CARBON FOOTPRINT
AND CLIMATE STRATEGYEVALUATION
2021-2022

A report produced by

TABLE OF
CONTENTS

1
2

METHODOLOGY AND STUDYPARAMETERSRESULTS OF THE STUDY

3

BENCHMARK DATA

4APPENDICES

A report produced by2

1 METHODOLOGYAND STUDY
PARAMETERS

A report produced by

3

1

GENERAL PERIMETER OF THE STUDY• Organisational scope: for the present study of Arturia’s overall carbon footprint, the scopeincludes all of the company’s activities, both in France and abroad (internal operations, media
and sales) as well as product life cycles.
• Temporal scope: the study focuses on the company’s 2021-2022 fiscal year extending from 01
July 2021 to 30 June 2022.
• CO2 calculations are based on data collected by Arturia. External studies and documentation
have been utilised in order to extrapolate certain calculations and thus present the mostcomprehensive view of the company’s carbon impact.

A report produced by

4

1

MAP OF ARTURIA’S BUSINESS FLOWSPRODUCT LIFE CYCLE

2
1FREIGHT

RAW MATERIALS
Necessary product raw
materials (electronics,
aluminium, etc.)

Necessary raw materials
for product packaging(polyethylene, EVA,
cardboard, etc.)

3

4

FACTORIESWAREHOUSES

5

Energy consumption

Energyconsumption

Packaging fortransportation

Waste

Transportation ofsamples

Other materials
neccessary for
production

PackagingTransportation of raw
materials to
manufacturing andassembly sites (road,sea, air)Tooling for production

Transportation of
keyboards frommanufacturing site toassembly site

6

DISTRIBUTION

PRODUCT
USAGE

Distribution
Factory > Stock
Stock > Intermediary
Stock > Retail outlet

Factory > Intermediary
Factory > Retail outlet
Intermediary > Retail outlet
Retail outlet > Customer

Production-generated
waste

7
WASTE RELATED TOEND OF PRODUCT
LIFE-CYCLE

Energyconsumption
linked to producthardwareEnergyconsumption
linked to productsoftwareEnd product(initial raw
materials andpackaging)

Office-generated waste
Energy consumption
Supplier-related expenses
Travel expenses and home-tooffice commuting
In-office assets

OFFICES:AHEADQUARTERS/OFFICES

A report produced by

5

1

MAP OF ARTURIA’S BUSINESS FLOWSPRODUCT LIFE CYCLE

2
1FREIGHT

RAW MATERIALS
Necessary product raw
materials (electronics,
aluminium, etc.)

Necessary raw materials
for product packaging(polyethylene, EVA,
cardboard, etc.)

3

4

FACTORIESWAREHOUSES

5

Energy consumption

Energyconsumption

Packaging fortransportation

Waste

Transportation ofsamples

Other materials
neccessary for
production

PackagingTransportation of raw
materials to
manufacturing andassembly sites (road,sea, air)Tooling for production

Transportation of
keyboards frommanufacturing site toassembly site

6

DISTRIBUTION

PRODUCT
USAGE

Distribution
Factory > Stock
Stock > Intermediary
Stock > Retail outlet

Factory > Intermediary
Factory > Retail outlet
Intermediary > Retail outlet
Retail outlet > Customer

Production-generated
waste

7
WASTE RELATED TOEND OF PRODUCT
LIFE-CYCLE

Energyconsumption
linked to producthardwareEnergyconsumption
linked to productsoftwareEnd product(initial raw
materials andpackaging)

Office-generated waste
Energy consumption
Supplier-related expenses
Travel expenses and home-tooffice commuting
In-office assets

OFFICES:

Integrated in the study

A
HEADQUARTERS/OFFICES

A report produced by

6

1

DETAILED PERIMETER OF THE STUDY

Elements not integrated in the study§ Freight: carbon emissions linked to the transportation of raw materials between their place of origin (city or country of the post-extraction site of a given raw
material) and Arturia’s manufacturing site.
§ Warehouse: emissions linked to packaging if the latter differs from that used in final factory output§ Distribution: emissions linked to the final km travelled by product or customer
Concerning emissions emanating from ‘final km travelled’, it is important to relativise with respect to ADEME* recommendations on this subject:q The considerable risk of uncertainty of such emission measurements may undermine the scientific credibility of obtained results.
q The deployment of a credible system of measurement is too costly in relation to any noticeable significance in results obtained. Companies prefer to devoteresources to undertaking direct actions that aim at emissions reduction, or to dialogue with partners.

