CARBON FOOTPRINT
AND CLIMATESTRATEGYEVALUATION
2022-2023

A report produced

TABLE OF
CONTENTS

12METHODOLOGY AND STUDYPARAMETERSRESULTS OF THE STUDY34

BENCHMARK DATAAPPENDICES

A report produced2AND STUDY
1 METHODOLOGYPARAMETERS

A report produced

3

1

GENERAL PERIMETER OF THE STUDY• Organisational scope: for the present study of Arturia’s overall carbon footprint, thescope includes 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 2022-2023 fiscal year extending
from 01 July 2022 to 30 June 2023.
• CO2 calculations are based on data collected by Arturia.
External studies anddocumentation have been utilised in order to extrapolate certain calculations and thus
present the most comprehensive view of the company’s carbon impact.

A report produced

4

1

MAP OF ARTURIA’S BUSINESS FLOWSPRODUCT LIFE CYCLE

2134FACTORIESWAREHOUSESFREIGHT

RAW MATERIALS
Necessary productraw materials(electronics,aluminium, etc.)
Necessary rawmaterials
for productpackaging(polyethylene, EVA,
cardboard, etc.)

Transportationof keyboards frommanufacturingsite to assemblysite5

Energyconsumption

Energyconsumptio
nPackaging fortransportation

Waste

Transportation ofsamples

Other materials
neccessary for
production

Transportation ofraw materials tomanufacturing andassembly sites(road, sea, air)Tooling for
production

67

DISTRIBUTION
Distribution
Factory > Stock
Stock > Intermediary
Stock > Retail outlet
Factory > Intermediary
Factory > Retail outlet

PackagingIntermediary > Retailoutlet
Retail outlet > Customer

Productiongenerated waste

PRODUCTUSAGE

WASTE RELATED TOEND OF PRODUCTLIFE-CYCLE

Energyconsumption
linked to producthardwareEnergyconsumption
linked toproductsoftwareEndproduct(initial rawmaterialsandpackaging)

Office-generated waste
Energy consumption
Supplier-related
expenses
Travel expenses andhome-to-officecommutingIn-office assets

OFFICES:AHEADQUARTERS/OFFICES

A report produced

5

1

MAP OF ARTURIA’S BUSINESS FLOWSPRODUCT LIFE CYCLE

2134

FACTORIESWAREHOUSESFREIGHT

RAW MATERIALS
Necessary productraw materials(electronics,aluminium, etc.)
Necessary raw
materials
for productpackaging(polyethylene, EVA,
cardboard, etc.)

Transportationof keyboards frommanufacturingsite to assemblysite

5Energyconsumption

Energyconsumptio
nPackaging fortransportation

Waste

Transportation ofsamples

Other materials
neccessary for
production

Transportation ofraw materials tomanufacturing andassembly sites(road, sea, air)Tooling for
production

67

DISTRIBUTION
Distribution
Factory > Stock
Stock > Intermediary
Stock > Retail outlet
Factory > Intermediary
Factory > Retail outlet

PackagingIntermediary > Retailoutlet
Retail outlet > Customer

Productiongenerated waste

PRODUCTUSAGE

WASTE RELATED TOEND OF PRODUCT
LIFE-CYCLE

Energyconsumption
linked to producthardwareEnergyconsumption
linked toproductsoftwareEndproduct(initial rawmaterialsandpackaging)

Office-generated waste
Energy consumption
Supplier-related
expenses
Travel expenses andhome-to-officecommutingIn-office assets

OFFICES:

Integrated in the study

A
HEADQUARTERS/OFFICES

A report produced

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 ofa 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: The considerable risk of uncertainty of such emission measurements may undermine the scientific credibility of obtained results.
 The deployment of a credible system of measurement is too costly in relation to any noticeable significance in results obtained.
Companies prefer to devote resources 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 asa whole entity during the V1 study. Given the importance of these components in Arturia’s carbon analysis, a more comprehensive V2 study wasconducted with the aim of identifying the various elements and the materials they are composed of. The present V4 study has integrated thismore comprehensive analysis.
 Product usage: to be able to measure adequately all emissions sources, including product utilisation, Arturia implemented a customer-based
survey with the goal of better understanding duration and frequency of product use. The present V4 study has included this emissions source.
*ADEME : French national Agency for the Environment and Energy Conservation

A report produced

7

2 RESULTS OF THE STUDYOVERALL RESULTS
DETAILED RESULTS

A report produced

8

2CARBON FOOTPRINT: SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS

CARBON FOOTPRINT
OF COMPANY
ACTIVITIES IN 20222023
13,795 tCO2e

CARBON FOOTPRINT OF
ACTIVITIES IN 2022-2023
PER INDIVIDUALEMPLOYEE
91 tCO2e/employee** Data based on 151 full-time staff members. This ratio does not take into consideration factory
employees.

