, following
implementation of PEF and PEFCR requirements
a common process defined by the PEF method
into future iterations of this Framework.
and, whenever possible, building on existing work
such as PCRs.

The objective of these PEFCRs is to help

companies identify the most significant
environmental impacts and activities throughout
the life cycle of a given product. In addition, the
use of these common PEFCRs will increase the
comparability and consistency of results.

a. Equivalent methods have been developed with regard to organizational declarations.

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions 19
3.2 Scope and boundary 3.2.3 Scope and boundary of the
Pathfinder Framework
Understanding the Scope and boundary of this
Framework is an essential starting point for the
The life cycle of a product is composed of five
calculation of PCFs.
stages: (1) material acquisition and preprocessing,
(2) production, (3) distribution and storage, (4)
3.2.1 LCA approach product use, and (5) end-of-life.

The Pathfinder Framework is based on the The boundary of the Pathfinder Framework—i.e., the
attributional LCA approach. This approach processes and their associated GHG emissions that
seeks to determine the ex post environmental shall be accounted for and exchanged as part of the
impacts associated with a product’s life cycle. PCF by a company—is a cradle-to-gate PCF, covering
GHG emissions are attributed to a specific unit stages 1 to 3 above.
of a product by adding up the emissions of all
attributable processes along its life cycle. A PCF This includes all the attributable upstream and direct
represents the potential life cycle impact of a emissions10 of a product, including all upstream
product on the environmental impact category of transportation activities.11 The life cycle emissions
climate change. This impact category considers that that shall be accounted for in this cradle-to-gate
different GHGs have different impacts on climate PCF exclude downstream emissions related to the
change, expressed as their GWP with the unit kg product use and end-of-life stages.
CO2 equivalent (CO2e).7
When accounting for emissions, companies shall
The basic equation to calculate GHG emissions further define their cradle-to-gate boundary by
(CO2e) for activity data is: organizing the attributable process of their studied
product into the defined life cycle stages (Figure 5).

Kg CO2e = Activity × Emission × GWP In calculating cradle-to-gate PCFs, which are in

data factor (kg CO2e/ turn shared downstream with the next value chain
(amount (kg GHG/ kg GHG) actor, the entire value chain of products and carbon
of activity) unit of emissions can be linked up, ultimately creating
activity) greater transparency for businesses and end
consumers alike.
3.2.2 Focus on GHG emissions
The selected system boundary facilitates the
integration of received PCF data from suppliers into
The Pathfinder Framework provides the
own PCF calculation and downstream sharing with
methodological framework for studying GHG
respective customers. To increase the transparency
emissions. Companies shall account for the GHGs
of data exchange and to prevent double counting
identified within the GHG Protocol titled “Required
or excluding emissions, the Pathfinder Framework
Greenhouse Gases in Inventories; Accounting and
requires companies to report on the attributional
Reporting Standard Amendment.”8
processes included in each of the life cycle
stages covered by the PCF. The requirements and
The list includes carbon dioxide (CO2), methane
recommendations for data exchange are explained
(CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons
further in Section 6 and Appendix B.
(HFCs), perfluorinated compounds, sulfur
hexafluoride (SF6), nitrogen trifluoride
(NF3), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), fluorinated
ethers (HFEs), perfluoropolyethers (e.g.,
PFPEs), chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), and
hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs). Following
common practice, the global warming impact of
these gases can be converted into and expressed
as CO2e. Their respective characterization factors
(100-year GWP, including carbon feedbacks) shall
be derived from the latest version of the IPCC
Assessment Report publication.9

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions 20
Figure 5: Life cycle stages included in the boundary of the Pathfinder Framework

Material acquisition
Nature and preprocessing

Returned to Recycled or
nature reused
(circularity)
End-of-life Production

Distribution
Product use
and storagea

Not included in Pathfinder Framework boundary Included in Pathfinder Framework boundary

a. Contains product storage and shipping processes, including transportation within and between these life cycle stages.

3.2.4 Unit of analysis

The unit of analysis of the product serves as the basis per unit of analysis (e.g., GHG emissions per 1 kg or
for all data collection and inventory results. Final PCF 1 liter of product). Please note that cradle-to-gate
inventory results shall thus be disclosed as kg of CO2e PCFs typically use a “declared unit” approach (Box 3).

Box 3: Distinction between functional and declared unit

LCA inventory results are provided in terms of Intermediate products, i.e., products that will still
functional units.a A functional unit describes the be processed further to create a final product,
function of a product in question. For example, for can, however, have several functions based on
a laundry detergent, the functional unit could be their eventual end use. In this case (and where an
defined as “washing 4.5 kg of dry fabric with the LCA does not cover the full life cycle), the term
recommended dosage with medium-hard water.” declared unit—typically referring to the physical
Understanding the functional unit is essential for quantity of a product, e.g., “1 liter of liquid laundry
comparability between products with the same detergent with 30 percent water content”—can be
function, as it provides the reference to which the used instead.
input (materials and energy) and output (such as
products, by-products, waste) are quantified.

a. This term is used in ISO 14044 and PEFCRs.

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions 21
3.3 Guidance for calculating PCFs
This section provides guidance on how to calculate a PCF, which should be used in conjunction with existing
methods and standards. Companies calculating their PCF in accordance with a PCR or sector-specific
guidance may skip this section.

Figure 6: Overview of steps for PCF calculation

1a Identify all
attributable Activity data: material and energy inputs, purchased product
processes and components, and other direct emissions
collect primary
activity data

1b
Direct activities Upstream activities
Categorize
data

1c If available: primary emission If available: cradle-to-gate PCF

factors (primary emission factora)
Collect
emission Otherwise: emission factors from Otherwise: emission factors from
factors secondary databasesb secondary databasesb

2
Activity data emission factors

Activity Activity Activity Activity

emissions emissions emissions emissions

Calculate and
add emissions Direct
emissions

Multi-input/output unit process emissions

3 Depending on type of
Allocate processesc
emissions
(if necessary)

Share PCF

PCF

From internal systems From suppliers Emissions from different activities added up

a. E.g., x kgCO2 per y tons of steel.

b. Using secondary database(s) according to agreed upon guidelines.
c. Companies shall avoid allocation whenever possible.

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions 22
 If packaging is included, it should be visible in the
3.3.1 Accounting for product GHG
description of the product.
emissions
To determine multi-input/output unit process
The following steps are used in the calculation of a emissions, relevant activity data and emission
PCF: (i) identifying and collecting necessary data, factors based on a company’s own processes (direct
(ii) calculating emissions using relevant emission activities) as well as the relevant material or energy
factors, and (iii) allocating these to specific products input flows from suppliers upstream (upstream
or materials (Figure 7). activities) shall be collected.

Inventory data shall be compiled with regard to the

3.3.1.1 Data identification
following processes:
First, all the attributable processes linked with • Material inputs (e.g., 10 tons of steel, 300 kg
the Scope identified in Section 3.2 (cradle-to- of aluminum)
gate) should be identified. This guidance defines
“attributable processes” as any processes associated
• Energy inputs12 such as purchased electricity,
cooling, and heating (e.g., 100 kWh)
with services, materials, or energy flows that become,
make, or carry a product throughout its life cycle. • Purchased materials or feedstocks (e.g.,
chemical component, unit, amount)
In alignment with the GHG Product Standard, only
those processes that are immediately related to the
• Inbound transport and storage-related inputs
(e.g., 10 km transport of 10 kg of chemical
production of the studied product are part of the
components from supplier to manufacturing site
assessment. In light of this, the following activities
in a diesel-fueled truck)
should not be included within the boundaries of the
PCF, unless materially significant for the reference • Production waste and treatment (e.g., 10 kg of
product: manufacturing of production equipment, cardboard waste sent to landfill)
buildings and other capital goods, business travel
by personnel, travel to and from work by personnel,
• Any other direct emissions not included (e.g.,
CO2 formed during the production process)
and research and development activities. While
all of these activities are linked to company
After identification of the data, all data shall be
operations and should be accounted for within
categorized as direct or upstream activities (Figure 6).
companies’ Scope 3 inventories in line with the GHG
Scope 3 Standard, they do not tend to be specific
to any given product and should therefore not be 3.3.1.2 Exemption rules
included in PCFs unless they represent a material
percentage of the PCF (e.g., in the case of wind or Companies should seek to incorporate all
solar power generation, where the building of the attributable cradle-to-gate processes into their PCF.
panels and turbines is not negligible on a per kWh However, there are instances where the lack of data
basis over the lifetime of the equipment). availability or the effort and resources required to
calculate certain attributable processes can far
In accordance with the cut-off criteria defined in outweigh their overall GHG contribution to the PCF. In
Section 3.3.1.2 of this guidance, packaging may these cases, companies can exclude the processes
be excluded or included in the PCF calculation, if they disclose and justify these, based on their
depending on its contribution to the PCF. degree of significance to the final PCF.

Figure 7: General steps for the calculation of a PCF

1 2 3

Data identification Calculation Allocation (if necessary)

Identify all attributable processes Calculate total emissions based Partition emissions among
and collect primary activity data on activity data and emission multiple outputs to calculate
and emission factors (if not factors (CO2e) per activity data PCF on product level
available, use secondary data) (CO2e/declared unit)

Section 3.3.1.1 and Section 3.3.1.2 Section 3.3.1.3 Section 3.3.1.4

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions 23
To do so, companies can conduct an initial screening 3.3.1.3 Calculation
of the product to identify all attributable processes
and their contribution to the total PCF to understand GHG emissions arising from a process are determined
whether, in the most conservative case, a process by multiplying activity data with the relevant emission
may be deemed insignificant (e.g., via a sensitivity factor (CO2e per declared unit). The resulting activity
analysis). For this purpose, companies shall only be emissions can then be added to direct emissions, if
able to exclude individual attributable processes any, to obtain multi-input/output unit process GHG
representing less than 1 percent of the total cradle- emissions (Figure 6). Emission factors, used to convert
to-gate PCF. a given amount of activity data into GHG emissions,
are not to be mistaken for characterization factors,
In aggregate, the sum of excluded processes (in which in the context of emissions assessments refer
percentage contribution to total PCF) shall be less to the 100-year GWP of the GHGs included in the
than 5 percent of the total estimated cradle-to-gate assessment based on a CO2e amount (e.g., the GWP of
PCF emissions.13 methane is 22 kg CO2e/kg).

Should no major product modifications occur, Relevant emission factors can be obtained in
companies can employ the results of the initial two ways:
screening in future iterations.
• Primary emission factors. Where such emission
factors are available directly from suppliers or
To justify any exclusions, companies shall provide
internal processes, these shall be used (e.g., blast
the percentage of emissions excluded from the PCF
furnace of gas mix emissions measured directly
as well as a description of the excluded attributable
on site).14
processes and the estimation technique used to
determine insignificance. • Secondary emission factors. Where no such data
is available, secondary sources compliant with
the safeguards listed in Section 4.1.3.2 shall be
used to find the most suitable emission factors.

Please refer to Section 4.1.1 for a more detailed

definition of the different types of emission factors.

Example: Case study demonstrating a justified exclusion

Consider a process for which no primary or in the product, does not exceed 1 percent of the
secondary data is available on material input X. carbon emissions impact; therefore, the material
The company estimates that even if material X input is a justified exclusion as long as the total
has the highest possible GHG intensity based 5 percent threshold including all other exclusions
on a threshold of GHG intensity for proxy data, is not surpassed.
its impact, based on the total amount present

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions 24
3.3.1.4 Allocation state that companies are to prioritize physical
allocation if an underlying physical relationship
In the context of this guidance, allocation means can be established and is applicable, or to allocate
splitting multi-input/output processes into single the inputs and emissions based on economic or
output unit processes by using physical, economic, other established and justifiable relationships if an
or other criteria to partition the emissions between underlying physical relationship does not exist or is
the product system being studied (also known as not applicable (Table 3).
the studied product) and one or more other product
systems (also known as co-products).15 When However, the flexibility these standards provide
outputs include both co-products and waste (i.e., means that in many cases it may not be clear
outputs with no economic value), the emissions shall whether a physical relationship is applicable or not
only be allocated to co-products. (see examples on Figure 9, 10, and 11). Companies
may therefore struggle to determine if an economic
While there are methods to avoid it, allocation is relationship should be prioritized instead. To
unavoidable in many cases. In the absence of a PCR promote a consistent decision-making process and
or sector-specific guidance on allocation rules, minimize the room for interpretation, the Pathfinder
companies should allocate the emissions in line Framework has developed a cross-industry
with the hierarchy presented by recognized cross- allocation hierarchy (Figure 8) that companies
sectoral standards (i.e., ISO 14067 and the GHG should follow to increase the consistency and
Protocol) and reflected in Table 3. These standards automatization of PCF calculations.

