Report on the Framework for Quantifying IT Solutions' Contributions
to CO2 Emissions Suppression-- Umbrella Method for Calculation and Aggregation --Mar. 2017

Special Committee for Energy-Saving Contributions by IT
Green IT Committee

Japan Electronics and Information Technology Industries Association

Table of Contents
Preface ............................................................................................................................................................. 1
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................... 2
1.

2.

Background ............................................................................................................................................. 2
1.1

IT solutions' contributions with respect to CO2 emissions suppression...................................... 2

1.2

Past activities of the Special Committee on IT's Energy-Saving Contributions.......................... 2

1.3

Situations where evaluations for CO2 emissions suppression are used ...................................... 3

1.4

Composition of this report ........................................................................................................... 4

Overview ................................................................................................................................................. 5
2.1

History and objectives ................................................................................................................. 5

2.2

Reviews on methods for quantifying CO2 emissions suppression amounts ............................... 7

2.2.1 Framework for the quantification of CO2 emissions suppression amounts ............................ 7
2.2.2 Simplified solution-specific coefficients for calculating CO2 emissions suppression amounts................................................................................................................................................. 8
2.3

Calculation Levels and Aggregation Levels .............................................................................. 8

2.4

Definition of terms .................................................................................................................... 103.

Line of thinking behind the framework for the quantification of CO2 emissions suppression amounts............................................................................................................................................................... 11

4.

Deriving solution-specific "simplified calculation coefficients" ........................................................... 12
4.1

Overview of the simplified calculation coefficient ................................................................... 12

4.2

The process of deriving simplified calculation coefficients ...................................................... 14

4.3

Results of simplified calculation coefficient derivation ............................................................ 15

Procedural explanations ................................................................................................................................ 17
5.

Specific calculation and aggregation procedures .................................................................................. 17
5.1

Calculation procedures (Choosing the appropriate method of calculation) .............................. 17

5.2

Calculation procedure using simplified calculation coefficients ............................................... 18

5.3

Specific aggregation procedures ............................................................................................... 19

5.4

Examples of calculating and aggregating CO2 emissions suppression amounts using simplified
calculation coefficients .............................................................................................................. 19

5.4.1 Examples of aggregating the total amount of CO2 emissions suppression enabled bysolutions of the same type ..................................................................................................... 19
5.4.2 Examples of aggregating the total amount of CO2 emissions suppression enabled bysolutions of different types .................................................................................................... 21
6.

In utilizing methods for evaluating Green by IT ................................................................................... 23iAppendix ....................................................................................................................................................... 24
A1. Representative configurations of solutions ........................................................................................... 24
A1.1
QC operations solution ............................................................................................................ 24
A1.2
BEMS (Building energy management system) ....................................................................... 25
A1.3
e-Document solution ............................................................................................................. 26
A1.4
Electronic forms system .......................................................................................................... 27
A1.5
Customer and delivery destination information management system ..................................... 28
A1.6
e-Learning system (remote learning system)........................................................................... 28
A1.7
Teleworking ............................................................................................................................. 30
A1.8
TV conferencing (regular definition) ...................................................................................... 31
A1.9
TV conferencing (regular definition) ...................................................................................... 32
A1.10 Remote consultation ................................................................................................................ 33
A1.11 Central management solution for administrative work ........................................................... 34
A1.12 Solution for managing administrative rules............................................................................. 35
A1.13 Digital tachograph ................................................................................................................... 36
A1.14 Tape storage system................................................................................................................. 37
A2. Basic calculation method for the effects of Green by IT ....................................................................... 38
A2.1
Overview ................................................................................................................................. 38
A2.2
Procedures for calculating energy conservation (CO2 emissions reductions) enabled by IT
solutions .................................................................................................................................. 39ii