A report produced

9213,795 TCO2E EMISSIONS GENERATED BY ARTURIA’S ACTIVITIES IN 20222023, OF WHICH 62% IS DIRECTLY LINKED TO RAW MATERIALS
These 13,795 tons of CO2eq come from the following sources of emission:

7%Raw materials

0%
2%1%

Product usageFactories12%Headquarters/Offices
Waste related to end of product life cycle
14%62%

Distribution
FreightA report produced10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 source

1
23
4
56

Direct emissions from fixed combustion sources
Direct emissions from mobile thermal combustion engine sources
Direct emissions from processes not related to energy consumption
Direct fugitive emissions
Emissions emanating from biomass (soil and forest)
Indirect emissions linked to electricity consumption

7

Indirect emissions linked to steam, heat or refrigeration

8Emissions related to energy use not mentioned in sources 1 to 7

9Purchasing of goods or services

101112
1314
15
16
1718
19
20
21
2223

Permanent office assets
Waste
Upstream merchandise transportation
Employee travel expenses
Upstream franchising
Upstream leasing assets
Investments
Visitor and customer transportation
Downstream merchandise transportation
Utilisation of sold products
End of life of sold products
Downstream franchising
Downstream leasing
Home-to-office commuting

24

Other indirect emissions

%

5,800

0%
0%
0%0%
0%0%

00%

795,100

6%

10,063,600

73%

263,100
1,800
63,30000198,100
1,985,100
324,100

95,0000TOTAL:

-2%
0%
0%
0% 0
0%
0%
00%
0% 0
1%
14%
2%
00%
00%
1%
0%

13,795 tCO2e

A report produced

112SUMMARY OF CARBON FOOTPRINT RESULTS BY PRODUCT CATEGORY
Percentage of emissions (kgCO2e) by category and sales volume (unit)

66%
59%

13,795tCO2e

Number of products distributed
CO2 emissions
20%

generatedgenerated byby
Arturia’s
Arturia’s activities
activities
inin 2022-2023
2022-2023

12%

12%

9%

9%
2%

Lab

FreakFuse

Brutes

6%

3%

Step

2%

1%

Accessories• Carbon emissions are disproportionately pronounced for the product cateogories Freak and Brutes as the amount of CO2e emitted is disproportionately
higher than the quantity distributed. Conversely, product categories Lab, Fuse, Step and accessories exhibit a markedly lower proportion of carbon
emissions than their proportion of products distributed. This is in part due to the proportion of electric components in the product composition. Forexample, electronic components make up 88% of Brutes products, versus 80% of Labs products, which are much less carbon intensive (on average 41kgCO2e versus 139 kgCO2e for a Brutes).
• Lab products represented 66% of company output in 2022-2023, corresponding to 59% of carbon emissions related to products.
*Emissions comprise the following sources: raw materials, freight, factories, distribution, end of product life

A report produced

12

2 RESULTS OF THE STUDYOVERALL RESULTS
DETAILED RESULTS

A report produced

132DETAILED RESULTS

RAWMATERIALS1Raw materials (product components and packaging) account for 8,592 tCO2e, or 62% of the overall carbon assessment

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

12%CO2e emissions rate by product composition (%)

1%

Presence of raw materials (for all products analysed)

CO2 emissions

87.4%

34.9%
28.1%

22.3%

87%

6.2%
Electronics

Electronics

Mechanics

5.4%
ABS

3.3%
Steel

3.9%
1.6%

1.2%

3.1%
0.5%

0.5%
0.2%

0.6%
0.2%

0.3%
0.1%

Aluminum Packaging

Silicone

PMMA

Non-wovenmater...