Table 3: Allocation methods presented by ISO and the GHG Protocol by order of priority

Method Definition

Physical Allocating the inputs and emissions of the system based on an underlying physical relationship
allocation between the quantity of product and co-product and the quantity of emissions generated

Economic Allocating the inputs and emissions to the product and co-product(s) based on the market value
allocation of each when they exit the common process

Other Allocating the inputs and emissions to the product and co-products(s) based on established and
relationships justifiable relationships other than physical or economic

Source: GHG Protocol

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions 25
Figure 8: Pathfinder Framework decision-making tree to consistently implement ISO and GHG Protocol
allocation rules

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4

Prioritize PCRs Determine ratio

Avoid allocation and sectoral of economic Select most suitable allocation
guidance value

Yes Apply
process
subdivision
Follow PCR
Is process Yes or sector-
subdivision Apply
specific
possible? physical
Approveda guidance
Apply
PCRs or Yes allocation
Yes system based on
sector- expansion most suitable
No specific via
Is there a Is there an physical
guidance? substitution
dominant, underlying relationshipc
≤5 physical
identifiable
No substitute relationship
product?b between the
Ratio of the co-products? Use
economic economic or
value of the alternative
No No
co-products? allocation
Apply
economic
>5 allocation for
co-products
Best-case approach

a. Sector-specific guidance or PCRs shall be used only if compliant with quality safeguards presented in Section 3.1.2, or if approved and required
by sector-specific standards aligned to the Pathfinder Framework.
b. System expansion via substitution should only be used if there is a dominant, identifiable displaced product and production path for the
displaced product based on sector consensus.
c. If in doubt, mass allocation should be prioritized, but there are instances where other allocation factors may be more suitable (e.g., liters for
liquids, energy content for energy).

Step 1: Avoid allocation Step 2: Prioritize PCRs and sector-specific guidance

In accordance with the LCA International Standard When avoiding allocation is not possible, allocation
(ISO 14044) and the GHG Product Standard, methods in line with published and accepted
allocation shall be avoided whenever possible by sector-specific guidance or PCR fulfilling the quality
using process subdivision, i.e., disaggregating requirements listed in Section 3.1.2 shall be prioritized.
the common processes into subprocesses that When more than one PCR exists for a product or
separately produce the studied product and product category, priority shall be determined in line
co-products. The common process needs to be with the hierarchy specified in Section 3.1.2.
subdivided only to the point at which the studied
product and its function are isolated, not to the Should no PCR or sector-specific guidelines exist,
point that every co-product has a unique and companies shall apply system expansion via direct
distinct process.16 substitution only when companies have “direct
knowledge of the function and eventual use of the
co-product.”17 This entails defining a dominant,
identifiable displaced product and production
path for the displaced product for which sector
consensus exists.

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions 26
Step 3: Determine the ratio of economic value years, and, if not possible, over the last three years
in order to reduce the economic value fluctuations.
When allocation cannot be avoided and there are no If market prices are not available, other financial
established product- or sector-specific allocation metrics (e.g., costs) may be used as long as they are
rules, companies shall calculate the ratio of the justified and transparently communicated.
economic value of the co-products. To calculate
the ratio, the highest value product is placed in the
Step 4: Select the most suitable allocation method
numerator, regardless of whether it is the reference
product or not. This ratio is employed in the next step
If the calculated economic value ratio is equal to or
to determine the most suitable allocation approach.
lower than five,18 companies should apply physical
allocation between the studied product and the
The underlying logic is that, in the case of high
co-product(s). That is, allocating the inputs and
discrepancy in the market value of product coming
emissions of the system based on the most relevant
from a common process (i.e., economic value ratio
underlying physical relationship between the product
higher than five), the product(s) with significantly
and co-product. For this, the physical property used
higher economic value can be considered the
as the allocation factor should most accurately
“driver(s) of the process.” In other words, the
reflect the underlying physical relationship between
production would not take place in the absence of
the studied product and co-product. Should no
the product with the highest economic value.
underlying physical relationship exist, companies
shall allocate emissions based on the economic
The economic value of products should be
value and amount of each co-product that is
calculated based on stable market prices. In case
produced or based on alternative factors established
of high year-on-year price fluctuation (i.e., over
by the sector, company, academia, or other sources
100 percent), companies should use the average
of conventions and norms (Figure 9).
market price of products over ideally the last five

Figure 9: Example of physical allocation based on mass

Case study: Factory produces two different clothing garments on equal measure but is unable to perform process
subdivision. No PCRs exist. Our studied garment weighs 0.5 kg and has an economic value of $2, while the
co-product weighs 1 kg and has an economic value of $3. There are 10 tCO2e to be allocated.
Apply
physical
allocation
Yes Apply based on
process
most suitable
subdivision
physical
Follow PCR relationship
Is process Yes or sector-
subdivision Studied
specific Yes
possible? garment =
Approved guidance
Apply (0.5÷1.5)×10
PCRs or Yes system = 3.33 tCO2e
sector- expansion Is there an of factory
No specific via underlying GHG
guidance? Is there a substitution physical emissions
dominant, ≤5
relationship allocated
identifiable between the
No substitute Co-product:
Ratio of the co-products? (1÷1.5)×10 =
product?
economic Yes, mass 6.66 tCO2e
value of the
No co-products?
3÷2 = 1.5 Apply Use
economic economic or
>5 allocation for No alternative
co-products allocation
Path followed

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions 27
When the calculated economic value ratio is based on the economic value and the amount of
higher than five, companies shall directly apply an each that is produced when they exit the common
economic allocation between the studied product process (see Step 3 for more detailed guidance on
and the co-product(s). That is, allocating the inputs how to calculate the economic value) (Figure 10).
and emissions to the product and co-product(s)

Figure 10: Example of economic allocation

Case study: Lobster fishing company has caught significant amounts of fish (by-catch) alongside lobsters during
the studied year. When seeking to allocate 500 tCO2e emissions associated with the yearly activity, they account for
10 t of by-catch and 2 t of lobster (our studied product). A lobster’s economic value is $3/t, compared to $0.5/t for
the by-catch.

Yes Apply
process
subdivision
Follow PCR
Is process Yes or sector-
subdivision specific Apply
possible? guidance physical
Approved Apply
PCRs or Yes allocation
Yes system based on
sector- expansion most suitable
No specific via Is there an
Is there a physical
guidance? substitution underlying
dominant, relationship
≤5 physical
identifiable
relationship
No substitute
Ratio of the between the
product? Use
economic co-products?
value of the economic or
No alternative
No co-products?
allocation
3÷0.5 = 6

Apply economic allocation for

co-products
Lobster =
3×2
×500 = 272.7 tCO2e
>5 3×2+0.5×10
By-catch =
0.5×10
×500 = 227.3 tCO2e
3×2+0.5×10
Path followed

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions 28
Allocation with more than one co-product emissions shall be allocated following physical
allocation if possible, and economic or alternative
In the case of more than one co-product, the allocations if not possible. See Figure 11 below for a
economic value ratio shall be calculated based on the more visual representation of this process.
ratio between the highest valued and the lower valued
co-product, regardless of whether that includes Regardless of which allocation methods are
the studied product. This approach aims to ensure used to avoid or perform allocation, companies
consistency in the allocation followed regardless shall disclose and justify these, including why the
of which product becomes the studied product. methods and factors most accurately reflect the
Similar to above, if the difference between the highest studied product’s or co-product’s contribution to the
and lowest valued co-products is lower than five, common process’ total emissions.

Figure 11: Example of allocation with more than one co-product

Case study: Mining company extracts and sells three products from a single mine. Process subdivision is not
possible, and no PCRs are available. Studied product’s economic value is $500 M/t and has a mass of 1.5t; it has
two co-products with values of $10 M/t and 30 t (co-product A) and $400 M/t and 0.5 t (co-product B), respectively.
There are 10,000 tCO2e to be allocated.

Yes Apply
process
subdivision
Follow PCR
Is process Yes or sector-
subdivision specific Apply
possible? guidance physical
Approved Apply
PCRs or Yes allocation
Yes system based on
sector- expansion most suitable
No specific via Is there an
Is there a physical
guidance? substitution underlying
dominant, relationship
≤5 physical
identifiable
relationship
No substitute
Ratio of the between the
product?
economic co-products? Use
value of the economic or
No alternative
No co-products?
allocation
500÷10 = 50

Apply economic allocation for

co-products
Studied product =
500×1.5
×10,000 =
500×1.5+10×30+0.5×400
= 6,000 tCO2e

Co-product A =
30×10
>5 ×10,000 =
500×1.5+10×30+0.5×400
= 2,400 tCO2e

Co-product B =
400×0.5
×10,000 =
500×1.5+10×30+0.5×400
= 1,600 tCO2e
Path followed

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions 29
 B. Accounting for land management emissions
3.3.2 Additional guidance
and removals

3.3.2.1 Accounting for biogenic emissions GHG emissions and removals associated with
and removals land-management-related changes should be
calculated and included in the PCF and shall also
This section provides guidance and requirements on be reported separately as part of the data exchange
how to account for and report biogenic emissions form. Land management emissions and removals
and removals associated with land-based products include all land carbon pools—i.e., soil organic
as part of the PCF. carbon, dead organic matter, and biomass carbon
stocks—as well as other non-CO2 emissions related
The calculation of all the below metrics shall be to land management. The following list provides
done in accordance with internationally recognized an overview of non-CO2 sources related to land
methodologies. The methodologies and resources management GHG emissions:
used to calculate and report on biogenic emissions
and removals shall be provided and documented as
• CH4 and N2O emissions from livestock, including
emissions from enteric CH4 fermentation and
part of the PCF data exchange form.
manure management
Please note, 2025 has been set as the first • Non-biogenic CO2 and N2O emissions from
mandatory year to report biogenic emissions agricultural soils and inputs, including fertilizers,
and removals to give companies enough time to pesticides, and herbicides
familiarize themselves with the content. However,
companies who consider biogenic emissions
• CH4 and N2O emissions from biomass burning
and fires
and removals to be relevant for their products
should include these in the calculations and • CH4 emissions from rice production
data exchanged.
• Other CH4 , N2O, non-biogenic CO2, HFCs, and
PFCs emissions, including emissions from
A. Accounting for direct land-use change (dLUC) on-site fuel and energy consumption, fuel
emissions combustion, air conditioning and refrigerant use,
on-site waste or wastewater management, and
GHG emissions associated with dLUC (allocated indirect emissions from purchased energy.
to the reference product) shall be calculated and
included as part of the PCF and shall also be If land management emissions and removals are not
reported separately as part of the data exchange assessed, this decision shall be justified in the PCF
form. In the case of no value chain and/or data data exchange form.
traceability to account for dLUC, companies shall
account for statistical land-use change (sLUC)
emissions as a proxy for dLUC and follow the same
reporting requirements.

Box 4: GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Guidance

To enable better and more consistent focuses on corporate-level accounting, it has

quantification of emissions related to land use, clear implications and overlaps with biogenic
land-use change, and biogenic products in the emissions within product-level accounting (see
value chain, the GHG Protocol is developing Section 6.3). Please note that this section of the
the GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Pathfinder Framework will be revisited once the
Guidance. The Guidance provides corporate-level Land Sector and Removal Guidance is published
guidelines and requirements on accounting for to ensure companies are able to consistently
and reporting biogenic emissions and removals report biogenic emissions and removals at both
across the value chain. While the guidance the corporate and product level.

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions 30
C. Accounting for other biogenic emissions F. Accounting for indirect land-use change (iLUC)

All other biogenic GHG emissions associated with GHG emissions associated with iLUC emissions may
product manufacturing and transport that are not be calculated and reported separately as part of the
included above should be calculated and included data exchange form. iLUC emissions shall not be
in the PCF and shall also be reported separately as included as part of the PCF.
part of the data exchange form. If such biogenic
emissions are not included as part of the PCF, The following table summarizes the requirements
this decision shall be justified in the PCF data specified above, detailing which elements shall be
exchange form. reported within the “PCF (incl. biogenic emissions
and removals)” metric and which elements shall
not be included but may be reported separately. To
D. Accounting for the biogenic carbon content
support transparency, all of the metrics shall also be
reported separately, regardless of whether they are
The biogenic carbon content in the product (mass of
included in the PCF or not (Table 4).
carbon) shall be calculated and reported separately
as part of the data exchange form.

E. Accounting for biogenic CO2 withdrawals

Biogenic carbon content in the product converted to

CO2e shall be calculated and reported separately as
part of the data exchange form.19

Table 4: Summary of biogenic emissions and removals data attributes to be included in the PCF data
exchange form

Unit Included in PCF Reported Mandatory

(incl. biogenic emissions separately
and removals)a

dLUC emissions KgCO2e Yes Yes Yes, from 2025

Land management GHG KgCO2e Yes Yes Yes, from 2025 b

emissions or removals
(incl. non-CO2 sources)

Other biogenic emissions KgCO2e Yes Yes Yes, from 2025 c

(excl. land-use change and
land management)

Biogenic carbon content Kg No Yes Yes, from 2025

Biogenic CO2 withdrawal KgCO2e Yes Yes Yes, from 2025

iLUC emissions KgCO2e No Yes No

a. For the full list of data attributes to be calculated and exchanged as part of the data exchange form, please refer to Appendix B.
b. If changes in land carbon pools are not assessed, this decision shall be justified in the PCF data exchange form.
c. If such biogenic emissions are not included in the PCF, this decision shall be justified in the PCF data exchange form.

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions 31
3.3.2.2 Accounting for transportation and To this end, the following data and information
distribution emissions should be collected and used:

Transportation and storage of products can take

• Fuel usage
place as follows: • Mode of transportation, such as road or rail
• Internally and as part of direct activities in vehicles • Mass of transported product in tons (expressed
and sites owned by the company undergoing per unit of analysis)
the assessment, e.g., the transportation of
intermediate or final products between different
• Distance covered
sections within the factory or agricultural mobile • Load specifications (if available)
emissions such as tractors
• Energy consumed by storage facility
• Externally between different tiers in the supply
• Area contracted to store reference product
chain in vehicles or facilities owned by third-party
(in case of third-party storage).
companies, e.g., the transportation of raw materials
to the company site (upstream) or transportation of
the final product to consumers (downstream).