Preface
In 2015, Japan submitted to the United Nations its goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 26% from2013 levels by 2030. To achieve this goal, ambitious targets that aim to reduce emissions by roughly
30-40% have been defined in sectors such as households, business, and logistics. We are expected todevelop and popularize innovative technologies that enable emissions suppression, and contribute to the
suppression of greenhouse gas emissions on a global level.
In response to these efforts to achieve low carbon emissions, the electrical and electronic industries,
including IT and electronics, are making far-reaching contributions not only with respect to improving
energy-saving efficiencies in production and the same for IT/electronic devices that are widely used insociety, but also in terms of suppressing emissions in other sectors by improving energy usage efficiencies
in society at large through the utilization of IT solutions.
The utilization of IT solutions have great potential for making major contributions towards eliminating
waste and irregularities, as well as suppress CO2 emissions. The methods for calculating these effects were
published by the Green IT Promotion Council in February 2013 in the form of an Explanatory Booklet
titled "Energy-Saving Contributions for Society at Large from IT Solutions." This booklet has been used bya large number of businesses to date.
We believe that efforts to ascertain and call attention to the effects of IT solutions are useful in fostering an
understanding of the energy-saving efforts that are being carried out by businesses and industries.
That being said, the total amount of energy-saving contributions made by IT solutions on the market cannot
be ascertained using simple methods of calculation, such as by multiplying the amounts of contribution ofindividual IT units with the number of units sold. These calculations require know-how, such as forcalculating the contributions made by solutions whose configurations vary from user to user and thenaggregating the total from these results, and also involve labor and time-intensive tasks such as forgathering a diverse range of data.
In this report, we present a method for making simplified calculations of the effects of IT solutions that areappropriate for different levels of precision required for disclosure and have taken considerations toencourage its widespread use.
Specifically, this is a method of calculating the total amount of contributions by defining representative
configurations for different IT solutions based on examples provided by committee member companies,
calculating their effects, and defining basic units that correspond to the number of units sold. In this Reporton the Framework for Quantifying IT Solutions' Contributions to CO2 Emissions Suppression (Umbrella
Method for Calculation and Aggregation) we outline the ideas and steps that underlie the process from
calculating the effects of IT solutions to aggregating them.
It would be our greatest joy if companies who supply IT solutions make use of this report and, in doing so,
are able to draw attention to the effect they have on CO2 emissions suppression.
March 2017
Hitoshi Maekawa, Chairperson
Special Committee on IT's Energy-Saving Contributions

1

Introduction
1.
1.1

BackgroundIT solutions' contributions with respect to CO2 emissions suppression

We believe that energy-saving efforts being made in the IT area have great potential for advancing efforts
to promote the suppression of CO2 emissions and conservation of energy.
One of the IT industry's potential areas of contribution in countering global warming is the reduction of
CO2 emissions in their production activities. While these efforts are being made in a diverse range ofindustrial areas, the amount of emissions produced by the IT industry is limited, accounting for roughly
only 1% of total emissions in Japan in 2014. Meanwhile, efforts to reduce the power consumption of all IT
and electronic devices that are widely used in our society, and improve the efficiency of energy use insociety at large through the use of IT solutions will have a massive ripple effect. These two areas -- "energy
conservation of IT devices themselves (Green of IT)" and "energy conservation in our societies enabled by
the use of IT (Green by IT)" -- constitute the two pillars of Green IT. In other words, there are widespread
expectations for IT's contribution with respect to reducing CO2 emissions in other sectors where roughly
99% of energy consumption occurs.
1.2

Past activities of the Special Committee on IT's Energy-Saving Contributions

The Green IT Promotion Council (GIPC) and its succeeding agency, the Green IT Committee of the Japan
Electronics and Information Technology Industries Association (JEITA), have been engaged in efforts toquantify the effects of Green by IT. As a result of our activities, we have published the following reports on
Green by IT.
(1) Investigative Analysis Committee Report FY2008 (Japanese), Issued Jun. 2009
(2) Effects of Green IT in 2020 (Japanese), Published May 2010(3) Investigative Analysis Committee Report FY2009 (Japanese), Issued Jun. 2010
(4) FY2009 Green IT Promotion Council (GIPC) Summary for the Survey and Estimation
Committee of the GIPC Report - Contribution of Green IT to the Realization of a Low Carbon
Society –(English), Published Jun. 2010(5) Investigative Analysis Committee Report FY2010 (Japanese), Issued Jun. 2011(6) Investigative Analysis Committee General Report (FY2008 thru 2012) (Japanese), Issued Feb.
2013
URL:http://home.jeita.or.jp/greenit-pc/activity/reporting/110628/pdf/survey01.pdf(7) Energy-Saving Contributions for Society at Large from IT Solutions -- Perspective on
Evaluations of Contributions from "Green by IT" -- [Explanatory Booklet], (Japanese andEnglish), Issued Feb. 2013
URL:http://home.jeita.or.jp/greenit-pc/activity/reporting/110628/pdf/survey02.pdf
URL:http://home.jeita.or.jp/greenit-pc/activity/reporting/110628/pdf/survey03.pdf

2

Furthermore, the Environmental Committee at JEITA has published the results of its reviews of thepotential emissions suppression that may be earned by "Green by IT" in 2030 in the following reports.
(8) "IT Solutions' Contributions to Global Warming Countermeasures," Issued Nov. 2016(9) "Report of Reviews of IT Solutions' Contributions to Global Warming Countermeasures -Potential for reducing greenhouse gas emissions as we move forward to 2030 --"Environmental Promotion Committee Global Warming Countermeasure Communication
Investigation TF, Published Nov. 2016
The effects that IT solutions have on CO2 emissions suppression are believed to extend to a broad range ofareas in our societies. Given this view, we have gathered information on representative examples of CO2
emissions suppression enabled by IT solutions, summarized the lines of thinking behind methods formaking objective and quantitative evaluations, gathered data required for making these quantitativeevaluations so that they may be used by a broad range of companies and industries, and compiled thisinformation in document (7) listed above, the "Energy-Saving Contributions for Society at Large from IT
Solutions -- Perspective on Evaluations of Contributions from "Green by IT" -- [Explanatory Booklet]"(hereafter referred to as the "GIPC Explanatory Booklet").
1.3