Additions to the final study§ Raw materials: in an effort to preserve the comparability and the homogeneity of the method employed, ‘electronic materials’ are considered as a whole entity
during the V1 study. Given the importance of these components in Arturia’s carbon analysis, a more comprehensive V2 study was conducted with the aim ofidentifying the various elements and the materials they are composed of. The present study has integrated this more comprehensive analysis.
§ Product usage: to be able to measure adequately all emissions sources, including product utilisation, Arturia implemented a customer-based survey with the goalof better understanding duration and frequency of product use. The present V3 study has included this emissions source.

*ADEME : French national Agency for the Environment and Energy Conservation

A report produced by

7

2 RESULTS OF THE STUDYOVERALL RESULTS
DETAILED RESULTS

A report produced by

8

2

CARBON FOOTPRINT: SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS

CARBON FOOTPRINT
OF COMPANY
ACTIVITIES IN 20212022
14,847tCO2e

CARBON FOOTPRINT OF
ACTIVITIES IN 2021-2022 PER
INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEE
130 tCO2e/employee** Data based on 114 full-time staff members. This ratio does not take into consideration factory employees.

A report produced by

9

2

14,847 TCO2E EMISSIONS GENERATED BY ARTURIA’S ACTIVITIES IN 2021-2022, OF
WHICH 73% IS DIRECTLY LINKED TO RAW MATERIALS
These 14,847 tonnes of CO2eq come from the following sources of emission:
0%

4%

3% 2%

Raw materials

7%

Factories
Headquarters/Offices

11%

Product usage
Waste related to end of product life cycle
Distribution
73%

Freight

A report produced by

10

2

SUMMARY OF RESULTS BY REGULATORY SOURCE OF EMISSIONS
Categories

Direct emissions(scope 1)

Indirect emissions related
to energy(scope 2)

Other GHG emissions(scope 3)

N°

Emissions CO2e
(kgCO2e)

Regulatory emissions source1

Direct emissions from fixed combustion sources

2
3

Direct emissions from mobile thermal combustion engine sources
Direct emissions from processes not related to energy consumption

4
5

Direct fugitive emissions
Emissions emanating from biomass (soil and forest)

6

Indirect emissions linked to electricity consumption

7

Indirect emissions linked to steam, heat or refrigeration

8

Emissions related to energy use not mentioned in sources 1 to 7

9Purchasing of goods or services

1011

Permanent office assets
Waste

12
13

Upstream merchandise transportation
Employee travel expenses

14
15
16
17
18

Upstream franchising
Upstream leasing assets
Investments
Visitor and customer transportation
Downstream merchandise transportation

19
20
21

Utilisation of sold products
End of life of sold products
Downstream franchising

22
23

Downstream leasing
Home-to-office commuting

24

Other indirect emissions
TOTAL

%
-

0%
0%

-

0%
0%

6,000

0%

0

0%

846,000

6%

12,303,00083%

256,000

2%

7,000
36,000

0%
0%

0
0
0
0
0
269,000

0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
2%

610,000
443,000

4%
3%

0
0

0%
0%

71,000

0%

0

0%

0%

14,847,000

A report produced by

11

2

SUMMARY OF CARBON FOOTPRINT RESULTS BY PRODUCT CATEGORY
Percentage of emissions (kgCO2e) by category and sales volume (unit)

64%

67%

14,847tCO2e

Number of produ cts distributed
CO2 emissions

generated by Arturia’s
activities in 2021-2022

13%

15%
10%

10%

8%

5%

Lab

Brutes

6%
1%

Freak

Step

1%

Fuse

1%
Accessories• Carbon emissions are disproportionately pronounced for the product cateogories Lab, Brutes, Freak and Fuse as the amount of CO2e emitted is disproportionately higher
than the quantity distributed. Conversely, product categories Step and accessories exhibit a markedly lower proportion of carbon emissions than their proportion of
products distributed.
• Lab products represented nearly 64% of company output in 2021-2022, corresponding to 6% of carbon emissions.