All significant upstream and direct transportation

emissions within the cradle-to-gate boundary—i.e.,
transportation and storage emissions related to a
company’s direct activities and distribution activities
between tiers in the supply chain relating to the
PCF—shall be accounted for. For all these activities,
only emissions pertaining to the fuel life cycle (well-
to-wheel emissions) and the energy consumed by
storage facilities shall be included (Figure 12).20

Figure 12: Transportation emissions accounted for within the transportation boundary of the Pathfinder
Framework

Storage Fuel life cycle emissions Vehicle construction Infrastructure construction

(well-to-wheel) and maintenance

Emissions related to Emissions related to: Emissions related to Emissions related to

the energy consumed by  Well-to-tank: upstream construction of vehicle maintenance of
the storage facilities fuel production and transportation equipment infrastructure for
transportation transportation services
 Tank-to-wheel: fuel (e.g., road or port
combustion infrastructure)

Included in Pathfinder Framework boundary Not included in Pathfinder Framework boundary

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions 32
A. Accounting for storage emissions associated with the different energy sources used on
site (see the formula below).
If material, calculation of storage emissions will be
done by multiplying the percentage of the total area Should no information be available on the total
that is covered by the reference product with the total energy usage of the facilities, companies may
energy consumption of the storage facility, which use industry benchmarks based on the site’s total
in turn will be multiplied by the emission factors floor area.

Areaproduct
GHG emissionsstorage = × Energy consumptionsite × Emission factorenergy type
Areastorage site

B. Accounting for transportation emissions The prevalent unit of measure used for calculation
and exchange of logistics emissions is ton-km,
Calculation of product transportation emissions reflecting the mass of the shipment (in tons) and
depends on the availability of data on fuel distance transported.
consumption, mass, distance, and load factor
(Figure 13). For further guidance, please refer to the Global
Logistics Emissions Council (GLEC) Framework
and GHG Protocol standards.

Figure 13: Steps for calculating product transportation emissions based on data availability

a
Calculate transportation emission factora (CO2e/t-km) and
And/or apply to mass and distance data to obtain product-specific
transportation emissions
Primary data for
Yes
fuel available?
b
Calculate product-specific emission factor (CO2e/t shipped)
And/or and apply to mass data to obtain product-specific
transportation emissions

No

Apply emission factor to primary mass (and/or distance)

Yes
data to calculate product-specific transportation emissions
Verified emission
factor from third
party available?
Obtain relevant emission factor from secondary database
No and apply to primary mass (and/or distance) data to
calculate product-specific transportation emissions

a. Emission factors are always per transportation mode and type.

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions 33
3.3.2.3 Accounting for waste treatment and content method stipulates that companies using
recycling emissions within the cradle-to-gate recycled material as an input in their production shall
boundary account for the emissions from the recycling stage,
similar to when they account for the emissions of
In alignment with the GHG Product Standard and the the material they purchase (Figure 14). The cut-off
International EPD System, responsibility for waste approach should also be used when accounting for
processing is placed on the company that generates waste treatment with energy recovery. Companies
the waste during the production phase until the following a different approach shall communicate
waste is returned to nature (e.g., incinerated) or this when exchanging the data to ensure all waste-
has reached its end-of-waste state, 21 e.g., is used in related emissions are accounted for and allocated
another product’s life cycle (recycled). among the different value chain players.

For each product that generates waste, companies The cut-off method is preferable as it is applicable
need to determine whether such waste will be to most use cases, including complex supply
recycled or discarded as waste. If it is discarded, chains or where the product system includes many
any emissions arising from the treatment of waste recycled material inputs and outputs.23 Additionally,
during the production process shall be included in it is recommended for Scope 3 inventories due to
the total PCF. its ease of implementation and consistency with
inventory accounting methods and secondary
Since the Pathfinder Framework’s boundary does emission factors.24 Finally, the method also prevents
not include the end-of-life stage (see Section 3.2), emissions from being double counted if a company
the “recycled content” or cut-off method of the GHG both purchases and sells recycled products.
Product Standard22 should be used for the allocation Regardless of the approach followed, avoided
of emissions from recycling materials. The recycled emissions shall not be included in the final PCF.

Figure 14: Allocation of waste treatment and recycling emissions

Production phase

Waste Waste treatment

Product 1

Material for
Collection processesc
Company A recyclingb Company B

Recyclable
material

Recycling processes Recycled

material

Company C

Emissions from material flows within production phase included in PCF of Product 1 a
Emissions included in subsequent life cycle stage

a. Waste and recyclable material streams are not burdened by production impacts (exit burden-free). Direct emissions should be only allocated to
main products and by-products (Product 1).
b. Material that would otherwise have been considered waste.
c. Can include preprocessing.

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions 34
Emissions from the treatment of waste generated B. Generated waste sent to a third party for waste
during production shall be allocated to the studied treatment
product or co-products following the hierarchy
stipulated in Section 3.3.1.4. Since waste is Waste treatment facilities should calculate their
considered an output without economic value, no waste treatment emissions (Scope 1 and 2), develop
production emissions are allocated to the actual emission factors, and verify and communicate these
waste generated during production. to either the company that generated the waste in
instances where the waste is not recycled or the
The applicable approach to calculating emissions company making used of the recycled material in
depends on where the waste is treated. instances where it is.25 This approach is consistent
with the cut-off method detailed above.
A. Waste treated by the company that generates it
Alternatively, the waste treatment facility may share
primary data via the supplier-specific method.26
Emissions shall be calculated using primary activity
This involves collecting certified emissions data
data regarding the type of waste, its composition,
from waste treatment companies and allocating
and type of waste treatment activity. Depending
the corresponding emissions to the products in
on the type of waste treatment (e.g., landfill or
question (if required) using the same allocation
incineration), companies may use waste treatment
framework used to allocate direct emissions across
emission factors calculated based on internal
the products (Section 3.3.1.4).
primary data. Internal emission factors should be
verified by an independent auditor prior to being
If companies do not have access to primary data
used. If no primary emission factors are available,
from waste treatment facilities, they shall estimate
emission factors derived from accepted secondary
waste treatment emissions using primary activity
sources can be employed (Section 4.1.3.2).
data on the waste type and composition and
secondary emission factors according to the type of
waste treatment and disposal (landfill, incineration,
or recycling). The criteria used to determine valid
secondary emission factors in Section 4.1.3.2 shall
be referred to in this context.

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions 35
4. Data
integrity
One of the core aims of PACT is to increase the share of quality
primary data used to calculate PCFs.

4.1 Data sources and hierarchy or calculate GHG emissions based on both primary
activity data and emission factors (“best case”).
However, the use of secondary or proxy data is
This section provides definitions and overarching
practically unavoidable, especially in the case of
guidance for the prioritization of data sources and
missing data or when conducting an initial PCF
the use of secondary data when primary data is
screening.28 Table 6 shows a hierarchy for data
not available.27
sources that can be used for energy (electricity,
heating, cooling) and material inputs.
4.1.1 Defining the data hierarchy
4.1.2 Selecting primary data
For a PCF calculation to take place, two types of data
are required: activity data and emission factors. Both
Companies shall prioritize the collection of primary
of these can be derived from different sources, which
activity and emissions data to calculate their PCFs
this guidance categorizes into primary, secondary,
(e.g., by requesting that suppliers report PCFs
and proxy data. Table 5 presents the definitions that
following Pathfinder Framework requirements).
shall be used by companies to determine the nature
In some cases, further polishing and aggregating
of activity data and emission factors.
the data may be required to refine the emissions
estimate. Algorithms may be used to fill in the
One of the core aims of the Pathfinder Framework
missing data, or data aggregation may be required to
is to enable the use of high-quality data for PCF
dampen the effect of revisions, turnarounds, or other
calculations. In line with this ambition, companies
atypical production conditions.
are encouraged to directly measure GHG emissions

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions 36
Table 5: Data type definitions

Data type Activity data Emission factor Example

Primary Site- or supplier-specific data Calculated based on Direct GHG combustion

directly measured, collected, company-owned primary emissions or well-
or calculated (e.g., engineering activity data or provided by a characterized emission factors
estimates) supplier for a process under based on stoichiometry
their control

Secondary Data not directly collected, Emission factors derived from Default factors, regional
measured, or calculated secondary sources industry averages, literature
based on specific company studies, government
production data statistics, financial data, and
environmentally extended
input-output databases (EEIO)

Proxy Extrapolated, scaled-up, or customized data. Customizing amount of

material consumed by
Data from similar processes used as a stand-in for a specific a process from another
process, e.g., based on geography, outdated data product’s life cycle

Using electricity grid emission

factors from one region for
another region with similar
generation mix

Table 6: Data hierarchy for energy and material inputs

Activity data source Emissions factor source

Data type Energya Material Energy Material

Best case In-house/process-based data For on-site production: in-house/primary Supplier-specific

(e.g., via Pathfinder
For purchased electricity: supplier- Network)
specific or via a certification
mechanism (e.g., guarantees of origin)b

For other purchased energy: supplier-

specific or well-characterized emission
factors based on stoichiometry

Best casec In-house/process-based data Secondary process-based sources

Worst case In-house/spend data EEIO databases and data proxies

a. Electricity, heating/cooling, steam.

b. Allowed only if mechanism excludes renewable energy purchased from regional grid mix.
c. Prevalent approach in practice.

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions 37
 Box 5: Market-based approaches

Further work is ongoing to understand the accounting methodologies, reflected in the

application of market-based approaches GHG Protocol’s update to corporate, Scope 2,
(e.g., purchases of carbon credits, value chain and Scope 3 standards. PACT will revisit the
interventions, mass-balance certification, book- use of market-based mechanisms when further
and-claim certification) in company and product evidence from ongoing review of the accounting
GHG inventories. The aim is to standardize the standards emerges.

The use of modeling tools to estimate GHG of safeguards that secondary emission factors
emissions is a common practice in many sectors shall comply with if they are to be used for the
(such as agriculture), where emissions calculation calculation of PCFs:
is complex and affected by several interrelated
1. Documentation:
parameters (such as geography, temperature,
type of input, and agricultural practice). For the • Data included in the secondary emission
purposes of this guidance, the results of a model factor shall be validated in line with globally
that uses primary data as an input would also be recognized LCA principles.29
considered primary.
• The emission factor source should ensure
transparency by providing information on key
4.1.3 Selecting secondary data methodological (i.e., LCA modeling approach,
aggregation and allocation approach, if any)
and data (time period, geography, technology,
4.1.3.1 Activity data
representativeness) elements.
As displayed in Table 6, activity data that is used 2. Management and maintenance:
to calculate product-level GHG emissions shall
always be company-specific. However, this guidance
• If life cycle inventory databases are used, they
shall be periodically maintained and updated
acknowledges that there may be instances where
with the latest data sets.
company-specific process-based data may not be
available (e.g., where there is no traceability in the 3. Choice of modeling:
value chain). In these instances, companies may
resort to using spend-based data and EEIO emission
• The modeling of the secondary emission
factor shall be consistent with the
factors for their PCF calculations (“worst case”),
methodological principles of this Framework
bearing in mind this will reflect negatively in their
(e.g., attributional approach).
data quality assessment scores (see Section 4.2.2).
Companies shall provide references to the main
4.1.3.2 Emission factors sources used for their PCF calculation, including the
specific data set used, as part of the data exchange
Primary emission factors are also not always form. Examples of secondary emission factor
available. For instance, suppliers may be unable sources can be found in Table 7 below.
to provide GHG data for a component required to
manufacture the product for which Company X
4.1.4 Filling in data gaps
wishes to calculate a PCF. In such scenarios,
emission factors from secondary sources should be
When primary and secondary data are not available,
used (base case).
proxy data may be used to bridge minor data gaps
(worst case). The selection of proxy data sets is
The employment of secondary emission factors
usually based on the knowledge and experience of
shall be compliant with the general quality rules
the LCA practitioners and the subject matter expert
for secondary data sources. To ensure the use of
for that sector or product category.30
verified and credible secondary emission factors
while still allowing for flexibility in the data sources
used, the Pathfinder Framework defines a series

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions 38
Table 7: Examples of secondary emission factor databases accepted under the Pathfinder Framework

Database Sector Link

Ecoinvent All https://www.ecoinvent.org/

GaBi (thinkstep) All http://www.gabi-software.com/international/databases

GLEC database Transportation https://www.smartfreightcentre.org/en/downloads/

Official national emission All E.g., US EPA database:

factor databases https://cfpub.epa.gov/ghgdata/inventoryexplorer/

PEF All https://www.openlca.org/product-environmental-footprints-

pefs-in-openlca/

UNEP Global LCA Data Access All https://www.globallcadataaccess.org/

Network

4.2 Data reliability 4.2.2 Primary Data Share

To create visibility on the share of primary data in

This Framework introduces two metrics to track,
PCF calculations, the PDS in each data set should
report, and improve data quality, as well as increase
be determined and exchanged across the value
the use of primary data. By managing these metrics,
chain. This can be done by calculating the proportion
companies can assess and improve the overall
(percentage) of the total GHG emissions (CO2e) that
quality of PCF calculations.
is derived using primary data:

4.2.1 Introduction
Part of PCF based on
Initially, companies shall calculate and report, as primary data (CO2e)
part of PCF data exchange, on at least one of the = PDS PCF (%)
following metrics: PCF (CO2e)
• Primary Data Share (PDS). Percentage of PCF
emissions that were calculated using primary
In order for an input to be considered primary
activity and emissions data (Section 4.2.1)
data, both the activity and emission factor shall be
• Data Quality Ratings (DQRs). Quantitative score compliant with the primary data definitions included
for five data quality indicators based on the data in Table 5 (see a clarifying example below, Table 8).
quality matrix (Section 4.2.2)
In order for the upstream emissions’ PDS to be
From 2025, both metrics shall be reported by greater than 0, companies would need to request
companies to ensure continued alignment with PCFs and their corresponding PDS from their
the Pathfinder Framework. This will ensure a fuller suppliers. Should PDS for relevant components
picture of both the quality of the PCFs and the be obtained from upstream suppliers (tier n-1), the
amount of primary data being used to calculate total PDS of the PCF should be calculated using
them. Until 2025, companies should base their a weighted average approach of the material and
initial choice of metric(s) on the relevance to their energy inputs based on their GHG contribution to the
situation and resources available. For instance, a studied product’s PCF.
company calculating a PCF for the first time may not
have access to a large amount of primary data and To do so, the individual PDSs received from
may wish instead to reflect on the accuracy of the every input supplier (PDSPCFcomponent 1 and
secondary sources used to calculate its PCF. PDSPCFcomponent 2) as well as other components,
such as energy inputs or direct emissions from

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions 39
production, should be multiplied by their respective then be added up to obtain an overarching PDS
relative contribution (in percentage) to the PCF (PDS PCF product) (Figure 15).
emissions. All weighted PDS components should

Figure 15: Calculation of PDS

PDSPCF component 1
%

PDSPCF product
Company A
%

PDSPCF component 2 Company C Company D

%

Company B

Formula to calculate PDSPCF product

PDSPCF component Relative PDSPCF component Relative PDSPCF product

1 emission 2 emission
contribution to contribution to
PCF, % PCF, %

Weighted PDS components, %

Table 8: Example of calculation of PDS

Component Data input, Activity Emission Emission Total, PCF Total PDS
kWh data source factor, factor kgCO2e
kgCO2e source

PDS PCF component 1 10,000 Primary 0.19 Primary 1,900 41% 41%

PDS PCF component 2 10,000 Secondary 0.18 Secondary 1,800 39% 0%

PDS PCF component 3 5,000 Primary 0.18 Secondary 900 20% 0%

4,600 41%

Note: For the purpose of this example, please note that Component 1 is considered to have a PDS of 100%, since both the activity and emission factor
data come from primary sources

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions 40
To help increase transparency on primary data use, the • Geographical representativeness. The degree
overarching PDS (PDSPCF product) should be exchanged to which the data reflects the actual geographic
downstream (tier n+1) together with the PCF. location of the processes within the inventory
boundary (e.g., country or region).32
The inclusion of an explanation for the share of
primary data is thus encouraged, with the objective
• Temporal representativeness. The degree to
which the data reflects the actual time (e.g., year)
of helping businesses support each other in
or age of the process.33
understanding the nature of the exchanged data
and promoting an increase in the amount of primary • Completeness. The degree to which the data is
data flowing through the system. This process will statistically representative of the process sites.
contribute to more accurate PCFs.
• Reliability. The degree to which the sources, data
collection methods, and verification procedures
4.2.3 Data quality assessment used to obtain the data are dependable.

With companies able to calculate their PCFs using By adapting the data quality assessment matrix
several data types, data quality assessments proposed by the GHG Protocol, subjectivity in the
provide data users with a better understanding of assessment will be minimized and a more clear-cut
the overall integrity of the data and the resulting distinction across all levels ensured. The quality levels
PCF. Additionally, understanding the quality of the against which each indicator shall be assessed are 1—
data allows companies to identify key secondary Good, 2—Fair, and 3—Poor (Table 9). This matrix shall
data sources that should be improved or replaced be used by companies to derive quantitative DQRs for
with primary data in order for companies to be able each of the indicators. Companies shall include in the
to track the impact of emissions reduction plans assessment any contribution that represents at least
more accurately. 5 percent of the overall PCF.

Once the GHG calculations for the PCF have To facilitate clarity and transparency, companies
been completed, companies undergoing the data shall report the ratings of each data quality indicator
quality assessment shall calculate a DQR for the separately. If a company produces the studied
following five indicators, defined in line with the GHG product in more than one site, it shall define the
Protocol guidelines: DQRs using the weighted average of production
volumes of the respective sites.
• Technological representativeness. The
degree to which the data reflects the actual
technology(ies) used in the process.31

Table 9: Streamlined version of GHG Protocol data quality assessment matrix

Data quality indicators 1 — Good 2 — Fair 3 — Poor

Technological Same technology Similar technology (based Different or unknown

representativeness on secondary data sources) technology

Temporal Same reporting year Less than 5 years old More than 5 years old
representativeness

Geographical Same country or country Same region or subregion Global or unknown

representativeness subdivision

Completeness Activity data collected Activity data collected for Activity data collected for
for all relevant sites for <50% of sites for specified <50% of sites for shorter
specified period period or >50% of sites for time period or unknown
shorter period

Reliability Measured activity data Activity data partly based Financial data or non-
on assumptions qualified estimate

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions 41
The contributions of the different PCF components This is exemplified below (Table 10).
(i.e., material and energy inputs) to the final DQRs
are determined via a weighted average based on
their emissions contribution to the total PCF (see the
formula below).

PCFcomponent 1 PCFcomponent 2 PCFcomponent 3

DQRindicator = DQRcomponent 1 × + DQRcomponent 2 × + DQRcomponent 3 ×
PCFtotal PCFtotal PCFtotal

Table 10: Example of data quality assessment

Data quality indicators Component 1 Component 2 Component 3 Total DQR

GHG contribution to total PCF 25% 30% 45% 100%

Technological representativeness 2 1 1 1.25

Temporal representativeness 1 3 1 1.60

Geographical representativeness 2 3 3 2.75

Completeness 1 1 1 1.00

Reliability 2 3 2 2.30

Box 6: Improving data quality over time

The aim of data collection and quality assessments them or by researching and assessing more
is to improve the overall accuracy of the product accurate secondary data alternatives.
inventory and should thus be considered an
iterative process to be completed alongside any Please note that in certain cases, the reduction
calculation updates that may take place. of PCF emissions may lead to a variance in the
PDS or DQR scores reported by companies. For
For instance, improving the quality of data for instance, if the electricity used to manufacture
large emission sources can result in a significant a product becomes 100 percent renewable, the
improvement in the overall inventory quality. share of emissions associated with electricity
If significant data sources are identified as will decrease to almost zero, thus losing its
low quality using the data quality indicators, representation in the PDS and DQR calculations.
companies should aim to center their data These variances caused in PDS and DQR should
collection and quality improvement efforts on be communicated to the entities receiving the
these particular processes, either by engaging data to ensure the changes in PDS and DQR are
with their suppliers and requesting PCFs from not perceived negatively.

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions 42
5. Assurance
and verification
The resolution of the Scope 3 challenges businesses face today
requires that high-quality (relevant, complete, consistent,
transparent, and accurate) data can be shared across value
chains. Assurance and verification ensure the reliability of this
data, creating the necessary trust among all stakeholders to drive
decarbonization at scale.

guidance aim to enable standardized, high-quality

5.1 Context carbon audit processes, this guidance will use both
terms interchangeably.
While the Pathfinder Framework—as well as the
existing methods and standards it builds on—paves
Assurance and verification undertaken by
the way toward data exchange, assurance and
independent verifiers can help establish whether
verification are key in ensuring the credibility and
PCFs have been accounted for in compliance
reliability of the exchanged data. Assurance and
with the Pathfinder Framework and relevant
verification represent the two processes required
standards, sectoral guidance, PCRs, and
to undergo a carbon audit. While verification is
accompanying methods.
the process of evaluating the accuracy of carbon
emissions disclosed by a company, assurance is the
This section provides guidance and requirements
act of provision of an opinion based on the degree
for assurance and verification of PCF results taking
of confidence that is provided during the verification
place in the context of the Pathfinder Framework.
process. Since the requirements detailed in this

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions 43
 This guidance recognizes that assurance and
5.2 Objectives and scope verification of emissions disclosures involves many
challenges, including:
5.2.1 Objectives
• The limited visibility and control of companies
over emission sources
The overarching objective of this section is to define
the requirements around assurance and verification • Assurers’ limited ability to obtain sufficient
of PCFs in alignment with the Pathfinder Framework. evidence on all necessary items

By clearly defining requirements, this guidance

• The evolving scientific consensus on questions
directly affecting emissions disclosures, such as
seeks to:
emission intensity factors
• Establish a common basis and language around
• The required subject-matter expertise that not
assurance and verification for all stakeholders in
all companies and assurers may currently have
the ecosystem
at scale
• Increase the uptake of product-level assurance
and verification practices across industries via a The Pathfinder Framework seeks to help mitigate
phased-in approach these challenges by providing clarity and a reference
point. Nonetheless, companies and assurers should
• Provide clarity on future assurance and
continue to collaborate to assure PCFs to the best of
verification requirements to support the
their knowledge and improve emissions disclosure
preparation process for stakeholders wishing
assurance and verification practices across
to remain aligned with the Framework’s
different sectors.
assurance requirements
• Streamline the assurance and verification Finally, it is important to note that this guidance is
process by providing guidance on what not by itself intended to be used as an assurance
evidence companies need to prepare for an standard. It defines the requirements and proposed
assurance engagement outcomes of the assurance process (i.e., the “what”
of assurance) but does not prescribe the assurance
process itself (i.e., the “how” of the assurance
5.2.2 Scope and limitations
process). Assurance providers should therefore refer
to additional assurance standards when verifying
This guidance defines the minimum assurance
PCF data and methodology in the context of the
and verification requirements companies
Pathfinder Framework.
shall fulfill when exchanging data through the
Pathfinder Network. However, companies are
strongly encouraged to align with the longer-term
requirements defined in this guidance as early
as possible, increasing emissions data reliability
and trust in the overall ecosystem. Going beyond
the minimum requirements of assurance and
verification will also be reflected in the data
exchange (Section 1), allowing companies
to distinguish themselves through greater
data credibility.

From a practical standpoint, verified PCF data

obtained from another upstream supply chain
stakeholder not only increases credibility in the data
received, but also reduces the cost of a company’s
own audit. The reasoning is that verified PCFs shall
not need to be (re)verified if used for calculations
of a company’s own PCF, as long as no changes are
made to the underlying calculation models and data
used by the company that shared the data in the
first place.

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions 44
5.3 Assurance roadmap
5.3.2 Overview
5.3.1 Structure
Figure 17 presents an overview of the Framework’s
This guidance is structured as a roadmap consisting
assurance and verification requirements for the
of three time horizons, each one encompassing
three time horizons by dimension.
requirements across eight assurance and
verification dimensions, as shown in Figure 16. While
The following sections provide further details on
some of the long-term requirements, applicable
each dimension and requirement.
starting in 2030, would currently be challenging to
fulfill, this guidance assumes that the evolution of
carbon accounting technology, the methodological
ecosystem, and auditing practice will significantly
enhance companies’ ability to comply. However, if
necessary, long-term requirements could be revised.

Figure 16: Time horizons and dimensions of the assurance roadmap

Time horizons

Short term Medium terma Long terma

2023–2025 2025–2030 2030 onwards

Assurance dimensions

Coverage Conformance Boundary Level of assurance

Section 5.3.3 Section 5.3.4 Section 5.3.5 Section 5.3.6

Provider Process cycle Evidence Requirements for SMEs

Section 5.3.7 Section 5.3.8 Section 5.4 Section 5.5

a. Requirements to be fulfilled for PCFs being updated after 2025 for the medium term and after 2030 for the long term.

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions 45
Figure 17: Assurance roadmap overview

Short-term Medium-term Long-term

Dimension requirements requirements requirements
2023–2025 2025–2030 2030 onwards

Coverage
Representative product Representative product
Granularity of data Corporate level
or PCF system or PCF system
to be assured

PCR or sector-specific PCR or sector-specific

Conformance
guidance, if followed guidance, if followed
Basis for the Any recognized standard
If not, Pathfinder If not, Pathfinder
assurance
Framework Framework

Boundary Gate-to-gate
Depth of the data to Scope 1 and 2 for Cradle-to-gate Cradle-to-gate
be assured corporate-level

Level
Degree of Limited assurance Limited assurance Reasonable assurance
confidence

Provider
Entity providing the Independent third party Independent third party Independent third party
assurance

Process cycle
3 years or earlier if 3 years or earlier if
Temporal validity of Annual
variance >10% variance >10%
the assurance

Evidence Evidence pack guidance

Guidance for Companies should use guidance around evidence consolidation (see Appendix D)
consolidation to facilitate and streamline the assurance process

Phased-in approach for SMEs

Application to SMEs
All requirements above identically apply to SMEs but with a 2-year time lag to allow
SME requirements for capacity building

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions 46
 The rationale behind these options is to approach
5.3.3 Coverage
and build capabilities around product-level
assurance without requiring product-specific
The coverage of the assurance and verification
assurance directly. Figure 18 below gives an
defines the type and level of GHG data to be assured
overview of the definitions and steps that companies
(e.g., corporate level, product line level, or PCF level).
shall comply with when following either of
these approaches.
Short term
Companies shall assure emissions data at the Please note that companies may still need to verify
corporate level. Assurance on a more product- specific PCFs at the product level if regulations or
specific level, such as product line or product level, customers require it.
is desirable but not required.
Long term
Medium term
In the long term, companies shall follow the same
Companies shall assure PCFs are aligned with requirements as in the medium term.
Pathfinder Framework requirements:
• At the product-line level, where the PCF of a
representative product is assured
• By verifying the underlying methodology used
by a system (e.g., software) for the purpose of
PCF calculation