Situations where evaluations for CO2 emissions suppression are used

The quantification of Green by IT is required in many situations.
One example would be where a vendor of IT solutions (hereafter referred to as "IT solution vendor") seeks
to present calculations of the effects that their IT solutions have on CO2 emissions suppression tocustomers who implement them. Since CO2 emissions are affected by a variety of factors including system
configuration and usage, data regarding these factors must be gathered and the difference in CO2 emissions
before and after implementation must be compared in order to make these calculations. Another example
would be where the IT solution vendor, having sold a specific IT solution, seeks to make calculations of thetotal annual suppression of CO2 emissions for this particular solution. In such cases, it would not be easy togather data regarding system configuration and usage for all shipped solutions to calculate their amount of
CO2 emissions suppression. To address this issue, it would be useful to prepare representative
implementation scenarios for different types of IT solutions, and estimate amounts of CO2 emissions being
suppressed by multiplying these with parameters such as the number of solutions shipped. In otherinstances, the IT solution vendor may seek to calculate the total amount of CO2 emissions being
suppressed by a range of different solutions that they provide, and visually represent the total amount of
CO2 emissions suppression from their products and services over a period of one or multiple years. In suchcases again, we believe that certain rules and lines of thinking must be defined on how to carry out
calculations and aggregation.
The quantification of CO2 emissions suppression is also needed for verifying the status of efforts being
taken by industry as a whole to counter global warming. For the purpose of promoting improvements inenergy efficiencies in production processes and suppression of CO2 emissions through products andservices, the Liaison Group of Japanese Electrical and Electronics Industries for Global Warming
Prevention is engaged in establishing uniform and cogent methods for calculating the amounts of CO2
emissions being suppressed, and also publishes fiscal-yearly performance figures for the electrical andelectronics industries. The group has so far carried out calculations for 22 cases of IT solutions on theamounts of CO2 suppressed for society at large. Of these, calculation methods were defined for two IT
solution items: remote conferencing and digital tachographs, and their CO2 emissions suppression
performance has been published. (GIPC assisted in developing the calculation method.)
These published calculation methods have been designed to enable users to choose the appropriate method3for their level of understanding. Moving forward, similar calculation methods must be developed for
calculating the performance of other IT solutions.
1.4

Composition of this report

In this report, we review Green by IT, specifically the framework for the quantification of CO2 emissions
suppression amounts (umbrella method for calculation and aggregation; hereafter referred to as"Quantification Framework"), and summarize the methods for quantifying amounts of CO2 emissions
suppression, including simplified methods of calculation. In this committee, we have gathered examples ofcalculations that were made by member companies based on the GIPC Explanatory Booklet, tosystematically consolidate and summarize the processes and results of quantification. Particularly in thisreport, we present calculation methods for making simplified calculations for the amounts of CO2
emissions being suppressed based on data that can be realistically gathered, without having to prepare
detailed parameters or data.
This report is composed of Chapters 1 and 2, which discuss the history and objectives, Chapter 3, which
presents the line of thinking behind the Quantification Framework, Chapter 4, which summarizes how toderive simplified solution-specific coefficients, Chapter 5, which describes specific calculation andaggregation procedures, and finally Chapter 6, which summarizes challenges and other matters of concern
as we move forward with the active implementation of methods for evaluating IT solutions.

42.

Overview

In this chapter, we will be discussing the basic line of thinking behind the methods of quantification that wehave discussed, and issues being addressed by the committee with regard to the calculation and aggregationof CO2 emissions suppression from IT solutions.
2.1

History and objectives

The implementation of IT solutions holds the promise of advancing greater efficiencies in business
operations and activities, and through this, contributing to the resolution of environmental issues faced bysociety at large. For example, the implementation of TV conferencing has the direct effect of reducing thenumber of business trips for those taking part in the conference, and is also believed to reduce the amountof personal and vehicular travel, ultimately having the ripple effect of suppressing CO2 emissions. For
reasons such as this, in the context of countering global warming, there is an increasing need to makecalculations of the amounts of CO2 emissions that can be suppressed with the use of IT solutions. Given
this state of affairs, the Green IT Promotion Council (currently JEITA Green IT Committee) prepared the
GIPC Explanatory Handbook, and since then, multiple IT solution vendors and other organizations havecarried out trial calculations on CO2 emissions suppression amounts.
The effects that IT solutions have in suppressing CO2 emissions can be grouped into eight categories(hereafter referred to as "components"; Table 1). In each component, the differences in quantities that are
affected by IT solution implementation (hereafter referred to as "activity quantity") multiplied by thecoefficient that converts activity quantities to CO2 emissions (hereafter referred to as "primary unit")
constitutes the amount of CO2 emissions being suppressed. Here, the primary unit constitutes CO2
emissions per unit activity quantity based on the presumption that activity quantities and CO2 emission
amounts are proportional. And, the amount of CO2 emissions suppression enabled by a particular IT
solution can be calculated by totaling the amount of CO2 emission suppression for each of the calculated
components.