PCPackaging•Electronic components account for 87% of the emissions generated by all hardware products analysed, followed by ABS and steel.

•The top three ranked raw materials account for 64% of the total weight of all hardware products; these three raw materials represent 96% of allemissions.

A report produced

142DETAILED RESULTS

FREIGHT

2Freight* represents 63 tCO2e or 0.45% of the overall carbon assessment
Share of emissions linked to manufacturing sub-sources*Data concerning the transportation of rawmaterials between their place of origin andArturia’s manufacturing site could not becollected and is therefore not included in
the “Freight” category. This explains why
this category represents less than 0.45% of
the carbon footprint, since only thefollowing two items are included:

5%

The transportation of samples by air
freight represents 95% of the impact of
this category.
The remaining 5% comes from thetransportation of keyboards by sea
freight to Arturia offices.

95%

Transportation of samples

Transportation of keyboards

A report produced15

2

DETAILED RESULTS

FACTORIES

3

Factory production represents 1,621 tCO2e or 12% of the overall carbon assessment
Share of emissions linked to manufacturing sub-sources

Emissions related to energy consumption
linked to the manufacturing and assemblyof products on factory premises are the firstsignificant sub-source and account for 49%
of total emissions.

6%
10%This is followed bypackaging fortransportation, which accounts for 35%
of emissions of this category.
Tooling for production and othermaterials used for production account for
10% and 6% of emissions, respectively.

49%

35%

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

162DETAILED RESULTS

DISTRIBUTION

5Distribution of finished Arturia products (to storage facilities, intermediaries, retail outlets) accounts for 198 tCO2e or 1% of the carbon assessment
Share of emissions by distribution phase (%)
55%

Product weight x distance

Share of emissions by distribution phase and by mode oftransportation (%)

CO2 emissions

Storage France > Intermediary

16%

41%

Storage USA > Retail outlets USA

55%

Factories > Storage France

29%

9%

Factories > Intermediary
18%

16%

13%

Factories > Storage USA

7%

13%9%

10%

9%

Storage USA > Intermediary 0%

7%

3%0%

1% 1%

Factories > Retail outlets

1%•The transport of goods between storage depots in the USA and retail outlets in the USA, which represent only 9% of the ‘Product weight x distance total’, accounts for 55% ofCO2e emissions. This is due to the use of air transport which is very carbon intensive compared to other forms of transport. The same trend can be seen with the transport ofgoods between storage depots in France 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 16%of total emissions for a ‘Weight x Distance’ ratio of 70%.

A report produced

172DETAILED RESULTS

DISTRIBUTION

5Distribution of finished Arturia products (to storage facilities, intermediaries, retail outlets) accounts for 198 tCO2e or 1% of the carbon assessment
Share of emissions by mode of transportation (%)

Product Weight xDistanceCO2e emissions

60%
52%

28%
20%

By air•20%

By road20%

By seaWhilst the ‘Weight x Distance’ ratio for air transport represents 20% of the total, the resulting emissions account for 52% of the total. Road transport accounts forthe same ‘Weight x Distance’ ratio but only represents 28% of total emissions.

A report produced18

2WASTE RELATED TOEND OF PRODUCT
LIFE-CYCLEDETAILED RESULTS

7

Waste resulting from product end of life accounts for 324 tCO2e or 2% 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 productsanalysed)
CO2e emissions6%

50%

13%

35%
25%

22%

•1%1%

1%1%

1%1%

6%
4%

Other

2%

Steel

2%2%

EPE

3%

Cardboard

3%
1%

Rubber

5%
1%

PCB

Wood

1%

Non-woven mate...

Packaging

7%

PEBD

•Electronics

8%
4%

Elec components

ABS

Mechanical

Silicone

3%

81%

Cable

16%

Mechanical parts have the highest concentration (86%) of CO2 emissions during their end-of-life, followed by electronics with 14%. Only 6% of emissions come from the endof-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

19

2DETAILED RESULTS

PRODUCT USAGE

6

Product usage by customers accounts for 1,985 tCO2e or 14% of the carbon assessment

Utilisation

Hardware

SoftwareNumber ofproducts soldtaken intoaccountUsage
consumption(Wh/unit)

Usage duration(h/yr)

