February 11, 2026

​

By Denis Koshelev

​

When you buy a product, whether it’s a smartphone, a pair of sneakers, or your morning cup of coffee, there’s a hidden number quietly shaping its impact on the planet— carbon intensity. Unlike the familiar “carbon footprint,” which tallies up the total emissions linked to a product’s entire lifecycle, carbon intensity identifies how much carbon dioxide is emitted for each unit produced. This metric doesn’t just tell us how polluting something is; it shines a light on the efficiency (or inefficiency) of the systems behind the scenes.

​

What is Product Carbon Intensity?

 

Carbon intensity measures the amount of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with producing a unit of a product, typically expressed as carbon dioxide equivalent (CO₂e) per unit (e.g., kg CO₂e per ton of steel or per item manufactured). (Richardson, 2025)

A carbon footprint quantifies all greenhouse gas emissions linked to an individual, organization, or product. In contrast, carbon intensity assesses the efficiency of an economy, or sector, concerning its greenhouse gas output. While a carbon footprint highlights the environmental impact of our daily actions, carbon intensity evaluates the overall efficiency of a system or product. Essentially, it provides a broader view of emissions, seeking large-scale reduction strategies.

 

These two metrics, though distinct, are interconnected. By minimizing our individual carbon footprint, we collectively lower the carbon intensity of the systems and products we utilize. For instance, opting for public transport or reducing personal vehicle use diminishes the carbon footprint of our commute, thereby contributing to a reduced carbon intensity for the entire transportation sector. (EarthShift Global, 2023). 

 

A product’s Carbon Intensity refers to the amount of carbon dioxide (or equivalent greenhouse gases) emitted per unit of measure of the product. It is typically expressed as emissions per unit of product output, such as kilograms of CO₂ per kilogram of product produced, or per unit of energy consumed in production. It is essentially a ratio showing how much carbon emissions are associated with producing one unit of that product.

 

Wooden furniture, like a solid wood or MDF table, has a product carbon intensity profile consisting of logging, sawing, manufacturing processes (cutting, joining, finishing), and energy used at the factory. These emissions per unit product are usually measured in CO₂e per table. Wood furniture also maintains some carbon sequestered in the wood itself. Shipping and use-phase emissions are accounted separately.

 

Similarly, a coffee cup’s carbon intensity in manufacturing covers material extraction and processing (like ceramics or plastic), forming, and finishing energy. Studies show that brewing coffee contributes the largest portion of lifetime emissions, while manufacturing and shipping the cup are smaller but measurable contributors.

 

Carbon Footprint of a product is the total amount of greenhouse gas emissions (usually measured in CO₂ equivalent) associated with the entire lifecycle of the product. This includes emissions from raw material extraction, production, transportation, usage, and disposal (including recycling). It is an aggregate measure and provides the complete environmental impact of that product in terms of emissions over its lifetime.

​

How To Measure It

 

Measuring carbon intensity involves calculating the total emissions (like in footprint measurement), then dividing that total by the relevant functional unit to understand emissions efficiency or emissions per unit produced. (Manglai, 2025)

 

The process starts by setting the goal, scope, and lifecycle boundaries, ranging from "cradle-to-gate" (raw material extraction to factory gate) to “cradle-to-grave" (covering the full lifecycle, including disposal). Then, all lifecycle stages are identified, including raw material extraction, processing, manufacturing, packaging, transportation, use phase, and end-of-life. A functional unit is chosen to provide a consistent basis for comparison (like per kg of product or per unit sold). (Vereb, 2025).

 

Data collection involves gathering detailed activity data such as fuel and electricity consumption, material inputs, emissions from chemical reactions, and transportation distances. This data is then converted into CO₂e using emission factors, which represent the amount of greenhouse gases emitted per unit of activity. The total emissions are summed across all stages. 

​

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

​

Who Reports It — And Can They Be Trusted?

 

The carbon intensity of a manufactured product is worked out by building a life-cycle model that traces every significant input. The life-cycle model follows raw material extraction to final disposal, assigning each activity an emission factor taken from either measured plant data or standard databases, then summing the CO₂-equivalents and dividing by the declared functional unit. The manufacturer usually commissions or performs this calculation, but that does not always ensure reliable data. Manufacturers usually use standardized methodologies like the Greenhouse Gas Protocol or ISO 14067, which provide frameworks for consistent and transparent reporting. (CarbonChain, 2025) The result is often presented as a Product Carbon Footprint (PCF), which breaks down emissions by stage and source, and may include a carbon intensity rating benchmarked against industry standards. (CarbonChain, 2025)

​

Relying solely on manufacturer-reported data can be problematic, as there is potential for underreporting or misrepresentation due to a lack of oversight or incentives to appear more sustainable than they are. Studies show companies that do not use third-party verification tend to report lower, but less reliable, emissions data. For example, research from MIT Sloan found that companies with third-party audits initially report higher carbon intensity (by about 9.5%) but ultimately achieve greater reductions over time compared to those without verification. (MIT Sloan Office of Communications, 2024) Their measurements are more accurate and actionable, allowing them to identify specific sources of emissions and target reductions effectively.

​

Independent auditors, accredited by organizations like Verra, CDP, or ISO, verify the accuracy of reported emissions and methodologies. 