5

Table 1: Components of the effects of IT solutions, and formulae for their calculation
Components(1) Consumption ofmaterial(2) Amount traveled bypersons(3) Amount traveled by
items(4) Office space(5) Warehouse space

Component subjects
Paper, CDs, books, etc.
Aircraft, automobiles,
trains, etc.
Trucks, railroad, cargo,etc.
Space occupied bypersons (including work
efficiency), space
occupied by IT
equipment, etc.
Warehouses, refrigerated
warehouses, etc.

(6) Electricity and energy
consumption (IT andnetwork equipment)

Power consumed byservers, PCs, etc.

(7) Network data
communication
volumeNetwork data
communication volume(8) Other

Activities other than theabove

Component calculation formulae
Reduction in consumption of material x Primary unit ofconsumption of material
Reduction in personal travel distance x Primary unit of travel
Reduction in item travel distance x Primary unit of travel
Space reduction x Primary unit of energy consumption per space* Space reduction equals the number of persons reduced
multiplied by the space occupied per person, or the number ofpieces of equipment reduced multiplied by the space occupied
per piece of equipment.
Space reduction x Primary unit of energy consumption per space
Amount of change in power consumption x Primary unit of gridpower
* This applies when converting electrical power into CO2emissions.
* This represents the amount of energy consumed from the use of
IT equipment, and does not include energy consumed for the
manufacture or disposal of such equipment.
Amount of change in data communication volume x Primary
unit associated with data communication* The amount of energy consumed for network communications
includes energy consumed for Internet communications, but not
intranet communications.
Amount of change in activity x Primary unit of the amount ofchangeThat being said, several issues exist with regard to actually calculating the amounts of CO2 emissions
being suppressed from the use of IT solutions. The first issue has to do with the difficulties in defining
usage conditions before and after implementation. For example, in the implementation of TV conferencing
systems, the number of user sites and users will typically vary from location to location, which makes it
difficult to ascertain actual conditions. In order to quantify the reduction in personal travel enabled by TV
conferencing, data will be needed on the variations in the number of individuals making business trips, aswell as on travel distances covered on business trips. Data on the primary unit used for converting activity
quantities into CO2 emissions will also have to be gathered. Calculators must either prepare primary units
based on the power consumption of the railroad trains that are used for business trips and the greenhousegas emissions coefficient of electrical power, or look up average primary units relating to personal travel.
These types of data gathering tasks are rarely straightforward.
For this reason, the precision of the calculations is determined by the precision of the parameters and datathat can be prepared. In cases where the calculator (IT solutions vendor, etc.) is able to prepare detailed
parameters and data on their own, there is a greater chance that results from the calculation will be rigorousand cogent. Meanwhile, in cases where it is not straightforward for the calculator to prepare theseparameters and data on their own, standard or hypothetical data that is generally available must be used, inwhich case the possibility that these calculations will yield rigorous and cogent results is highly
questionable. Given this situation, and based on the assumption that CO2 emissions suppression amounts
will be calculated according to the GIPC Explanatory Booklet, this committee has categorized theparameters and data that can be prepared into the levels shown in Fig. 1 according to their precision(Calculation Levels 1-3).

Indeed, because calculations for CO2 emissions suppression amounts are difficult to carry out for the
majority of IT solution vendors and other calculators even with the help of the GIPC Explanatory Booklet,
6we have received requests for more straightforward methods of calculation. With the aim of addressingthese needs, in this report, we have compiled examples of calculations based on the GIPC Explanatory
Booklet that were previously carried out by member companies to provide a summary of calculation
processes, and a systematic aggregation of results. The committee proposes a method for calculating
amounts of CO2 emissions being suppressed using data that can be realistically gathered without the needfor preparing detailed parameters or data.
Our objective is to enable more IT solution vendors and other calculators to use these calculation methods
to calculate CO2 emissions suppression amounts, and leverage this information in their business operations,as well as in their contributions to global warming countermeasures for society at large.
2.2
2.2.1

Reviews on methods for quantifying CO2 emissions suppression amounts
Framework for the quantification of CO2 emissions suppression amounts

The chart below shows a systematic schematic of the traditional methods for calculating CO2 emissions
suppression amounts based on the GIPC Explanatory Booklet. The new simplified calculation method
being proposed has been added to Calculation Level 3. This flow has been named the "Framework for thequantification of CO2 emissions suppression amounts" and is commonly referred to as the "umbrella
method" at the committee.
Societal demands"Suppress CO2 emissions"

Amounts of CO2
emissions being
suppressed by IoT

Framework for the quantification of CO2 emissions
suppression amounts(Issues moving forward)
Would like to demonstrate thatsolutions also contribute to CO2emissions suppression.

Will use [GIPCExplanatory Booklet]*.

Would like to calculate theamounts of CO2 emissions
being suppressed by solutions.

