Addressing a carbon footprint assessment could be puzzeling as the methodology often meet incomprehension. Indeed, the terms had gained traction in the mediatic sphere but not always used adversely. It was popularized in the 2000s mainly by the petroleum industry in order to gain in popularity facing an undeniable responsibility on the global warming crisis. The communication goal was to minimalize their responsibility and turn it toward the customers. In this article we will go back on the concept of carbon footprint itself, we will discover what it includes and the reason behind, what are the risk of misinterpretation of the term and what are the opportunity when addressed properly.

Far from being a greenwashing communication tool, the carbon footprint was originally a derivative of the ecologic footprint concept popularized in the 1990 and define by “the sum of all greenhouse gas generated all along the lifecycle of an activity from the extraction to the elimination.” Therefore, by definition, the carbon footprint of an organisation must include everything that the organisation depends off, to be understand as mandatory for the organisation to operate. Thought direct emission also called scope 1 and indirect energetic emission also called scope 2 are rather intuitive to count. Indirect emission are less intuitive and generally represent the vast majority of the total. On the upstream value flow to whom we can count:

• Emission generated by good consummed (extraction and various transformation steps)
• Emission generated by Services used by the organisation
• Emission generated by Upstream freight
• Emission generated by the immobilisation of the organisation
• Emission generated by the business travel
• Emission generated by employee commuting
• Emission generated by leased asset

Less intuitive, it also includes the downstream value flow

• Emission generated to the utilisation of a product/ service indeed if there is no use of the product itself then the organisation doesn’t even have a reason to exist. In this perspective a car manufacturer would include on his carbon footprint assessment the totality of the gas consumed by the vehicles sold over their full lifetime.
• Emission relative to final elimination of the product/ service
• Emission generated by downstream freight
• Emission generated by the processing of product sold

What is the confusion about?

The methodology was used not as the structuration strategic tool it is to assess the environmental impact of an organisation on the emission of greenhouse gases, but as a communication tool which aim to minimize the responsibility of the organisation toward the global warming crisis. In the veins of the petroleum industry, others took the same approach. Needless to say that these organisations were amongst the world largest emission contributor. Fortunately, activist and organisation such as greenwash academy award exposed the manipulation to the public which imposed the fraudster to back off and re-think their communication.

However some confusion still remains as the seed was planted. But you that get to read this article will know, one for all:  carbon footprint is not what you are responsible off, it is what you depend off.

So then, why minimizing your impact in counterproductive?

As explained before a carbon footprint assessment consist of identifying the weakness of an organization toward their needs of fossils energy to operate properly. In some cases, it even touch some vital aspect up to the reason to exist itself of the organization. Therefore minimizing its emissions is widely misleading and doesn’t allow the organization to take the proper measures in order to build a more robust business model, where the product/services provided inscribe themselves within a more global decarbonation process giving competitive advantage on key market segment and where innovation support sustainable motive.