Emissionsfactors

324 651

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

248 714

One single
emissions factor
was taken into
Product
Duration of
account on the
consumption is usage based on
basis of ameasured incustomer survey
weightedaccordance withfor 18 macroaverage
SKU
products
between sales
volumes andenergy mixes foreach country

Usage
consumption Carbon emissions
for all products
insold in 2022kgCO2e
2023 (kWh/yr)

830 223
kWh382 769
kgCO2e• The energy consumption required to
power a computer was not taken intoaccount. This value represents 250 kWh(ex : consumption of a desk-top computer).
• Instead, the supplementary energy required to
power Arturia devices was taken into accountas follows, from data collected from a user
survey in 2019:• Average consumption of Arturia
devices is 5,1 kWh (weighted1,2 kWh)

3 095 124
kWh

1 602 414
kgCO2ehardwareaverage• Average consumption of Arturia software
devices is 15,6 kWh (weighted average19,3 kWh)
• There is a factor of 16 between the twoweighted averages corresponding to hardandsoftwareproduct
energyconsumption• 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
hardwaredevices(weighted averages). 20
A report
produced

2

DETAILED RESULTS

HEADQUARTERS/OFFICESAEmissions related to headquarters/offices account for 1010 tCO2e or 7% of the carbon assessment

Share of emissions linked to sub-sources

Emissions related to supplier-related
expenses account for 80% of emissions
related to headquarters and office. These
are studied in detail in the following slide.

0%
9% 1%

10% and 9% of emissions from theheadquarter/office category are related
to in-office assets and travel expenses
and commuting, respectively.
The following sub-sources – energy
consumption and office-generated waste–
together account for only 1%.

10%Supplier-related expenses
In-office assets

79%

Travel expenses + Home-to-officecommuting
Energy consumption
Office-generated wasteA report produced222

DETAILED RESULTS

HEADQUARTERS/OFFICESA

FOCUS ON SUPPLIER-RELATED EXPENSES
These expenses mainly concern the following sectors: telecommunications (36%),
research and development (18%), film, sound recording, television and radio (17%),
warehousing and auxiliary transport services (11%). Six other expense categories make up
the remaining 18% of emissions related to this emissions source.

11%%
2%
4%
5%
5%

36%

11%

17%

Telecommunications

287

Research and development

146

Film, sound recording, television and radio

139

Warehousing and auxiliary transport services

18%

Telecommunications
Research and development
Film, sound recording, television and radio
Warehousing and auxiliary transport services
Accommodation and catering
Office supplies
Publishing (books, newspapers, magazines, etc.)
Highly material services
Low material services
Textile and clothing90

Accommodation and catering

41

Office supplies

41

Publishing (books, newspapers, magazines, etc.)

29

Highly material services

14

Low material services

12

Textile and clothing5

A report produced23

3 BENCHMARK DATA

A report produced

24

3

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

865

409

371

342257222185158

123868270545350

432520

A report produced

1914225

4 APPENDICES

A report produced

26

4GLOSSARY
Scope 1: direct emissions produced by stationary and mobile sources (e.g. 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 (e.g. electricity or heatingpurchases)
Scope 3: other indirect emissions (e.g. 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 thecharacteristic 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 mostexhaustive manner possible. Therefore, it is not sufficient to measure merely the flows generated by an entity, but rather
to encompass the totality of the flows and effects upon which its activity depends (ex : concerning home-to-officecommuting, 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 Base Carbone ® v23.1 which was used for the present study.

A report produced

27

4FAQ
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-lifechannels. This process includes 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, an 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 (e.g.
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: Evaluate where the emissions 'hot spots’ are located in its supply chain; Identify the most efficient suppliers in terms of emissions management and control; Engage and assist suppliers in the implementation of emissions reduction strategies.

A report produced28

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 thecompany.
As with any carbon footprint evaluation, the calculations proposed here contain a margin of error which itself isdependent upon the inherent margins of error among the various emissions conversion factors mentioned in data bases(ADEME, Ecoinvent, Codde…), but also upon fluctuations resulting from the necessity to associate different products fordata 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 thefourth year running.

A report produced29

Antoine JOINT
Advisory Director
joint@utopies.com
Sarah GOLD
Consultant
gold@utopies.com

MERCI

25 RUE TITON 75011 PARIS • TEL +33 (0)1 40 29 43 00 •A report produced30