Seeking a
simple way to
makecalculations* [GIPC Explanatory Booklet]:Energy-Saving Contributions for Society at Large from IT Solutions -Perspective on Evaluations of Contributions from "Green by IT" -- [Explanatory
Booklet] [(Investigative Analysis Committee, Green IT Promotion Council, Feb. 2013)

Have own
parameters

Calculation Level
1

Calculations are generally
made using only thecalculator's own
parameters.

Partially use
own
parameters

Calculation Level
2

Calculation Level
3

Calculations are madeusing parameters from the[GIPC Explanatory
Booklet]* and thecalculator's own
parameters.

Calculations are made using
Calculations are
simplified coefficients for calculating
made using only
solution-specific CO2 emissions
parameters from the
suppression amounts.
[GIPC Explanatory(To be described in this report)
Booklet]*.

Aggregation
Level 1Aggregation
Level 2

Audits are performed for each case, the results ofwhich are summed and aggregated.

Calculation results from one case are used as the basis
for aggregating comparable cases.

Complete

Fig. 1: Framework for the quantification of CO2 emissions suppression amounts

72.2.2

Simplified solution-specificsuppression amounts

coefficientsforcalculating

CO2

emissions

In this newly proposed simplified calculation method, we have defined representative parameters that were
aggregated from results of calculations previously made by member companies based on the GIPC
Explanatory Booklet, and can be applied to calculations of solution-specific CO2 emissions suppression
amounts. These are referred to as the "Simplified solution-specific coefficients for calculating CO2
emissions suppression amounts" (hereafter referred to as "simplified calculation coefficients").
2.3

Calculation Levels and Aggregation Levels(1) Calculation Levels
This committee defines "Calculation Levels" as shown in Table 2. Based on the premise that CO2
emissions suppression amounts will be calculated based on the GIPC Explanatory Booklet, calculation
precision was categorized into Calculation Levels 1 thru 3 to match the precision of the parameters anddata that can be prepared. Calculation Level 1 provides higher precision, and Level 3 indicates lower
precision. While the new simplified calculation method reviewed in this report is grouped in Calculation
Level 3, the calculator must thoroughly examine whether the prepared activity quantities and otherparameters are similar to that used in this method, in order to perform actual calculations. Even if thesolution appears to be similar at first glance, the use of this method should be avoided if the calculator has
any uncertainties.
(2) Aggregation Levels (Aggregation of calculated values)
This committee defines "Aggregation Levels" as shown in Table 3. The configurations and scale of IT
solutions will be different from case to case even if they are of the same type (solutions that are used tosolve the same problem). For this reason, although it would be ideal to sum up the values calculated for all
solutions of the same type that are in use in our societies to accurately calculate the total amount of CO2
emissions suppression by these solutions, this is unrealistic as it will involve too many man-hours.
Simplified aggregations of values for representative solutions can be calculated by defining a coefficient,such as for scale, and multiplying it by n.
Additionally, this applies to the method for summing up the effects of solutions of different types (solutions
with different solution objectives). For these reasons, this report goes only as far as to present thedifferences in aggregation levels and the issues thereof; it is up to the aggregator to decide which level atwhich to perform the aggregation.

8

Calculation
Level

1

2

3

Table 2: Calculation Level definitions
Components of the
Calculation method
Activity quantity
effect to be calculated- The evaluator- Components are
performs thedetermined based on
calculation based on the [GIPC Explanatory The evaluator
the [GIPC
Booklet], taking into
defines the activity
Explanatory
account the user's
quantity according
Booklet], taking into operations.
to the user's
account the user's- Components areoperations, andoperations.
determined taking into performs the- Effects areaccount the states
calculations.
calculated based on
before and after
actual examples.
implementation.
Calculations are
made by choosing,
Components areas needed, activity
defined by combining,quantities that are
as needed, components
made to match
Using thethat are made to match
examples at
information in thisexamples at different
different
report, simplified
companies, andcompanies, andCO2 emissions
components that are
activity quantities
suppression amounts
defined in this report.
that are defined inare estimated andthis report.
calculated based on
similar examples.
Calculations are
Components that are
made using activity
defined in this reportquantities that areare used.
defined in thisreport.

Primary unit

Primary units thatthe evaluator deems
to be the mostappropriate areused.

Primary units thatare made to match
examples atdifferent
companies, andprimary units thatare defined in thisreport are chosen
and used as needed.

Primary units thatare defined in thisreport are used.

Table 3: Aggregation Level definitions
Aggregation
Level

Aggregation method

Aggregation formula1

Calculations are made for eachcase, and the results thereof aresummed up and aggregated.

2

Similar cases are aggregatedbased on calculation results froma single case.

CO2 emissions suppression
amounts are calculated for eachsolution, and summed up.
Based on calculation results froma single case, representative
examples including other cases
are created from coefficients,
activity quantities and otherparameters, which are thensummed up.
Ex: One calculation result x n

9Precision

Relatively highRelatively low

2.4

Definition of terms

Table 4 lists the definitions of key terms used in this report.

