CARBON FOOTPRINTAND CLIMATE STRATEGYEVALUATION
2020-2021

A report produced by

TABLE OF
CONTENTS

12METHODOLOGY AND STUDYPARAMETERSRESULTS OF THE STUDY

3BENCHMARK 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, mediaand sales) as well as product life cycles.
• Temporal scope: the study focuses on the company’s 2020-2021 fiscal year extending from 01
July 2020 to 30 June 2021.
• 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 by4

1

MAP OF ARTURIA’S BUSINESS FLOWSPRODUCT LIFE CYCLE

21FREIGHT

RAW MATERIALS
Necessary product rawmaterials (electronics,aluminium, etc.)

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

34

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 ofkeyboards 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-generatedwaste

7
WASTE RELATED TOEND OF PRODUCT
LIFE-CYCLE

Energyconsumption
linked to producthardwareEnergyconsumption
linked to productsoftwareEnd product(initial rawmaterials andpackaging)

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

OFFICES:AHEADQUARTERS/OFFICES

A report produced by5

1

MAP OF ARTURIA’S BUSINESS FLOWSPRODUCT LIFE CYCLE21

FREIGHT

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

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

34FACTORIESWAREHOUSES

5

Energy consumption

Energyconsumption

Packaging fortransportation

Waste

Transportation ofsamples

Other materials
neccessary forproduction

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

Transportation ofkeyboards 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-generatedwaste

7
WASTE RELATED TOEND OF PRODUCT
LIFE-CYCLEEnergyconsumption
linked to producthardwareEnergyconsumption
linked to productsoftwareEnd product(initial rawmaterials andpackaging)

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

OFFICES:

Integrated in the study

AHEADQUARTERS/OFFICES

A report produced by6

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 rawmaterial) 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 by7

2 RESULTS OF THE STUDYOVERALL RESULTS
DETAILED RESULTS

A report produced by8

2 RESULTS OF THE STUDYOVERALL RESULTS
DETAILED RESULTS

A report produced by92CARBON FOOTPRINT: SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS

CARBON FOOTPRINTOF COMPANY
ACTIVITIES IN 20202021
19,744tCO2e

CARBON FOOTPRINT OF
ACTIVITIES IN 2020-2021 PER
INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEE
203 tCO2e/employee** Data based on 97 full-time staff members. This ratio does not take into consideration factory employees.

A report produced by10

219,744 TCO2E EMISSIONS GENERATED BY ARTURIA’S ACTIVITIES IN 2020-2021, OF
WHICH 84% IS DIRECTLY LINKED TO RAW MATERIALS
These 19,744 tonnes of CO2eq come from the following sources of emission:
0%3%

Raw materials

3% 2%

4%
Headquarters/Offices

4%

Product usage

Waste related to end of product life cycle

Factories

84%

Distribution

FreightA report produced by112SUMMARY OF RESULTS BY REGULATORY SOURCE OF EMISSIONS
Categories

Direct emissions(scope 1)

Indirect emissions related toenergy(scope 2)

Other GHG emissions(scope 3)

N°Emissions CO2e
(kgCO2e)

Regulatory emissions source%-0%

-0%
0%

-

0%
0%

5,000

0%

00%

109,000

1%

17,563,00089%

Permanent office assets

244,000

1%111213Waste
Upstream merchandise transportation
Employee travel expenses

7,000
17,0000%0%1415161718

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

00000
276,000

0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1%

1920

Utilisation of sold products
End of life of sold products

812,000
650,000

4%
3%212223

Downstream franchising
Downstream leasing
Home-to-office commuting

000%
0%

60,0000%

24

Other indirect emissions

00%

12

Direct emissions from fixed combustion sources
Direct emissions from mobile thermal combustion engine sources

3
4Direct emissions from processes not related to energy consumption
Direct fugitive emissions

5
6Emissions 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

10TOTAL

19,744,000

A report produced by12

2

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

65%

67%

19,744tCO2e

Number of produ cts distributed
CO2 emissions
25%
15%

generated by Arturia’sactivities in 2020-2021

9%
3%
LabStepBrutes

5%

6%
1%

Freak

3%

Fuse

1%

1%

Accessories• Carbon emissions are disproportionately pronounced for the product categories Lab, Brutes, Freak and Fuse as the quantity 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 ofproducts distributed.
• Lab products represented nearly 65% of company output in 2020-2021 corresponding to 67% of carbon emissions.

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

A report produced by13

2 RESULTS OF THE STUDYOVERALL RESULTS
DETAILED RESULTS

A report produced by

14

2

DETAILED RESULTS

RAWMATERIALS

1Raw materials (product components and packaging) account for 16,565 tCO2e, or 84% 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%

29%

27%

80%

7%

Ele ctronics
Ele ctronics

Mechanical

9%

ABS

28%

6%
Steel

4% 2%

2%

Aluminium Packaging

3% 1%

1% 0%

1% 0%

Silicone

PMMAOth erPackaging•

Electronic components account for 80% of the emissions generated by all hardware products, 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 95% of all emissions.

A report produced by152DETAILED RESULTS

FREIGHT

2Freight* represents 17 tCO2e or less than 0.1% 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 0.1% of the carbon
footprint, since only the following two items areincluded:

29%

The transportation of samples by air freight
represents 71% of the impact of this category.

71%

The remaining 29% comes from thetransportation of keyboards by sea freight toArturia offices.