*Emissions comprise the following sources: raw materials, freight, factories, distribution, end of product life cycle

A report produced by

12

2 RESULTS OF THE STUDYOVERALL RESULTS
DETAILED RESULTS

A report produced by

13

2

DETAILED RESULTSRAW
MATERIALS

1

Raw materials (product components and packaging) account for 10,852 tCO2e, or 73% of the overall carbon assessment
Share of emissions linked to product-based raw materials* (%)

CO2e emissions rate by product composition (%)
Presence of raw materials (for all products analysed)

2%18%

CO2 emissions

80%

28%

27%

80%

8%

Ele ctronics
Ele ctronics

Mechanics

8%

ABS

25%

5%
Steel

5% 3%

2%

Aluminium Packaging

3% 1%

1% 0%

Silicone

PMMA

4%

1%

Oth erPackaging•Electronic components account for 80% of the emissions generated by all hardware products analysed, followed by ABS and steel.

•

The top three ranked raw materials account for 63% of the total weight of all hardware products; these three raw materials represent 93% of all emissions.

A report produced by

14

2

DETAILED RESULTS

FREIGHT

2

Freight* represents 36 tCO2e or less than 0.2% of the overall carbon assessment
Share of emissions linked to manufacturing sub-sources*Data concerning the transportation of raw
materials between their place of origin and
Arturia’s manufacturing site could not becollected and is therefore not included in the“Freight” category. This explains why thiscategory represents less than 0.2% of the carbon
footprint, since only the following two items areincluded:

13%

The transportation of samples by air freight
represents 87% of the impact of this category.
The remaining 13% comes from thetransportation of keyboards by sea freight toArturia offices.

87%

Transportation of samples

Transportation of keyboards

A report produced by

15

2

DETAILED RESULTS

FACTORIES

3

Factory production represents 1,683 tCO2e or 11% of the overall carbon assessment
Share of emissions linked to manufacturing sub-sources

Emissions related to energy consumption
linked to the manufacturing and assembly of
products on factory premises are the firstsignificant sub-source and account for 50% of
total emissions.

7%
10%This is followed bypackaging fortransportation, which accounts for 33% ofemissions of this category.
Tooling for production and other materials
used for production account for 10% and 7% ofemissions, respectively.

50%
33%

Energy consumption linked to production on factory premises
Packaging for transportation
Tooling for production
Other materials necessary for production on factory premises
A report produced by

16

2

DETAILED RESULTS

DISTRIBUTION

5Distribution of finished Arturia products (to storage facilities, intermediaries, retail outlets) accounts for 269 tCO2e or 2% of the carbon assessment
Share of emissions by distribution phase (%)

Share of emissions by distribution phase and by mode of transportation (%)
Product weight x distanceCO2 emissions

44%

Storage France > Intermediary

42%

44%

Storage USA > Retail outlets USA
31%

22%

22%
18%
12%

3%

5%

Storage France Storage USA >> Intermediary Retail outlets
USA

1%
Factories >Intermediary

Factories >Storage France

Factories >Storage USA

Factories > Storage France

12%

Factories > Intermediary

11%

Factories > Storage USA

9%

Storage USA > Intermediary9%3%

Storage USA >Intermediary0%0%Factories >Retail outlets

22%

Factories > Retail outlets
By air3%0%
By seaBy road•

The transport of goods between storage depots in France and intermediaries, which represent only 3% of the ‘Product weight x distance total’, accounts for 44% of CO2e emissions. This is due tothe use of air transport which is very carbon intensive compared to other forms of transport. The same trend can be seen with the transport of goods between storage depots in the USA and retailoulets in the USA, and between factories and intermediaries.

•

Conversely, the transportation of goods between factories and storage depots in France and the USA, done exclusively by sea, generates a lower level of emissions, only 21% of total emissions fora ‘Weight x Distance’ ratio, accounting for 73 % of overall emissions.
A report produced by

17

2

DETAILED RESULTS

DISTRIBUTION

5Distribution of finished Arturia products (to storage facilities, intermediaries, retail outlets) accounts for 269 tCO2e or 2% of the carbon assessment
Share of emissions by mode of transportation (%)

Prod uct Weight x DistanceCO2e emissions

64%

47%

29%
18%

By air

•

25%

18%

By roadBy seaWhilst the ‘Weight x Distance’ ratio for air transport represents 18% of the total, the resulting emissions account for 47% of the total. Road transport accounts for the same ‘Weight x Distance’
ratio but only represents 29% of total emissions.