Term
CO2 emissions
suppression amount

Framework for thequantification of CO2
emissions suppression
amounts
Activity quantity
Primary unit
Solution-specificsimplified coefficientfor calculating CO2
emissions suppression
amounts
Calculation Level
Aggregation Level

Table 4: Definition of terms
Definition
This is the amount of CO2 emissions suppression that the implementation of aparticular IT solution is expected to achieve. Based on scenarios that can beachieved before and after implementation, the differences in CO2 emissions
resulting from expected changes in activity quantities are used to make thecalculation.
This is a framework for selecting appropriate methods for calculating CO2
emissions suppression amounts from among multiple methods that use different
Calculation and Aggregation Levels. (Referred to as "Quantification
Framework" in this report)
Quantities that are directly affected by the implementation of IT solutions("Consumption of physical items", "Movement of people," etc.)
Coefficient for converting activity quantities into CO2 emissions
This refers to representative parameters that can be applied to solution-specificcalculations of CO2 emissions suppression amounts that have been aggregatedfrom case results of calculations performed to date by member companies basedon the GIPC Explanatory Booklet (referred to as "simplified calculation
coefficient" in this report).
Level as determined by the method of calculating the effects of a particularsolution (See Table 2.)
Level as determined by the method of summing up and aggregating the effects ofmultiple solutions (See Table 3.)

10

3.

Line of thinking behind the framework for the quantification of CO2 emissions
suppression amounts

In reference to the new "Quantification Framework" and solution-specific "simplified calculation
coefficients" that we review here, procedures for selecting appropriate calculation methods from among a
number of methods have been organized in a comprehensive (umbrella) fashion in the Quantification
Framework. In this chapter, we discuss the line of thinking behind this organizing of procedures.
In Chapter 2, we showed that there were a broad range of applications for the quantification of CO2
emissions suppression amounts, and that Calculation and Aggregation Levels will vary from application toapplication. The amount of data and man-hours required will vary considerably depending on the
Calculation or Aggregation Level. In the Quantification Framework, we have summarized procedures forselecting the appropriate method according to the application and data available.
Figure 1 shows the procedures for selecting a method for quantifying CO2 emissions suppression amounts.
While there are many lines of thinking with regards to the calculation of CO2 emissions suppression
amounts, this Quantification Framework is based on the line of thinking behind the quantification of"Green by IT" CO2 emissions suppression amounts that have been reviewed to date (See Section 2.1, andreference document (7) in Chapter 1 [GIPC Explanatory Booklet], etc). Characteristics of this method
include the following.
 Contributions (effects) to society at large from Green by IT are quantified.
 CO2 emissions suppression effects are categorized in the form of the components shown in Table
1, and consistent calculations are carried out.
 Standard forms of primary units that are needed for calculations are provided for greater ease ofuse.
As such, in cases where an organization seeks to calculate the in-house energy costs of a customer, and notthat of society at large, a separate method of calculation must be used after changing boundary designations
and other attributes.
Even in cases where the line of thinking behind the GIPC Explanatory Booklet is applied, calculation
methods and precision will vary widely depending on the available data and application. The
Quantification Framework recommends that those methods (Fig. 1) that provide greater precision (Level 1,etc) should be the first to be reviewed.
For example, in applications that require high levels of precision, and where primary units and data such as
representative values can be gathered independently, it is recommended that calculations be carried out
based on the GIPC Explanatory Booklet (Level 1). That being said, there are many cases where it can bedifficult to gather all primary units or data on representative values. And, in some cases, a solution may be
expected to provide a unique type of CO2 emissions suppression effect owing to its unique functions, or its
primary unit may be considerably different from standard values.
In such cases, it is preferable to selectively use the standard primary units and representative values listed
in the GIPC Explanatory Booklet, and use the unique effects and data in addition to perform calculations(Calculation Level 2). Finally, there may be cases where it is difficult to gather representative values, orwhere a simple way of calculating approximated CO2 emissions suppression amounts is sought. In suchcases, a method for calculating approximated CO2 emissions suppression amounts based on
solution-specific "simplified calculation coefficients," which have been created from the representative
usage and primary unit for the solution (Calculation Level 3), can be chosen. That being said, since
Calculation Level 3 is a simplified method of calculation and results from this method are likely to containlarge margins of error, we have been conservative with CO2 emissions suppression amounts in the processof deriving these solution-specific "simplified calculation coefficients".

11

In cases where calculations that incorporate individual conditions are sought, it would be most appropriate
to consider Level 2 calculations.
We believe that, by using these procedures to select calculation and aggregation methods, users will be able
to choose the appropriate calculation and aggregation methods from among many other methods.
4.