Transportation of samples

Transportation of keyboards

A report produced by16

2DETAILED RESULTS

FACTORIES

3Factory production represents 637 tCO2e or 3% of the overall carbon assessment

Emissionsrelatedtopackagingfor
transportation are the first significant subsource and account for 48% of total emissions.
This can be explained in particular by the factthat the protective foam used exhibits a highcarbon intensity (in comparison to cardboard orPET).
Tooling for production represents 27% ofemissions, whilst energy consumption linked
to production on factory premises accounts
for 17%, and other materials only 8%.

Share of emissions linked to manufacturing sub-sources

8%
17%
48%

27%

Packaging for transportation
Tooling for production
Energy consumption linked to production on factory premises
Other materials necessary for production on factory premises
A report produced by172DETAILED RESULTS

DISTRIBUTION

5Distribution of finished Arturia products (to storage facilities, intermediaries, retail outlets) accounts for 276 tCO2e or 1% of the carbon assessment
Share of emissions by distribution phase (%)

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

41%

42%

Storage France > Intermediary

42%

41%

Factories > Storage France

19%

Factories > Storage USA

18%

Storage USA > Retail outlets USA
19%

18%

16%

Factories > Intermediary
7%

2%

3%

4%

3%2%0%0%

Storage France Factories >Factories > Storage USA > Factories >Factories > Storage USA >> Intermediary Storage France Storage USA Retail outlets Intermediary Retail outlets Intermediary
USA

16%
4%

Factories > Retail outlets

2%Storage USA > Intermediary0%

By air

By seaBy road•

The transport of goods between storage depots in France and intermediaries, which represent only 2% of the ‘Product weight x distance total’, accounts for 41% of CO2eemissions. This is due to the use of air transport.

•Conversely, the transportation of goods between factories and storage depots in France and the US, done exclusively by sea, generates a lower level of emissions, merely
37% of total emissions for a ‘Weight x Distance’ ratio, accounting for 84% of overall emissions.
A report produced by182DETAILED RESULTS

DISTRIBUTION

5Distribution of finished Arturia products (to storage facilities, intermediaries, retail outlets) accounts for 276 tCO2e or 1% of the carbon assessment
Share of emissions by mode of transportation (%)

Prod uct Weight x DistanceCO2e emissions

84%

41%
32%

27%
14%

2%

By sea•By air

By roadArturia rarely has recourse to air transportation. Nonetheless, whilst the ‘Weight x Distance’ ratio for the latter represents less than 2% of the total, emissions resulting fromair freight still account for 32% of overall emissions related to distribution.

A report produced by192DETAILED RESULTS

PRODUCT
USAGE

6Product usage by customers accounts for 812 tCO2e or 4% of the carbon assessment

Usage

Hardware

SoftwareNumber ofproducts soldtaken into
account

339 853

124 415

Usage
consumption(Wh/unit)

Usage duration(h/yr)

Emissionsfactors

ProductDuration 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

Usage
consumption for
all products soldin 2020-2021(KWh/yr)

Carbonemissions in
kg CO2e254 062 kWh

123 368
KgCO2eOne single
emissions factor
was taken intoDuration ofProductaccount on theusage based on
consumption isbasis of acustomer survey
weighted
1 484 363 kWhmeasured infor 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 topower 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)688 349
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 anaverage of 664 hrs/yr, compared to an average of544hrs/yr for hardware devices (weightedaverages).

A report produced by202

DETAILED RESULTS

WASTE RELATED TOEND OF PRODUCT
LIFE-CYCLE

7

Waste resulting from product end of life accounts for 650 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 allproducts analysed)

10%CO2e emissions

3%

45%

29%

27%
21%

17%

87%
3%

Mechanical••Electronics

PackagingABS7%
1%
Wood

5% 5%

3%5%PEBD

3%4%1%4%

Rubber

3%2%
Steel

1% 2%

7% 6%

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 by21

2DETAILED RESULTS

HEADQUARTERS/OFFICES

AEmissions related to headquarters/offices account for 786 tCO2e or 4% of the carbon
assessment

0%

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.

8% 1%
9%

9% and 8% of emissions from theheadquarter/office category are related to inoffice assets and travel expenses andcommuting, respectively.
The following sub-sources – office waste, andenergy consumption – together account for only
12 tCO2e, or around 1%.

82%

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

A report produced by22

2

DETAILED RESULTS

HEADQUARTERS/OFFICESA

FOCUS ON SUPPLIER-RELATED EXPENSES
11%%
2%
3%
6%
33%

10%

These expenses mainly concern the following sectors: telecommunications (33%), research anddevelopment (21%), film, sound recording, television and radio (12%), textile and clothing (11%), andwarehousing and auxiliary transport services (10%). Five other expense categories make up theremaining 13% of emissions related to this emissions source.

Telecommunications

11%

211

Research and development

12%

21%

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

134

Film, sound recording, television and radio77

Textile and clothing

72

Warehousing and auxiliary transport services

63
40

Office supplies
Publishing (books, newspapers, magazines,etc.)

19

Accommodation and catering

13

Highly material services

7

Low material services

6tCO2eA report produced by23

3 BENCHMARK DATA

A report produced by

24

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)

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

KeyLab88 ADEME MkIIClassical Hifi stereosystem(LCA)

iPad Air(LCA)

706154545344

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

4223

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 by25

4 APPENDICES

A report produced by26

4GLOSSARY
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 by27

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-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’scarbon 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 by28

4LIMITATIONS
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 second yearrunning.

A report produced by29

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 by30