A report produced by

18

2

DETAILED RESULTS

PRODUCT
USAGE

6

Product usage by customers accounts for 610 tCO2e or 4% of the carbon assessment

Number of
products soldUtilisation
taken into
account

Hardware

SoftwareUsage
consumption(Wh/unit)

Usage duration(h/yr)

Emissionsfactors

Usage
consumption for
all products soldin 2021-2022(KWh/yr)

Carbonemissions in
kg CO2e

165 091 kWh

71 913
KgCO2e197 173

Product
Duration ofEnergy mix
consumption is usage based on proportionate tomeasured in customer survey each country
accordance with for 18 macro- where an article
products
SKU
is sold

132 912One single
emissions factor
was taken into
Duration of
Product
account on theusage based on
consumption isbasis of acustomer survey
weightedmeasured in
1 441 921 kWh
for 18 macroaverage
accordance withproducts
SKU
between sales
volumes andenergy mixes foreach country• The energy consumption required to power acomputer was not taken into account. This value
represents 250 kWh (ex : consumption of a desktop computer).
• Instead, the supplementary energy required to
power Arturia devices was taken into account asfollows, from data collected from a user survey in2019 :• Average consumption of Arturia hardware devices is
5,1 kWh (weighted average 1,2 kWh)
• Average consumption of Arturia software devices is15,6 kWh (weighted average 19,3 kWh)

538 128
KgCO2e• There is a factor of 16 between the two weighted
averages corresponding to hard- and software
product energy consumption• Duration of usage also has an impact, albeit
marginal, since software products are used for an
average of 664 hrs/yr, compared to an average of
544hrs/yr for hardware devices (weighted
averages).
A report produced by

19

2

DETAILED RESULTS

WASTE RELATED TOEND OF PRODUCT
LIFE-CYCLE

7

Waste resulting from product end of life accounts for 443 tCO2e or 3% of the carbon assessment
CO2 emissions rate by product composition (%)

Share of emissions linked to product-based raw materials (%)

Quantity of materials used (for all
products analysed)

10%CO2e emissions

3%

41%
28%

27%
19%
14%

87%
3%

Mechanical••Electronics

Packaging

ABS

13%
10%

10%
1%
Wood

5% 5%

3% 4%
EPE

3% 4%

1%

4%

Rubber

2%

2%
Steel

1% 1%
Oth erMechanical parts have the highest concentration (87%) of CO2 emissions during their end-of-life, followed by electronics with 10%. Only 3% of emissions come from the end-of-life of packaging
materials. Whilst electronics are characterised as a carbon intensive material, they are less so than other materials during final phase of product life cycle.
By comparison, note below the carbon intensities associated with the end-of-life of the most-used materials:•
Steel : 0,043 kgCO2e/kg•
Plastic (ABS) : 0,8 kgCO2e/kg•
Cardboard : 0,067 kgCO2e/kg•
Electronics : 1,1 kgCO2e/kg•
Wood : 5,11 kgCO2e/kg
A report produced by

20

2

DETAILED RESULTS

HEADQUARTERS/OFFICESA

Emissions related to headquarters/offices account for 955 tCO2e or 6% of the carbon
assessment

1%

Share of emissions linked to sub-sources

Emissions related to supplier-related expenses
account for 82% of all emissions. These arestudied in detail in the following slide.

7% 1%
9%

9% and 7% of emissions from theheadquarter/office category are related to inoffice assets and travel expenses andcommuting, respectively.
The following sub-sources – office-generated
waste, and energy consumption – together
account for only 13 tCO2e, or around 2%.

82%
Supplier-related expenses
In-office assets
Travel expenses + Home-to-office commuting
Office-generated waste
Energy consumption

A report produced by21

2

DETAILED RESULTS

HEADQUARTERS/OFFICESA

FOCUS ON SUPPLIER-RELATED EXPENSES

These expenses mainly concern the following sectors: telecommunications (36%), research anddevelopment (32%), film, sound recording, television and radio (13%), warehousing and auxiliarytransport services (7%). Six other expense categories make up the remaining 12% of emissions related
to this emissions source.

1%
11%
%
2%
3%
4%
7%

36%

13%

Telecommunications

285

Research and development

253

Film, sound recording, television and radio

104

Warehousing and auxiliary transport services

32%

53

Office supplies

33

Accommodation and catering
Telecommunications
Research and development
Film, sound recording, television and radio
Warehousing and auxiliary transport services
Office supplies
Accommodation and catering
Highly material services
Low material services
Textile and clothing
Publishing (books, newspapers, magazines, etc.)

24

Highly material services

15

Low material services

10

Textile and clothing

8

Publishing (books, newspapers, magazines,
etc.)