Figure 18: Assurance coverage options in the medium term

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3

Pick representative Assure RP following Use assurance statement

Option A: product line of RP as proof of
product (RP) by defining Pathfinder Framework
Representative product the product line it requirements verification for any
sharing key represents based on the product within product
characteristics with above definition line, provided explanation
group of products (e.g., on representativeness
purpose, materials, or is given
manufacturing process)

Define what constitutes Assure whether the Use assurance statement

Option B: PCF
the PCF system, i.e., tool(s) calculate(s) of PCF system as proof
calculation system
whether there is only one company PCFs following of calculation being
Calculation tool software tool or several Pathfinder Framework aligned with Pathfinder
applicable across interconnected tools requirements Framework.
products used by Communicate data inputs
companies to convert have not been assured
raw data inputs into
a finalized PCF

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions 47
 requirement (see Section 5.3.3). In the context of
5.3.4 Conformance
this guidance and in line with the corporate-level
coverage requirement, gate-to-gate emissions on
The assurance process verifies whether
the company level are considered to be equivalent
emissions data output was calculated according
to Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions, as defined by
to methodological rules. The conformance of the
the GHG Protocol.
assurance defines adherence to which standard is
verified, i.e., which methodological standards serves
Medium term
as the reference.
Companies shall ensure that the entire cradle-to-
Short term gate footprint of PCFs has been verified, i.e., the
entire footprint up to the point where it is passed on
Companies may use any recognized standard
downstream (see Figure 5).
included in Appendix C has the basis for corporate-
level assurance. Companies wishing to go beyond
Long term
the minimum coverage requirements of this
guidance and assure on a product-specific level Companies shall follow the same requirements as in
may use any recognized standard as the basis the medium term.
for assurance.
5.3.6 Level of assurance
Medium term
Companies should use the Pathfinder Framework The level of assurance defines the degree of
as the methodological basis for assurance and confidence in the assurance statement. Box 7 provides
verification. Please note that, in line with the further context on assurance levels.34
standards hierarchy established in Section 3.1,
companies may be required to calculate certain Short term
PCFs following PCR or sector-specific guidelines.
Companies are required to conduct
In those cases, conformance with the PCR or
limited assurance.
sector specific methodology shall be followed.
To the extent possible and relevant, conformance
Medium term
with the Pathfinder Framework is encouraged,
but not required. Any PCR or sector-specific Companies shall follow the same requirements as in
methodology or standard used shall be publicly the short term.
disclosed and referenced in the assurance and
verification process as well as in the data exchange Long term
information to ensure downstream users of the
Companies shall conduct reasonable assurance to
information have a complete understanding of the
fulfill the requirements of this guidance.
conformance of the PCF.

Long term
Companies shall follow the same requirements as in
the medium term.

5.3.5 Boundary

The boundary of the assurance and verification,

as its name suggests, defines the boundary of life
cycle stages included in the assurance process.
While the PCFs exchanged under the Pathfinder
Framework are cradle-to-gate footprints, the
boundary of the assurance and verification of
the PCF can be broader, narrower, or equal to the
boundary of the PCF.

Short term
Companies shall assure their gate-to-gate
emissions. This requirement is, in part, a
consequence of the initial corporate-level coverage

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions 48
 Box 7: Assurance levels

Why? • Reasonable level. The conclusion of a

reasonable level of assurance is framed in a
To ensure all stakeholders understand the degree
positive sense, indicating that, according to
to which emissions disclosures have been
the assurer, the emission disclosures have
verified. The goal is to enable:
been prepared according to the applicable
• Companies to plan the assurance process and criteria in all material aspects.
depth of verification they desire
Table 11 provides an additional overview of the
• Assurers to prepare the verification according
different characteristics of the two levels.
to standardized practices
• External stakeholders, such as downstream How?
companies, to understand the reliability of the
Companies should define which level of
reported data
assurance they are going to seek before
an assurance engagement, in line with
What?
the requirements set by this guidance.
There are two assurance levels commonly used The assurance provider may suggest
in emissions disclosure assurance: adjustments if they believe the desired level
will not be feasible (provided that the minimum
• Limited level. The conclusion of a limited
requirements of this guidance are met).
level of assurance is framed in a negative
sense, indicating that the assurer did not find
any evidence that the emission disclosures
contain any material misstatement based on
the applicable criteria.

Table 11: Assurance levels comparison

Dimension Level

Aspects Limited assurance Reasonable assurance

Opinion Negative Positive

statements “Nothing has come to our attention that the “In our opinion the disclosure conforms
assurance statement does not conform with the with all Pathfinder requirements and is
Pathfinder Framework and contains material fairly stated in all material aspects”
misstatements”

Application Commonly used for nonfinancial disclosures Commonly used in financial disclosures

Process Limited in Scope—different or fewer checks than Greater sampling at a greater depth and
reasonable assurance comprehensiveness

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions 49
5.3.7 Provider
– Deployment of a different PCF system
product (e.g., switch to a different vendor or
change in product line of same vendor)
The provider of the assurance is the entity that
verifies the emissions data. When the reporting – Changes to the data flows necessary for
company also performs the assurance, this is known PCF calculation within the PCF system
as first-party assurance. When a party other than the (e.g., when the type of digital input data has
reporting company performs the assurance, this is changed or when there is a qualitative change
known as third-party assurance.35 to other digital systems participating in
PCF calculation)
Companies shall choose an independent third
party to conduct the verification process. While Long term
first-party quality controls and plausibility checks
Companies shall follow the same requirements as in
are encouraged, they do not suffice to fulfill the
the medium term.
assurance requirements of this guidance.

Companies may choose any qualified assurance

provider, as long as the provider meets the expertise
5.4 Evidence
requirements to conduct an assurance engagement.
Proof of such expertise may include previous 5.4.1 Context and purpose
assurance engagements around PCFs, industry-
specific knowledge, and technical capabilities The provision of standardized and relevant evidence
in carbon accounting. Section 5.6.2 provides to substantiate emissions claims and support
additional details on criteria to consider when the assurance process is the cornerstone of any
selecting an assurance provider. verification and assurance process.

This section is therefore meant to guide companies’

5.3.8 Process cycle
efforts to gather and organize the evidence that
might be required in an assurance engagement.
The process cycle defines the validity period of the
This guidance does not replace any guidance
assurance statement (e.g., one year or more).
that assurers themselves may provide during the
verification process and is not a blueprint for an
Short term
assurance engagement. Rather, it is meant to help
In line with the coverage requirement (see companies prepare for an assurance engagement
Section 5.3.2), the assurance statement shall be valid ahead of time, speeding up and streamlining the
for one year. Accordingly, companies shall renew the assurance process.
assurance annually. The requirement for an annual
renewal of assurance on the corporate level aims to be
5.4.2 Structure and dimensions
aligned with regulatory requirements such as the EU’s
Corporate Sustainability Disclosure Directive (CSRD)
The guidance around evidence is structured along
and the US Securities and Exchange Commission’s
three dimensions central to verifying product-level
(SEC) proposed rules on nonfinancial disclosures.
emission disclosures:
Medium term 1. Data. Evidence around the required data
elements, sources, and quality of data used in
The assurance statement shall be valid for a
the calculations
maximum of three years or until:
2. Methodology. Evidence around the calculation
• The underlying PCF of the representative product
steps, results, and assumptions
changes by more than 10 percent compared to the
PCF that was previously assured, if the company 3. Governance. Evidence around the underlying
chooses to assure on the product-line level processes used during the calculations, including
how data was stored, how quality was ensured,
• The PCF system’s underlying methodology
and how risks were mitigated
or system build has changed qualitatively.
A qualitative change includes:
– Relevant fixes or changes with the existing
PCF system

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions 50
Each dimension contains five concrete elements
listed in Appendix D that constitute the evidence
5.5 Requirements for SMEs
pack for that dimension. As the maturity of
While this guidance encourages any company
companies’ product-level emission reporting varies,
to assure its emissions data according to the
the evidence pack distinguishes between minimum
requirements laid out in Figure 17, small and
and optional elements that might bring further clarity
medium-sized enterprises (SMEs)36 may face
to the assurance process.
additional challenges in meeting assurance and
verification requirements due to initial resource and
5.4.3 Assumptions capability constraints.

In providing guidance on evidence, the assumptions To give SMEs time to build the necessary capabilities
listed in Table 12 below were made. Not all to fulfill assurance and verification requirements,
of them may apply to a company’s situation; each requirement as defined in Section 5.3.2 shall
companies should therefore check to what extent become applicable for SMEs two years after
the assumptions are applicable and, accordingly, the requirement first comes into force for larger
to what extent this guidance may be relevant for companies. For example, short-term requirements
their context. as per Figure 17 shall become applicable for SMEs
in 2025.
5.4.4 Evidence pack
While these are the minimum requirements, it is
strongly encouraged that SMEs begin to meet the
A full version of the evidence pack, including the
assurance and verification requirements sooner
different dimensions and minimum and optional
than they are required to by this guidance.
requirements, is included in Appendix D.

Table 12: Key evidence consolidation assumptions

Assumption Explanation

Product level This evidence pack assumes that the carbon emissions data is calculated on the product
level. It therefore does not apply to corporate-level emission disclosure assurance
engagements

PCF already exists This evidence pack assumes that the relevant PCF has already been calculated. It does
not contain guidance around how to calculate a PCF

Level agnostic This evidence pack assumes that the assurance level is either limited or reasonable. The
guidance provided here is therefore applicable to either level

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions 51
5.6 Process and reporting 5.6.3 Reporting

In line with the GHG Product Standard, companies

5.6.1 Timing
shall include the assurance statement in the
emission disclosure. An assurance statement, at the
Assurance engagements in the context of this
minimum, shall include:
guidance shall begin after the result to be assured,
e.g., a PCF, has been calculated and before the • The assurer’s assertion
result is exchanged through the Pathfinder
Network. Given that the verification process
• The level of assurance
may take time, depending on the complexity of • The assurance provider’s name and the
the underlying emissions disclosure, it is the executing individuals
company’s responsibility to start the assurance and
verification process early enough to avoid delays to
• A summary of the assurance process and
work performed
data exchange.
• The relevant expertise of the assurer
5.6.2 Requirements for choosing • Any potential conflicts of interest
assurance providers • The assurance standard applied, if any

While this guidance does not include specific

• A list of criteria that were evaluated to reach
the assertion.
requirements around choosing an assurance
provider, the following criteria may be used to select
The format of reporting will depend on the applicable
assurance providers:
requirements, particularly the coverage requirements.
1. Expertise and experience:
In the short term, companies shall report the
• Proven experience conducting assurance
assurance statement alongside the relevant
engagements and applying assurance
emissions disclosure. In the medium and long
standards
term, companies shall need to share the assurance
• Capabilities around LCA and carbon statement as a link in the data attributes or as an
accounting, as shown by experience, attachment to the relevant PCF being exchanged, i.e.,
educational qualifications, and tools used the reporting of assurance-related information will
directly be part of the data exchange.
2. Industry and sectoral knowledge:
• Understanding of the underlying industry that In general, companies shall exchange information
the PCF data to be assured belongs to on the assurance itself through the Pathfinder
Network. It is the company’s responsibility to
• Understanding of business operations within
ensure that assurance-related information for each
the sector which the product or corporation
PCF exchanged through the Pathfinder Network
belongs to
is up to date and aligned with the requirements of
3. Credibility: this guidance.
• Proof of no conflicts of interest between the
assurance provider and reporting company
• Proof of successful verification processes
4. Capacity:
• Enough staff capacity to conduct the
assurance engagement

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions 52
 Section 3.1.2, and if that standard or rule includes
5.7 Special cases an assurance requirement, then the company may
fulfill the assurance requirement of the standard
5.7.1 Existing assurance used without having to fulfill the requirements of this
guidance in case they do not fully align. However,
It may be the case that a company needs to verify companies shall indicate in the data exchange form
carbon emissions disclosure for purposes other than which standard was followed, what the assurance
adherence to this guidance, e.g., to fulfill reporting requirements of that standard entail, and any
or regulatory requirements. If verification has potential divergence from the requirements of
already taken place, even if not for the purposes of this guidance.
exchanging data through the Pathfinder Network, the
resulting assurance may be used for the assurance
5.7.3 Partial or noncompliance with
requirements of the Pathfinder Framework provided
that the existing assurance conforms to the this guidance
applicable requirements of this guidance at the time
the assurance was undertaken. If a company is unable to meet the assurance and
verification requirements as defined in this guidance
before exchanging the data, the company may
5.7.2 Conformance based on
still exchange it through the Pathfinder Network.
Pathfinder hierarchy However, the reporting company shall make
transparent, through the Data Exchange Protocol
If a company uses an industry-specific standard and the relevant data attributes, to what extent the
or PCR for its PCF calculation, as described in assurance requirements were fulfilled or not.

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions 53
6. Data
exchange
Standardized PCF accounting and data exchange constitutes a key
step toward creating greater comparability and consistency within
the supply chain.

6.1.1 Minimum data elements required

6.1 Required elements for
data exchange As a minimum, the following data elements shall be
exchanged with a data recipient within a value chain:
Emissions data calculated in line with the Pathfinder
Framework shall be exchanged in accordance with
• Product information:
the guidelines set out in this section. – Data provider’s company name

Once a company has calculated its PCF, another

– Product name, short description of the
production technology (if relevant), and unique
factor to enhance comparability and consistency
UN Central Product Classification code37
is the standardized exchange of data relating to
the PCF between stakeholders within the supply – Declared unit (e.g., mass or energy, depending
chain. Emissions data calculated in line with on the product) and number of declared units
the Pathfinder Framework shall therefore be contained within the product which the PCF
exchanged in accordance with the guidelines set refers to
out in this section.