Deriving solution-specific "simplified calculation coefficients"

Solution-specific "simplified calculation coefficients" represent the amount of CO2 emissions suppression
and are derived from aggregating representative configurations and implementation scenarios for eachsolution. The line of thinking behind this is described in this chapter.
4.1

Overview of the simplified calculation coefficient

In the Quantification Framework, a simplified calculation of CO2 emissions suppression amounts can bemade using the simplified calculation coefficients presented in this report, based on parameters such as thenumber of IT solutions shipped. All of the "components of the effect to be calculated," "activity quantities,"and "primary units" that have been used to derive these coefficients come from representative model values
based on data from examples that this committee has gathered. The committee includes this as one methodof calculation in Calculation Level 3.
Because a representative scenario is a prerequisite for deriving these coefficients, the decision whether or
not to apply them must come from reviews on how similar a scenario is to the actual state of
implementation or the form of solution. If the actual state of implementation is deemed to be not similar tothe defined scenario, the use of this calculation method should be avoided.
In deriving these coefficients, the committee gathered examples from member companies, and aggregatedthese into representative system configurations and implementation scenarios. Parameters that may affectCO2 emissions suppression amounts (number of locations or shops where the solution is implemented, etc.)
were also considered.
Firstly, in gathering the examples, we referred to the categorizations and IT solution examples that werereviewed by the Green IT Promotion Council (currently the Green IT Committee; Table 5). In doing so, we
also included tape storage solutions that were reviewed by the Working Group for the Promotion ofEnergy-Saving Storage Implementation. Additionally, solutions that were designed to solve similar issues
were consolidated into one group.
Next, representative system configurations and implementation scenarios were defined based on theseexamples, and the representative CO2 emissions suppression amounts for each of these consolidated
solutions were calculated.

12

Table 5: IT solutions reviewed
Category
Factory
Industry

No.

IT solution (GIPC version)

Solutions for which simplified
calculation coefficients werereviewed in this report

1

FEMS (Factory Energy Management System)-

2

Greater efficiency for lighting,air-conditioning, motors, and generators-

3

Greater efficiency in production processes

Greater efficiency inproduction processes

4

BEMS (Building Energy Management
System)BEMS

5Electronic tags, logistics systems

6

Paperless office

Paperless office7

Implementation of IT in operations(e-Learning, etc)

Delivery management systems
e-Learning

8

Teleworking

Teleworking

9

TV conferencing [remote conferencing
system]TV conferencing

10

Remote medicine, electronic medical records

Remote consultation

11

Electronic bidding, electronic applications

Electronic procurement

12

HEMS (Home Energy Management System)-

13

Electronic money-

14

Electronic publishing, electronic applications

15

Music distribution, software distribution-

16

Online shopping-

17

Traffic light conversion to LED (Smartapplication)-

18

ITS (Intelligent Transport System)-

19

Improve automobile fuel consumption-

20

Greater efficiency in modes of transportation-

21

Eco-driving [digital tachograph systems]

Eco-driving

22

Tape storage

Tape storage

23

Solutions other than the above

Production

Building

Operation
Indoors

BuildingHome
Indoors

Infrastructure

Transport-

Electronic publishing,electronic applications

Activities

Operation
Other

Additional*

Examples reviewed in this report*

Tape storage solutions that were reviewed by the Working Group for the Promotion of Energy-Saving Storage
Implementation were added.

13

4.2

The process of deriving simplified calculation coefficients

The following is a detailed description of the process based on the example of TV conferencing systems.
[Example: TV conferencing]
Based on a variety of examples, we defined the representative model for TV conferencing to be a setting
where there would be two sites (Tokyo and Osaka) and three meeting participants per site. Prior to theimplementation of TV conferencing in these examples, personnel from either one of these sites would
travel to the other site for the meetings. While personal travel would no longer be needed after the
implementation of TV conferencing, the IT equipment that run the TV conferencing system will require
power (Table 7). The difference in states before and after the implementation of the TV conferencing
system is deemed to be the amount of CO2 emissions suppressed.
Table 6: Representative TV conferencing system
Representative
Representative item
Unit
value
Number of times
Conference frequency
45.76
per year
Sites

2

Sites

Participants

3

Number ofparticipants/site

Travel distance (public transportation)

1,200

km (round trip)

Average conference duration

1.15

Hours/conference

IT equipment power consumption(after implementation)

67.0

kWh/year

Components

Table 7: TV conferencing system's equipment configuration
Power
Number of
Hours of
Annual days
consumption
Sites
units
operationof operation
W/unitTotal
kWh/year

TV

1

500

1.15

45.76

2

52.6

PC/Server

1

100

1.15

45.76

2

10.5

Controlequipment

1

32

1.15

45.76

2

3.4

Mic, camera

1

5

1.15

45.76

2

0.5

Total

-

637

-

-

-

67.0

The following is the CO2 emissions suppression effect of a representative TV conferencing system shownin Tables 6 and 7.
(1) Before implementing TV conferencing
Annual CO2 emissions = Travel distance (round trip) x Primary unit of travel (by train) x Number ofparticipants x Conference frequency= 1,200km x 0.005 kg-CO2/(person kilometers) x 3 x 45.76 conferences/year≈ 824 kg-CO2/year14