 

To address the growing demand for transparency regarding the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of products, various methodologies have been developed over time by different organizations.

​

First, there are single-issue methodologies, which focus exclusively on emissions and impacts related to climate change. One notable example is the ISO 14067 standard, published in 2018. This standard is widely regarded as the international reference for conducting Product Carbon Footprint (PCF) assessments and is built upon existing ISO standards for Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). Another key methodology in this group is PAS 2050, developed by the British Standards Institute (BSI). Introduced in October 2008 and revised in 2011, PAS 2050 is recognized as the first carbon footprint standard to gain international use.

​

Additionally, the GHG Protocol Product Standard, created by the World Resources Institute (WRI) and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), was published in October 2011. This standard aligns closely with the initial version of PAS 2050, while including specific requirements for public reporting. The GHG Protocol also offers supplementary standards for corporate assessments and project-related calculations.

​

We also have methodologies with a broader scope, addressing environmental issues beyond climate change. Within this group, the Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) stands out as an EU-recommended method for performing LCA studies. It aims to harmonize existing LCA standards and requires the calculation of 16 impact categories, though some legislative proposals suggest using only the climate change indicator to report the PCF. Another methodology is the French standard BP X30-323-0, developed by AFNOR, which was tested in 2011 and finalized in 2015. Similar to the PEF, it covers multiple impact categories, with the option to report the climate change indicator separately.

 

The European standard EN 15804 is also part of this group, providing core product category rules for construction products and services. It mandates the calculation and reporting of several environmental impact indicators, including climate change, allowing the climate change indicator to be used specifically for quantifying a product’s carbon footprint.

​

All these methodologies are grounded in the principles outlined in ISO 14040 and ISO 14044, seeking to align with the latest reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). While there are differences among the methodologies, their developers — including BSI, WRI/WBCSD, ISO, AFNOR, and the European Commission — have worked to increase alignment across their approaches. Each methodology provides guidelines for addressing specific issues relevant to carbon footprints, such as land-use change, biogenic carbon uptake and emissions, offsetting, soil carbon stock, green electricity, and characterization factors for biogenic carbon. (PRé Sustainability, 2025)

​

Canada uses internationally accepted lifecycle assessment and carbon accounting methodologies, tailored in part to its regulatory context, such as the Clean Fuel Regulations and GHG Reporting Program, to measure the carbon intensity of products and fuels. These methodologies reflect a comprehensive cradle-to-grave approach to greenhouse gas emissions quantification. (Environment and Climate Change Canada, 2024).

 

Final Thoughts

 

In the quest to truly understand the carbon footprint of the products we rely on daily, the tools and methodologies to measure carbon intensity have never been more sophisticated. Yet, the process is as much about trust as it is about technology— a trust that hinges on transparency, rigorous standards, and independent verification.

​

Ultimately, the true power of measuring carbon intensity lies not just in the final number, but in the accountability it demands. It forces companies to look deep into their own supply chains, identify their environmental hotspots, and innovate toward a more sustainable future. For consumers, it provides the power of an informed choice.

 

References

​

1. Richardson, B. (2025, August 20). Carbon intensity explained: What it is and how to reduce it. Zevero. https://www.zevero.earth/blog/carbon-intensity-what-it-is-and-how-to-reduce-it

2. EarthShift Global. (2023, May 1). Carbon Footprint vs. Carbon Intensity. EarthShift Global Blog. https://earthshiftglobal.com/blog/carbon-footprint-vs.-carbon-intensity

3. Manglai. (2025). Carbon intensity (CI): What is it and how is it measured? https://www.manglai.io/en/glossary/carbon-intensity

4. Vereb, M. (2025, May 21). How to calculate the carbon footprint of a product. Arbor. https://www.arbor.eco/blog/how-to-calculate-the-carbon-footprint-of-a-product

5. MIT Sloan Office of Communications. (2024, March 26). Without the use of third-party auditors in carbon reporting, companies report lower, but unreliable, emissions. MIT Sloan School of Management. https://mitsloan.mit.edu/press/without-use-third-party-auditors-carbon-reporting-companies-report-lower-unreliable-emissions

6. CarbonChain. (2025). Product carbon footprint explained. CarbonChain. https://www.carbonchain.com/carbon-accounting/product-carbon-footprint

7. CarbonChain. (2025). Product carbon footprint explained. CarbonChain. https://www.carbonchain.com/carbon-accounting/product-carbon-footprint

8. PRé Sustainability. (2025, November 18). Product Carbon Footprint standards: which one to choose? SimaPro. https://simapro.com/insights/product-carbon-footprint-standards-which-standard-to-choose/

9. Environment and Climate Change Canada. (2024, June). Fuel life cycle assessment model methodology. Government of Canada. https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/managing-pollution/fuel-life-cycle-assessment-model/methodology.html

10. Nestlé Nespresso. (2023). Comparative life cycle assessment (LCA) of Nespresso versus other coffee systems in Europe [Infographic]. https://nestle-nespresso.com/sites/site.prod.nestle-nespresso.com/files/NN_EU_LCA_Infographic_Draft17.pdf

11. Purohit, S. (2025, January 8). The carbon footprint of a coffee cup: How producers can lower emissions. Ecotact. https://www.ecotact.com/blog/the-carbon-footprint-of-a-coffee-cup-how-producers-can-lower-emissions