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions 54
• PCF information: While PCFs should be calculated on a regular basis
to track improvements over time, the resources
– Reporting period (see Section 6.1.2.1)
required to calculate PCFs also need to be
– Geography (see Section 6.1.2.2) considered to ensure companies are able to scale
the calculations to a larger number of products. This
– Product-specific PCF (CO2e per unit of
is especially true for companies that currently rely on
analysis), covering cradle-to-gate fossil
manual PCF calculations and that do not yet have an
emissions (see Section 3.2):
automated calculation approach.
• Excluding biogenic emissions and
removals PCFs shall therefore have a maximum validity
period of up to three years, provided that no major
• Including biogenic emissions and removals
changes to the production process take place within
(to be mandated only from 2025 onwards—
the validity period. Major changes are defined as
see Section 3.3.2.1)38
a variance of 10 percent or more compared to the
– Biogenic carbon content (see original PCF. After three years or if the PCF has
Section 3.3.2.1)38 varied by more than 10 percent, PCF values will no
longer be considered representative and shall be
– IPCC version of the GWP characterization
recalculated and exchanged.
factors used in the calculation of the PCF (see
Section 3.2.2)38
Companies that are able to do so are invited to
– Boundary, including a description of all update their PCFs more regularly and may also wish
attributable processes per life cycle stage, as to request suppliers to update their PCF calculations
well as exclusions, if any (see Section 3.2.3) on a more regular basis (e.g., annually) based on
contractual agreements.
– Standards used for calculating or allocating
GHG emissions (including PEF, PEFCRs, PCRs,
The temporal validity of the PCF calculation will
sector-specific initiatives, GHG Protocol, ISO)
be captured by the reporting period.40 The PCF’s
and any additional approaches used (e.g.,
reporting period and date of publication shall always
mandatory flagging when proxy data is used)
be disclosed. Emissions that were averaged over
(see Section 3.1)38
several years may be reported, e.g., to reduce the
• Data reliability. Companies to share at least one effect of revisions, turnarounds, or other untypical
of the two attributes below: production conditions.
– Share of primary data in a PCF (see Section 4.2.1)
6.1.2.2 Geography
– Data quality indicators (see Section 4.2.2)38
• Assurance information (see Section 5)38 Providing information on the geographical
representation of the PCF is required. However, it is at
Further details on data semantics and standards the sole discretion of the company to choose the level
can be found in the Pathfinder Network Technical of granularity of geographical information (e.g., at a
Specifications. Many companies already use plant, region, or country level). ISO 3166-1 alpha-2—
software solutions and are thus encouraged to defining the most widely used country codes (such
exchange data digitally (see Section 6.2). However, as US for the United States or FR for France)—shall
companies that do not yet employ software solutions be used to indicate specific countries or regions. If
to calculate their PCFs are welcome to exchange the the same product is produced in various locations
data using the template included in Appendix B. and the data owner chooses to provide regional
information, the data owner can provide several
product footprints pertaining to each respective
6.1.2 Details on the required data
geography. As an alternative, it is possible to report
elements a single footprint for products that are produced in
various locations. When following this approach, a
weighted average of the respective product-specific
6.1.2.1 Time boundary
emissions according to each geography’s production
quantity shall be calculated and exchanged.
The time boundary of a PCF refers to the time
period for which the PCF value is considered to
be representative.39

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions 55
 also collaborating on developing a network for the
6.2 Connecting through exchange of emissions data (Pathfinder Network).
technology The aim is to establish the missing (technological)
link between companies through the creation of
Application of the guidance in this Pathfinder an interoperable ecosystem, connecting multiple
Framework will help businesses create more underlying technology solutions and in turn
comparable and consistent product-level GHG incentivizing the latter to provide support in their
emissions. However, to comprehensively tackle products for the import and export of data in the
the lack of emissions transparency, it is equally PACT format(s).
essential to enable straightforward and confidential
cross–value chain and cross-industry exchange of In addition, the Network can strengthen the
such data. application of the Pathfinder Framework—and
hence achievement of data comparability and
Technology is without a doubt a key driving force consistency—by, e.g., simplifying access to primary
in enabling straightforward and confidential data or supporting data verification.
cross–value chain and cross-industry exchange of
product-level emissions data. Beyond the creation The Pathfinder Network will be underpinned by the
of this Framework, stakeholders within PACT are key values of PACT (Figure 19).

Figure 19: Key values of PACT

Inclusivity Equality Data confidentiality and

sovereignty
All members jointly shape the The Partnership reflects the
Partnership by providing different ambitions of its Data owners have the flexibility
expertise, resources, data, and members and ensures no to exchange different levels of
active participation in targeted member on their own is able to data granularity with adjustable
working groups direct the initiative down access rights and can approve
a particular path each exchange

Openness Scalability Reach

Methodological and The Partnership creates an Synergies with other initiatives
technological solutions are interoperable network of focused on emissions
designed to allow for networks compatible across transparency are fostered and
interconnectivity, sectors and supply chains, leveraged as much as possible
interoperability, and integration serving multiple business needs

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions 56
 It is important to note that the shift to supplier-
6.3 Incorporating product-level specific product-level data can be done gradually
data into Scope 3 calculations by combining PCFs with other Scope 3 accounting
methods for the less material elements.
By establishing a plan to expand the number of
purchased products and services being calculated By establishing a plan to expand the number of
with primary data, transparency on emissions can be purchased products and services being calculated
progressively created across upstream emissions of with primary data, transparency on emissions
a company. can be progressively created across upstream
emissions of a company. Similarly, by incentivizing
Corporate- and product-level standards are highly Tier 1 suppliers to do the same, transparency will
interrelated, since emissions resulting from the be expanded across the value chain. With this
procurement of products and services represent knowledge, companies can make informed sourcing
the largest share of corporate Scope 3 emissions and product-development decisions, investing in
in most sectors. Management of these is therefore targeted decarbonization activities in their supply
highly dependent on high-quality accounting for chains, measuring and tracking decarbonization
product-level emissions. progress, and adhering to requirements around
environmental transparency. All of this will create
While the GHG Scope 3 Standard accepts several deep visibility on the emissions of hundreds of
methods to account for upstream Scope 3 emissions thousands of companies sitting in global supply
(Appendix E), obtaining emissions data directly chains, providing the missing key to supercharging
from suppliers is considered best practice. While decarbonization efforts.
requiring greater effort, this approach allows
companies to collaborate with their supply chain
to improve the efficiency of products and services
purchased and accurately monitor the impact of
these improvements on their footprint. This, in turn,
can become a procurement criterion rewarding
those that are more sustainable or even supporting
suppliers in their emissions reduction journeys.

Figure 20: Recommendation for use of Pathfinder Framework to enhance transparency

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5

Identify the largest Request suppliers Incorporate PCFs Work with suppliers Gradually incorporate
sources of associated with the into their corporate to understand the additional products
emissions at either most material sources footprint by PCF emissions and suppliers into
purchased product to calculate and multiplying the trajectory or identify the PCF data
or supplier level provide the relevant PCFs provided by and implement exchange request.
based on initial PCFs following the suppliers with the opportunities to
Scope 3 calculation. Pathfinder Framework number of product further reduce their
and Pathfinder units purchased PCF emissions,
Network requirements. from them. ultimately favoring
suppliers with lower
PCFs for equivalent
products.

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions 57
Appendix A: Terms and
definitions (glossary)

Definitions Explanations

Activity data Quantified measures of a level of activity that results in GHG emissions or removals.

Allocation The process of partitioning GHG emissions from a single facility or other systems (such as a
process vehicle or business unit) among its various outputs, in particular products.

Attributable Service, material, and energy flows that become the product, make the product, and carry the
process product through its life cycle.

Attributional Approach to LCA accounting where GHG emissions and removals are attributed to the unit of
approach analysis of the studied product by linking together attributable processes along its life cycle.

Biogenic carbon Carbon derived from living organisms or biological processes, but not fossilized materials or
fossil sources.

Biogenic Emissions resulting from the combustion of biogenic fuel, broken down into land use (e.g.,
CO2 emissions agricultural practices), land-use change (e.g., deforestation), and other (e.g., biogenic waste
treatment) emissions; to remain optional until GHG Protocol FLAG standard is published.

Biogenic Biogenic carbon content converted into CO2e.

CO2 withdrawal

Boundary The attributable processes and their associated emissions that should be accounted for and
reported by a company as part of its PCF.

Carbon dioxide Unit comparing the radiative forcing (global warming impact) of a GHG, expressed in terms of
equivalent (CO2e) the amount of CO2 that would have an equivalent impact.

Characterization A characterization factor is a quantitative representation of the (relative) importance of a

factors specific intervention, e.g., the GWP (GWP 100) of methane is 22 kg CO2e/kg.

Corporate-level Corporate-level standards (such as ISO 14064 or the GHG Protocol Corporate Value Chain
standards Standard) focus on aggregate emissions arising from the value chain of a company and apply
to company activities as a whole, including business travel and employee commuting.

Cradle-to-gate PCF Part of a product’s full life cycle, covering all emissions allocated to a product upstream of a
company plus all emissions resulting from processes within the company until the product
leaves the company’s gate.

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions 58
Definitions Explanations

Data quality Characteristics of data (completeness, reliability and technological, temporal and
geographical representativeness) that relate to their ability to satisfy stated requirements (the
most common frameworks are the pedigree matrix [ecoinvent] and the data quality matrix/
requirements [PCRs]).

Data semantics Naming, format, and definition of the data attributes required to be exchanged by the company
calculating the PCF.

Declared unit Unit of analysis chosen for PCF, which serves as the reference for which the inputs (materials
and energy) and outputs (such as products, by-products, waste) are quantified.

Default value Average value reflecting the mainstream level of the industry (such as material composition
ratio of passenger car, carbon emission factor of material production, carbon emission factor
of vehicle production, etc.).

Definitions Explanations.

Direct emissions Data on emissions released from a process (or removals absorbed from the atmosphere)
determined through direct monitoring, stoichiometry, mass balance, or similar methods.

Direct land-use A recent (i.e., previous 20 years) carbon stock loss due to land conversion directly on the area
change (dLUC) of land under consideration.

Downstream Indirect GHG emissions that occur in the value chain following the processes owned or
emissions controlled by the reporting company.

Emission factor Amount of GHGs emitted, expressed as CO2e and relative to a unit of activity (e.g., kg of CO2e
per declared unit).

Environmentally Models used to estimate energy use and/or GHG emissions resulting from the production and
extended input upstream supply chain activities of different sectors and products within an economy. EEIO
output (EEIO) models are derived by allocating national GHG emissions to groups of finished products based
on economic flows between industry sectors.

Functional unit Unit based on the function and performance of the studied product

Greenhouse gases Gaseous constituents of the atmosphere, both natural and anthropogenic, that absorb and
(GHGs) emit radiation at specific wavelengths within the spectrum of infrared radiation emitted by the
Earth’s surface, its atmosphere, and clouds. GHGs include CDCO2, methane (CH4), nitrous oxide
(N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6).

Indirect land-use A recent (i.e., previous 20 years) carbon stock loss due to land conversion on land not owned
change (iLUC) or controlled by the company or in its supply chain, induced by change in demand for products
produced or sourced by the company.

Input Product, material, or energy flow that enters a unit process.

Inventory Summary of all input and output flows of a system (such as a company’s or product’s GHG
emissions and sources).

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions 59
Definitions Explanations

Inventory results GHG impact of the studied product per unit of analysis.

Life cycle Consecutive and interlinked stages of a product system, from raw material acquisition or
generation of natural resources to end-of-life, inclusive of any recycling or recovery activity.

Life cycle Compilation and evaluation of the inputs, outputs, and potential environmental impacts of a
assessment (LCA) product throughout its entire life cycle.

Land management GHG emissions from sources that occur on land from land management activities and during
GHG emissions production of food, feed, fiber, or other biogenic product(s). Land management GHG emissions
are also referred to as agricultural emissions, production emissions, or on-farm emissions.

Life cycle The sum of GHG emissions resulting from all stages of the life cycle of a product and within the
emissions specified boundaries of the product.

Material Physical products supplied from a supplier upstream, used as input for production processes
of products.

Multi-input/output Operation or process with multiple inputs, such as materials and energy, and multiple outputs,
unit process such as co-products and waste.

Output Product, material, or energy that leaves a unit process.

Partnership A project led by WBCSD set up to provide a forum for businesses across value chains and
for Carbon industries as well as for key decarbonization stakeholders to collaborate on the creation of
Transparency GHG emissions transparency.
(PACT)

Pathfinder Network for the exchange of carbon footprint data that is being developed by the Partnership
Network for Carbon Transparency, with the aim of establishing the missing (technological) link between
different supply chain actors, such as through the creation of interoperability for underlying
technology solutions.

Primary data Data pertaining to a specific product or activity within a company’s value chain. Such data
may take the form of activity data, emissions, or emission factors. Primary data is site-
specific, company-specific (if there are multiple sites for the same product), or supply chain–
specific. Primary data may be obtained through meter readings, purchase records, utility
bills, engineering models, direct monitoring, material or product balances, stoichiometry, or
other methods.

Product Any good (tangible product, such as material) or service (intangible product).

Product carbon Total GHG emissions generated during the life cycle of a product measured in CO2e. Within the
footprint (PCF) boundary of the Pathfinder Framework, only material acquisition, preprocessing, production,
distribution, and storage are included in the PCF.