3

A report produced by22

3 BENCHMARK DATA

A report produced by

23

3

BENCHMARK OF CARBON FOOTPRINTS OF ELECTRONIC DEVICES
Comparative emissions by product (kgCO2e), Not including Arturia product use or end of life

539

409

300

185

158

136
82

ADEME Washingmachine 7
kg frontloading(LCA)

PolyBrute

ADEME - MacBook
Refrigerator Pro 13
250 Lit.
inches(LCA)

KeyLab88 ADEME MkIIClassical Hifi stereo
system(LCA)

iPad Air
(LCA)

70

61

54

54

53

44

iPhone 12
KeyLab KeyStep Pro ADEME - MicroFreak Fa irphone 2(LCA)
Essential 49
Television
40-49 inches
(LCA)

42

23

20

19

14

2

ADEME - MiniLa b MkII Focusrite MiniFuse 2 Focusrite V Collection
Monitor
Scarlett 2i2 Scarlett 2i2 9(LCA)
2nd Gen
3rd GenA report produced by24

4 APPENDICES

A report produced by25

4

GLOSSARY
Scope 1: direct emissions produced by stationary and mobile sources (ex: natural gas utilised in thermal power stations, heaters installed
on company premises or petrol used for company vehicles.
Scope 2: Indirect emissions linked to electricity consumption, or to heating or cooling systems (ex : electricity or heating purchases)
Scope 3: other indirect emissions (ex: emissions linked to purchased products or services, emissions associated with upstream or
downstream merchandise shipping, emissions linked to the utilisation of purchased products, etc).
Emissions factor (EF): refers to the ratio between the quantity of GHG emitted by an object or a material, as well as the characteristic value
attributed to the latter measured in the most convenient unit (weight, cost, etc.)
Carbon Assessment: A ‘carbon assessment’ aims to analyse the impact perimeter of a given activity in the most exhaustive manner
possible. Therefore, it is not sufficient to measure merely the flows generated by an entity, but rather to encompass the totality of theflows and effects upon which its activity depends (ex : concerning home-to-office commuting, the company cannot restrict such mobility.
Indeed, without these trajectories, employees and collaborators would not be able to work. Company activity is therefore dependent
upon these movements, which in turn justifies their being taken into consideration. Carbon assessment methodology was initiated in 2004.

The most recent update of the ADEME configuration is the 8.5.1. version which was used for the present study.

A report produced by

26

4

FAQ
What is the difference between a carbon assessment and a LCA (life-cycle analysis)?
• An LCA establishes an inventory of flows from the ‘cradle to the grave’: from the extraction of energy-rich (or not) raw materials
necessary for product manufacuring, distribution, utilisation, recycling and elimination toward end-of-life channels. This processincludes all phases of transportation.
• In addition, an LCA calculates impact on other categories such as potential toxicity for humans and the environment, resource
depletion, use of land/space, acidification, etc.
• Following ISO 14040 norms, and LCA is the « compilation and evaluation of inputs, outputs, and of the potential environmental
impacts caused by product systems in the course of their life cycle. »Why is the study of scope 3 indirect emissions so crucial?
• Indirect emissions upstream and downstream from the company’s value chain (scope 3) are often not considered in impact evaluations.
• However, in most sectors, such emissions actually constitute the most substantial part of a company’s inventory (Ex : 90% of Sanofi’s
carbon footprint in 2018).
• A global view of the impact of such emssions on the supply chain enables a company to:à Evaluate where the emissions ’hot spots’ are located in its supply chain;à Identify the most efficient suppliers in terms of emissions management and control;à Engage and assist suppliers in the implementation of emissions reduction strategies.

A report produced by27

4

LIMITATIONS
The limitations of the present study

This study aims to analyse the magnitude of Arturia’s overall CO2 emissions, and is based on data provided by the company.
As with any carbon footprint evaluation, the calculations proposed here contain a margin of error which itself is dependent upon theinherent margins of error among the various emissions conversion factors mentioned in data bases (ADEME, Ecoinvent, Codde…), butalso upon fluctuations resulting from the necessity to associate different products for data collecting purposes.
Finally, a margin of error may be attributable to hypotheses used for emissions estimates.
This said, the methodology employed here has enabled Arturia to provide a comprehensive carbon assessment for the third year running.

A report produced by28

Antoine JOINT
Advisory Director
joint@utopies.com
David DOS SANTOS
Senior Consultant
dossantos@utopies.com

MERCI

25 RUE TITON 75011 PARIS • TEL +33 (0)1 40 29 43 00 • WWW.UTOPIES.COM

A report produced by29