A comparative study of carbon footprint and assessment standards

Tao Gao, Qing Liu and Jianping Wang

International Journal of Low-Carbon Technologies, 2014, vol. 9, issue 3, 237-243

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

Date: 2014
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (12)

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/ijlct/ctt041 (application/pdf)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:oup:ijlctc:v:9:y:2014:i:3:p:237-243.

Access Statistics for this article

International Journal of Low-Carbon Technologies is currently edited by Saffa B. Riffat

More articles in International Journal of Low-Carbon Technologies from Oxford University Press
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Oxford University Press ().