Product category Group of products that can fulfill equivalent functions.

Product category A set of specific rules, requirements, and guidelines for calculating PCFs (among other things)
rules (PCRs) and developing environmental declarations for one or more product categories according to
BS EN ISO 14040:2006.

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions 60
Definitions Explanations

Product-level Product-level standards (such as ISO 14067 or the GHG Product Standard) focus on individual
standards products or services. They support accounting for products’ life cycle emissions (see Section
3.3 for details on the stages). In doing so, they enable a more granular approach compared
to company accounting, offering insights to help identify targeted emission reduction
opportunities.

Proxy data Data used to bridge data gaps without changing the original values beyond statistical
calculations, such as averaging. The selection and use of proxy data sets is usually based
on the knowledge and experience of the LCA practitioner, and the possibility to validate such
choices is often limited.

Raw material Primary or secondary material used to produce a product.

Site-specific data Initial data obtained within a production system

Scope 3 emissions The GHG Protocol Corporate Standard classifies a company’s GHG emissions into three
Scopes: Scope 1 emissions are direct emissions from owned or controlled sources.
Scope 2 emissions are indirect emissions from the generation of purchased energy.
Scope 3 emissions are all indirect emissions (not included in Scope 2) that occur in the value
chain of the reporting company, including both upstream and downstream emissions.

Secondary data Data that is not from specific activities within a company’s value chain but from databases,
based on averages, scientific reports, or other sources.

Tier 1 suppliers Suppliers that companies directly conduct business with, including contracted manufacturing
facilities or production partners.

Unit process Smallest part of a product’s life cycle for which input and output data is quantified.

Upstream Indirect GHG emissions that occur in the value chain prior to the processes owned or
emissions controlled by the reporting company. All upstream transportation emissions are also included
as part of upstream emissions.

Use phase That part of the life cycle of a product that occurs between the transfer of the product to the
consumer and the end-of-life of the product.

Value chain All the upstream and downstream activities associated with the operations of a company.

Waste Materials, co-products, products, or emissions without economic value that the holder
discards, intends to discard, or is required to discard.

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions 61
Appendix B:
PCF questionnaire
This PCF questionnaire contains the information that companies shall include to report their PCF according
to the Pathfinder Framework. Please refer to full technical specifications for further information.

Product information

Data attribute Description Mandatory

ID Unique identifier of the PCF. Yes

Technical specification: Identifier to define the version of the Pathfinder Framework used (e.g., Yes
version “2.0.0”).

Time created The UTC timestamp indicating when the PCF was created. Yes

Time updated The UTC timestamp indicating when the PCF was updated, if at all. No

Company name The name of the data provider of the PCF. Yes

Company IDs The set of company identifiers (encoded as URNs) identifying the Yes
company sending the PCF, depending on the context and the two parties
exchanging the data.

Product descriptions A free-form description of the product and any related information, such Yes
as production technologies.

Product IDs The set of product identifiers (encoded as URNs) identifying the product, Yes
depending on the context and the two parties exchanging the data.

Product category The category of the product based on UN Product Classification codes. Yes
UN Central Product
Classification

Product name The trade name of the product as given by the selling company. Yes

Digital record signature Digital signature covering the full PCF. The technical specifications No
specify details on company identification and digital signature
verification.

Comment Any comments related to the product that facilitate the interpretation or Yes
verification of the PCF.

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions 62
PCF information

Data attribute Description Mandatory

PCF (excl. biogenic The product carbon footprint of the product, excluding biogenic Yes
emissions and removals) emissions, in kg CO2e per declared unit.

PCF (incl. biogenic The product carbon footprint of the product, including fossil and Yes, from
emissions and removals) biogenic emissions (dLUC, land management, other biogenic 2025 onwards
emissions, and biogenic CO2 withdrawal), in kg CO2e per declared unit.

Declared unit The unit in which the PCF was calculated: liter, kilogram, cubic Yes
meter, kilowatt hour, megajoule, ton kilometer, or square meter.

Reporting period The start and end date and time of the data collected for the Yes
underlying PCF calculation.

Geography The location that the PCF refers to; different levels of granularity Yes
can be provided, ranging from country subdivision to global.

Product amount The amount of declared units contained within the product to Yes
which the PCF refers.

Boundary process description Description of the processes attributable to each life cycle stage. Yes

Characterization factors In the context of this guidance, characterization factors refer to Yes
GWP factors of the GHGs included in the PCF.

Fossil emissions (per The emissions resulting from the combustion of fossil fuels, as per Yes
declared unit) declared unit of the PCF, in kg CO2e per declared unit.

Fossil carbon content Fossil carbon amount embodied in the product, in kg. Yes

Biogenic carbon content The amount of biogenic carbon contained within the product, in kg Yes
per declared unit.

dLUC emissions Emissions resulting from recent (i.e., previous 20 years) carbon Yes, from
stock loss due to land conversion directly on the area of land under 2025 onwards
consideration, in kgCO2e per declared unit. In the case of no value
chain and/or data traceability to account for dLUC, companies
shall account for sLUC emissions as a proxy for dLUC.

Land management GHG GHG emissions and removals associated with land-management- Yes, from
emissions or removals (incl. related changes, in kg CO2e per declared unit. If changes in land 2025 onwards
non-CO2 sources) carbon pools are not assessed, this decision shall be justified.

Aircraft GHG emissions GHG emissions resulting from aircraft engine usage for the No
transport of the product, per declared unit

Other biogenic emissions All other biogenic GHG emissions associated with product Yes, from
(excl. land-use change and manufacturing and transport that are not included in dLUC and 2025 onwards
land management) land management, in kg CO2e per declared unit. If such biogenic
emissions are not included in the PCF, this decision shall be justified.

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions 63
 PCF information

Data attribute Description Mandatory

Biogenic CO2 withdrawal Biogenic carbon contained within the product converted to kg CO2e Yes, from
per declared unit. 2025 onwards

iLUC emissions Emissions resulting from recent (i.e., previous 20 years) carbon No
stock loss due to land conversion on land not owned or controlled
by the company or in its supply chain, induced by change in
demand for products produced or sourced by the company. iLUC
emissions shall not be included as part of the PCF.

Methodology used to Name of the standard followed to account for biogenic emissions Yes, from
account for biogenic and removals. 2025 onwards
emissions and removals

Primary data share (PDS) The percentage of the PCF that was calculated using primary activity From 2025
and emissions data (see guidance in Section 4.2.1). onwardsa

Secondary data sources If secondary data was used to calculate the PCF, this attribute lists No
the data sources.

Exemption rules: % Percentage of emissions excluded from PCF. Yes

Exemption rules: explanation Rationale behind exclusion of specific PCF emissions. Yes

Packaging inclusion Confirm inclusion or exclusion of packaging emissions in the PCF. Yes

Packaging emissions Emissions resulting from the packaging of the product, in kgCO2e. No

Cross-sectoral standard Cross-sectoral standard used to calculate the PCF, e.g., GHG Yes
Product Lifecycle Standard.

Product- or sector-specific If sector- or product-specific standards were used in the PCF No

rules calculation, they shall be disclosed here. If none were used, the
attribute may be left empty.

Allocation rules If relevant, a description of any allocation rules applied and No

the rationale explaining how the selected approach aligns with
Pathfinder Framework rules (see Section 3.3.1.4).

Uncertainty assessment Results, key drivers, and a short qualitative description of the No
uncertainty assessment, if applicable.

a. Please note, companies are mandated to report on either the PDS or the data quality indicators until 2025, when both will become mandatory.

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions 64
 Data quality indicatorsa

Data attribute Description Mandatory

Coverage of data Percentage of PCF included in the data quality assessment based on From 2025
quality assessment the >5% emissions threshold. onwards

Technological Quantitative DQR based on the data quality matrix (Table 9), scoring From 2025
representativenessb the technological representativeness of the datac used for PCF onwards
calculation based on a weighted average of all inputs representing
>5% of PCF emissions.

Temporal Quantitative DQR based on the data quality matrix (Table 9), scoring From 2025
representativeness the temporal representativeness of the data used for PCF calculation onwards
based on a weighted average of all inputs representing >5% of PCF
emissions.

Geographical Quantitative DQR based on the data quality matrix (Table 9), scoring From 2025
representativeness the geographical representativeness of the data2 used for PCF onwards
calculation based on a weighted average of all inputs representing
>5% of PCF emissions.

Completeness Quantitative DQR based on the data quality matrix (Table 9), scoring From 2025
the completeness of the data2 collected for PCF calculation based onwards
on a weighted average of all inputs representing >5% of PCF
emissions.

Reliability Quantitative DQR based on the data quality matrix (Table 9), scoring From 2025
the reliability of the activity data collected for PCF calculation onwards
based on a weighted average of all inputs representing >5% of PCF
emissions.

a. Please note, companies are mandated to report on either the PDS or the data quality indicators until 2025, when both will become mandatory.
b. The term “technological” as used here refers to the technology of specific production processes. Throughout the rest of the Framework, this term is
used to refer to IT.
c. When primary activity data has been used in the calculation of PCF and assuming that the primary data would be representative of the process under
question, these data quality indicators should reflect the degree of representativeness of emission factors used in the calculation.

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions 65
Assurance information

Data attribute Description Mandatory

Assurance Binary indicator stating whether the PCF has been assured in line Yes
with Pathfinder Framework requirements (Section 5).

Assurance coverage Level of granularity of the emissions data assured: corporate No

level, product line, PCF system, or product level. Option to state
“n/a” if no assurance has taken place.

Assurance level Level of assurance applicable to the PCF: limited or reasonable. No

Option to state “n/a” if no assurance has taken place.

Assurance boundary Boundary of the assurance, e.g., gate-to-gate or cradle-to-gate. No

Option to state “n/a” if no assurance has taken place.

Assurance provider The name of the independent third party engaged to undertake No
the assurance.

Assurance completion date The date at which the assurance was completed. No

Assurance standard Standard(s) against which the PCF was assured. No

Assurance statement A reference to the assurance statement that is used to prove No

the assurance of the PCF. This can be a PDF attachment or a
digital signature. The technical specifications specify details on
company identification and digital signature verification.

Assurance comments Any additional comments that clarify the interpretation of the No
assurance.

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions 66
Appendix C:
Existing standards
and guidance
This guidance builds on the development of emissions accounting standards of the GHG Protocol, ISO, and
the European Commission. The table below summarizes some of the key standards and geographical focus
of these entities.

Publisher Geographical Corporate level Product Specific to given Specific to given

focus level sectors products

European EU Organizational PEF OEF Sector Rules PEFCRs (e.g., for IT

Commission Environmental (e.g., for retail) equipment)
Footprint (OEF)

ISO Global ISO 14064 ISO 14067 ISO 20915:2018 for PCRs (e.g., ISO
steel products 22526 for biobased
ISO 14040 plastics)

ISO 14044

GHG Protocol Global Corporate, Product E.g., Agriculture PCRs (e.g., PCRs for
(WRI/ Scope 2, and Life Cycle Guidance concrete)
WBCSD) Scope 3 Standard
standards Land Sector and
Carbon Removal
Guidance

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions 67
Appendix D:
Assurance evidence pack
This evidence pack contains the information that Each dimension is subdivided into five concrete
companies should consolidate before undergoing elements that constitute the evidence pack for that
product-level assurance in conformance with the dimension. As the maturity of companies’ product-
Pathfinder Framework. It is structured along three level emission reporting varies, the evidence pack
dimensions of evidence central to verifying product- distinguishes between elements that are likely to be
level emission disclosures: needed at a minimum and elements that might be
optional as evidence.
1. Data. Evidence around the required data
elements, sources, and quality of data used in
the calculations
2. Methodology. Evidence around the calculation
steps, results, and assumptions
3. Governance. Evidence around the underlying
processes used during the calculations, including
how data was stored, how quality was ensured,
and how risks were mitigated

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions 68
Data

Element Description Minimum Optional

Data collection In order to perform a PCF calculation, Inventory of all GHG N/A
companies are expected to identify sources and the
all relevant GHG sources and map the relevant activity data
activity data available for each broken down by site

Primary data Understanding which of the GHG sources Comprehensive list Additional information
sources have been calculated via primary data of all primary data on how and when the
collection is considered key for the sources used data was accessed
purpose of the Pathfinder Framework

Secondary data Companies downstream want to Comprehensive list Additional information

sources ensure that secondary data used for the of all secondary data on how and when the
calculation comes from credible and sources used data was accessed
globally recognized sources

Proxy data Should primary and secondary data List of proxy data Steps taken to ensure
sources not cover the entirety of the used and rationale of that proxy data used is
studied PCF, proxy data can be used to fill application minimized in the future
in the gaps as long as this is documented
transparently

Data quality As data quality shall only be assessed Results of materiality An individual data
for GHG sources surpassing the defined threshold assessment quality statement
5% threshold, companies will need to of PCF’s GHG sources for each GHG source
give evidence of this exercise to ensure surpassing the
all material sources are covered in the Overall data quality materiality threshold
assessment assessment statement

Companies will also need to give

evidence of the data quality assessment
statement

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions 69
Methodology

Element Description Minimum Optional

Conformance Standards followed will define the Comprehensive N/A

Framework requirements and thus checklist of standard(s)
the correctness of the steps taken by requirements followed
companies to calculate the PCF
List of Scope boundary
Companies will need to demonstrate conditions
alignment to Scope boundary conditions
prescribed by the Framework

Calculation steps It is essential for companies to be able Comprehensive list of N/A

to produce a list of calculation steps calculation steps per
taken to convert activity data into GHG life cycle stage
emissions for each life cycle stage
included in the system boundary of
the PCF

Assumptions A list of assumptions used in calculation Comprehensive list of N/A

to ensure completeness of calculation assumptions made at
each stage

Allocation Downstream companies will want to Description of Evidence to confirm

understand whether allocation has taken allocation approach avoided allocation
place, and if so, what approach was used followed

Results Results will allow verification parties Comprehensive list of N/A

to understand whether the calculation all intermediate and
steps required by the standard have been final results
completed accurately

Ensures mass balance validation

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions 70
Governance

Element Description Minimum Optional

Data governance In order to ensure replicability and Comprehensive map N/A

facilitate knowledge transfer, companies of all processes and
should have in place a data governance responsibilities
plan mapping the data processes,
ownership, and responsibilities, as well Comprehensive list of
as documentation on the steps taken to all data consolidation
consolidate and validate different data steps and rationale
inputs, e.g., from different sites

Quality control Internal mechanism in place to ensure N/A Comprehensive

quality control takes place and that list of controls and
responsibilities associated with it responsibilities
are clear

Expertise There is a need to ensure that the team N/A Total years of expertise
employed to undergo the calculation within team employed
process has sufficient expertise in to undergo PCF
the subject in order to minimize PCF
misstatements

Capacity When asked, companies should be able N/A List of all responsible
to list internal and contracted team individuals
members (if any) responsible for the
product footprint calculations

Risk Companies need to be able to identify Comprehensive list of Progress on mitigation

management potential shortcomings or pitfalls all risks and mitigation tactics employed
associated with the PCF calculation tactics
process in order to be able to
address them

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions 71
Appendix E:
Scope 3 upstream
accounting methods
Currently, three main methods are used to account for upstream Scope 3 emissions. These methods are
defined by their accuracy and the type of data that the calculations are based on.
Figure 21: Three main calculation methods for Scope 3 upstream calculations

Resources required
Time and effort

Supplier-specific
primary data method
Function: performance
Average-data method tracking at ingredient,
component, and
Function: product-level material level
performance tracking
Spend-based method Data source: suppliers
Data source: physical
Function: evaluate activity data Emission factor: supplier-
materiality and identify specific data by product or
Emission factor: LCA of service
hotspots ingredients/components
Data source: company based on peer-reviewed
expenditures studies of given products
Emission factor: economic
input-output databases

Achieving greater
accuracy requires
more detailed analysis

Granularity
Accuracy and ability to influence
Source: EcoAct

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions 72
 components when carrying out the calculations.
Spend-based method
These secondary emission factors can be found in
process-based life cycle inventory databases and
Companies calculating Scope 3 emissions for the
are present in the format of cradle-to-gate emission
first time tend to use data already being collected
factors of the purchased good or service per unit of
for other company processes, such as company
mass or unit of product.
expenditures, and to multiply these by a revenue
intensity factor representing the Scope 1 and
While this is a step in the right direction, it
2 emissions per dollar revenue for an activity or
continues to rely on industry averages, which
sector. While this method is less precise when
hinders companies’ abilities to determine the best-
quantifying emissions, it offers an initial overview
performing supplier for any given product or material
of the focus areas within a value chain. This, in
or to understand how well company initiatives
turn, allows companies to adapt their strategies
to reduce emissions (e.g., supplier engagement
to improve data quality based on the activities
programs) are performing.
or products that have a greater impact. This
method should only be seen as a first step in the
quantification of Scope 3 emissions, after which Supplier-specific data method
companies should seek to improve data collection to
achieve greater accuracy, as shown in Figure 2. The ultimate goal, while requiring greater effort,
is to obtain product-level emissions data directly
from suppliers, as this would allow companies to
Average-data method
collaborate with their supply chain to improve the
efficiency of products and services purchased
The second method uses physical metrics, i.e.,
and accurately monitor the impact of these
primary activity data on material weight, fuel
improvements on the footprint. This, in turn,
consumption, or distances traveled that allows the
can become a procurement criterion rewarding
use of relevant secondary emission factors that
companies that are more sustainable or even
are more specific to the nature and origin of these
supporting suppliers in their GHG reduction journeys.

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions 73
Endnotes
1. Based on more than 50 selected stakeholders, 10. The Pathfinder Framework uses a value chain
including Shell, adidas, Pfizer, 3M, Volkswagen, perspective to account for and exchange product
GreenGauge, CDP, and McKinsey & Company. life cycle emissions. As such, the Framework
organizes a company’s emissions into three
2. Any reference in this document to the term major categories: (i) upstream emissions:
“technology” shall be taken to refer to IT (as indirect GHG emissions that occur in the value
opposed to production technology). chain prior to the processes owned or controlled
by the reporting company; all upstream
3. ISO 14067:2018. transportation emissions are also included as
part of upstream emissions; (ii) direct emissions:
4. Existing overarching methods and standards, GHG emissions from the processes that are
in contrast, do not provide a sufficient level of owned or controlled by the reporting company;
specificity. For instance, under the GHG Product (iii) downstream emissions: indirect GHG
Standard, two companies producing similar emissions that occur in the value chain following
products can choose two different methods for the processes owned or controlled by the
allocating emissions, leading to results being reporting company.
incomparable.
11. Accounting for and reporting for transportation
5. To drive consistency, PACT is collaborating with emissions is described further in
several sectoral initiatives to build sector- and Section 3.3.2.2.
product-specific guidance in alignment with the
Pathfinder Framework. 12. If bioenergy biomass is used as a feedstock
material, please refer to Section 3.3.2.1 for
6. Prior to commencement, the list of work-in- reporting guidance.
progress PCRs by relevant program operators
shall be consulted to avoid duplication. Any new 13. These rules are aligned with PAS2050 cut-off
development activities should further be brought criteria. While alignment with other frameworks
to the attention of the Partnership for Carbon was sought, the divergence found across them
Transparency. led to this guidance aligning with the most
lenient approach to ensure that PCFs following
7. Together for Sustainability (2022), The Product other frameworks are still compliant with these
Carbon Footprint Guideline for the Chemical exemption rules.
industry.
14. The Pathfinder Network will help facilitate direct
8. World Resources Institute/World Business access to these.
Council for Sustainable Development, GHG
Protocol (2013), Required Greenhouse Gases in 15. ISO 14044.
Inventories; Accounting and Reporting Standard
Amendment. 16. GHG Product Standard (page 67).

9. This guidance allows for a one-year grace period 17. GHG Product Standard (Table 9.1).
to give companies sufficient time to update
their calculations and systems to the latest 18. Please note this is an arbitrary number agreed
characterization factors provided by the IPCC. on with other PCF calculation initiatives that is
Please find the IPCC 2021 update in the following intended to reflect a significant divergence in the
link (page 1034). value of the different co-products.

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions 74
19. Please refer to ISO 14067:2018 Section 6.4.8 29. More information on validation of databases can
for further information on how to account for be found in Section 2.3 of the Global Guidance
biogenic CO2e withdrawals and the temporary for Life Cycle Assessment Databases (2011).
storage in product carbon pools.
30. Canals et al. (2011), Approaches for Addressing
20. Please note that aircraft GHG emissions under Life Cycle Assessment Data Gaps for Bio-based
certain circumstances in high altitudes have Products.
additional climate impacts because of physical
and chemical reactions with the atmosphere. 31. Assuming company-specific activity data has
For more information on GHG emissions from been used in the calculation of the PCF and that
aircraft, see the IPCC Guidelines for National the data are representative of the process in
Greenhouse Gas Inventories and the IPCC question, the assessment of this data quality
Special Report on Aviation. indicator shall be based on the degree of
representativeness of the emission factors used
21. See EPD International for detailed criteria on in the calculation.
when the end-of-waste state is achieved.
32. See endnote above.
22. This method is also known as the 100-0 method.
33. See endnote above.
23. World Resources Institute/World Business
Council for Sustainable Development, GHG 34. Retrieved from ISAE 3000 and related standards
Protocol (2013), Technical Guidance for such as ISAE 3410.
Calculating Scope 3 Emissions.
35. GHG Product Standard (page 96).
24. World Resources Institute/World Business
Council for Sustainable Development, GHG 36. In the context of this guidance, SMEs are
Protocol (2013), Technical Guidance for defined in accordance with the latest EU
Calculating Scope 3 Emissions. recommendation 2006/361 criteria and
thresholds, where SMEs are defined as
25. The Pathfinder Network will help facilitate companies that employ fewer than 250 persons
access to such emission factors. and have an annual turnover not exceeding
€50 million and/or an annual balance sheet total
26. World Resources Institute/World Business not exceeding €43 million.
Council for Sustainable Development, GHG
Protocol (2013), Technical Guidance for 37. UN Statistics Division (September 22, 2021),
Calculating Scope 3 Emissions. Economic statistics. Retrieved from
https://unstats.un.org/unsd/classifications/
27. Specific guidance focused on data sources for Econ/cpc.
transportation can be found in Section 3.3.2.2.
38. New compared to version 1.0.
28. While this guidance advocates for the use
of primary data, in some cases primary data 39. Retrieved from ISO 14067:2018:17.
may be associated with high uncertainty and/
or measurement inaccuracies, thus making 40. May also be referred to as reference year.
secondary data more representative of activity
data or emission factors.

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions 75
Disclaimer Acknowledgements

The Pathfinder Framework is designed to ease GHG The World Business Council for Sustainable
accounting and encourage businesses to exchange Development (WBCSD) would like to thank all PACT
verified primary data on product carbon emissions members, WBCSD staff, and other individuals
across the supply chain. It has been developed in a who shared their detailed and thoughtful input
multi-stakeholder process, including experts from and contributed actively to the development of
business, industry initiatives, standard-setting and this document.
reporting bodies, government and nongovernmental
organizations. The process was led by the World
Contact details
Business Council for Sustainable Development
(WBCSD), within the context of its Partnership
If you would like to find out more about PACT,
for Carbon Transparency. McKinsey & Company,
please contact:
the global management consulting firm, provided
analytical insights and support to the Partnership
[email protected]
for Carbon Transparency.

While WBCSD encourages the use of the Pathfinder

Framework by all corporations and organizations,
the preparation and publication of reports or
program specifications based fully or partially on
these guidelines is at the discretion of each entity
producing them. Neither WBCSD nor any other
individuals who contributed to these guidelines
assume responsibility for any consequences or
damages resulting directly or indirectly from its
use (e.g., in the preparation of reports, program
specifications or the use of reports based on
these guidelines).

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions 76
About WBCSD About PACT

WBCSD is the premier global, CEO-led community PACT is seeking to accelerate decarbonization
of over 200 of the world’s leading sustainable through the creation of transparency on emissions in
businesses working collectively to accelerate the the value chain.
system transformations needed for a net zero,
nature positive, and more equitable future. PACT provides a forum for stakeholders to jointly
tackle this challenge, uniting businesses from across
We do this by engaging executives and sustainability industries, technology players, industry-focused
leaders from business and elsewhere to share initiatives, standard-setting bodies, reporting
practical insights on the obstacles and opportunities organizations, and regulators in their shared
we currently face in tackling the integrated climate, mission. Jointly, the PACT community defines
nature, and inequality sustainability challenge; and publishes the necessary methodological and
by co-developing “how-to” CEO-guides from technological basis for emissions data exchange,
these insights; by providing science-based target integrating existing standards and approaches and
guidance including standards and protocols; and creating a trusted and holistic foundation.
by developing tools and platforms to help leading
businesses in sustainability drive integrated actions PACT is hosted by WBCSD and supported by its
to tackle climate, nature, and inequality challenges knowledge partner, McKinsey Sustainability, as well
across sectors and geographical regions. as its technology partner, SINE Foundation.

Our member companies come from all business www.carbon-transparency.com

sectors and all major economies, representing a
combined revenue of more than $8.5 trillion and
About McKinsey Sustainability
19 million employees. Our global network of almost
70 national business councils gives our members
McKinsey Sustainability is McKinsey’s client-
unparalleled reach across the globe. Since 1995,
service platform with the goal of helping all industry
WBCSD has been uniquely positioned to work with
sectors transform to get to net zero by 2050 and to
member companies along and across value chains
cut carbon emissions by half by 2030. McKinsey
to deliver impactful business solutions to the most
Sustainability seeks to be the preeminent impact
challenging sustainability issues.
partner and adviser for their clients, from the board
room to the engine room, on sustainability, climate
Together, we are the leading voice of business for
resilience, energy transition, and environmental,
sustainability, united by our vision of a world in which
social, and governance (ESG). It leverages thought
9+ billion people are living well, within planetary
leadership, innovative tools and solutions, top
boundaries, by mid-century.
experts, and a vibrant ecosystem of industry
associations and knowledge partnerships to lead
www.wbcsd.org
a wave of innovation and economic growth that
safeguards our planet and advances sustainability.
Follow us on Twitter and LinkedIn

About SINE Foundation

The SINE Foundation is a tech for good organization

founded by progressive entrepreneurs, academic
experts, and software engineers. SINE designs
and implements the foundation for lasting
data collaboration—delivered as ready-to-use
governance tools and open-source software.
The nonprofit foundation supports global
organizations to identify, initiate, and maintain use
cases for data collaboration within complex multi-
stakeholder environments.

Copyright © WBCSD, January 2023.

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions 77
World Business Council
for Sustainable Development

Geneva, Amsterdam, New Delhi, London, New York City, Singapore Powered by

www.wbcsd.org