(2) After implementing TV conferencing
Annual CO2 emissions = IT equipment power consumption x Average conference duration x
Conference frequency x Electrical power primary unit
= 0.637kW x 1.15h x 45.76 conferences x 0.425kg CO2/kWh≈ 28 kg-CO2/year(3) Amount of CO2 emissions suppression from using TV conferencing
The amount of CO2 emissions suppression from using TV conferencing is calculated from the difference
between (1), before implementation, and (2), after implementation, shown above. However, as shown in
Tables 6 and 7, the representative TV conferencing configuration is the sum of two sites. By defining thebasic unit as a single site, we have:Amount of CO2 emissions suppressed from using TV conferencing= (pre-implementation CO2 emissions minus post-implementation CO2emissions)/number of sites= (824 kg-CO2/year - 28 kg-CO2/year)/two sites= 398 kg-CO2/(site year)
The third and smaller digits are rounded to the first two digits that are defined to be the effective value ofthe simplified calculation coefficient for TV conferencing. This gives a value of 390 kg-CO2/(site year).
(4) Amount of CO2 emissions suppression from TV conferencing systems supplied to the market overa period of one year
The following total can be calculated by ascertaining the number of sites to which TV conferencing
systems were provided over the period of one year.
Amount of CO2 emissions suppression from TV conferencing systems supplied to the market= "Simplified calculation coefficient" for TV conferencing x Number of supplied sites in the market (n)= 390 x n kg-CO2/year.
4.3

Results of simplified calculation coefficient derivation

Simplified calculation coefficients were derived for other types of solutions just as we did for TV
conferencing systems. In the example of TV conferencing, it was deemed that the CO2 emissions
suppression amount was proportionate to the number of systems supplied to the market. However, because
the proportional relationship between specific parameters and the amount of CO2 emissions suppression
will vary from solution to solution, reviews were carried out for each solution and the relevant parameters
were presented as "basic units" (number of clients, number of shops, number of target individuals, etc).
Table 8 shows a summary of the results of deriving the simplified calculation coefficient and thesolution-specific basic units that we have reviewed.
The representative values and units shown in the table are the simplified calculation coefficients for eachsolution. If a particular solution is similar to one shown in Table 8, the approximate amount of CO2
emissions suppression for that solution can be calculated by acquiring the number of clients, sites, shops
and other data relating to the solution's implementation, and multiplying them by the representative values
shown in Table 8.

15

Table 8: List of solution-specific simplified calculation coefficients
Categories

IT solution

Broad
category

Sub-category

Industry

Production
process

IT solution category
Greater efficiency inproduction processes

Solution
QC operations solution

Basic unit

Appendixno.

Class, conditions

A1.1

2

Building

BEMS(Building energy
management system)

BEMS(Building energy
management system)

A1.2

Paperless officee-document solution

A1.3

Paperless officeElectronic forms

A1.4

Delivery management
systemOperation

e-Learning

16

Indoors

Customer and delivery
destination information
management systeme-Learning system(remote learning system)

Teleworking

Teleworking

TV conferencing(remote conferencing)

TV conferencing(regular definition)
TV conferencing(high definition)

Remote medicine,electronic medical
records

Remote consultation

kg-CO2/(client year)

m2

1.1

kg-CO2/(m2 year)

m2

0.45

kg-CO2/(m2 year)

Shop

1,200

kg-CO2/(shop year)

Shop

2,000

kg-CO2/(shop year)

110

kg-CO2/(client year)

A1.6

-

Client60

kg-CO2/(client year)

A1.7

-

Client200

kg-CO2/(client year)

A1.8

Regular definition

Site

390

kg-CO2/(site year)

A1.9

High definition

Site

140

kg-CO2/(site year)

A1.10

-

Number oftargetindividuals

4kg-CO2/(person year)

A1.11

-

Client7,000

kg-CO2/(client year)

A1.12

-

Client4,000

kg-CO2/(client year)-

Client2,100

kg-CO2/(client year)

Site

9,000

kg-CO2/(site year)

Electronic publishing,electronic applications

Transport

Activity

Eco-driving

Digital tachograph

A1.13

Operation-

Tape storage

Tape storage system

A1.14

Presumes the effects of BEMS equipped with control functions.
Presumes the effects of BEMS through the visualization of energy usage.

4

ClientIndoors*2

Client

-

Home

*1

Unit

A1.5

Central management solution
for administrative work
Solution for managing
administrative rules

Electronic procurement

Floor area 10,000m or
greater*1
Floor area less than
10,000m2*2
Small rate of paper
consumption
Large rate of paper
consumption

Simplified
calculation
coefficientArchive data 400TB

Procedural explanations
5.

Specific calculation and aggregation procedures

In this chapter, we discuss the procedures for calculating and aggregating CO2 emissions suppression
amounts based on the established Quantification Framework.
5.1

Calculation procedures (Choosing the appropriate method of calculation)

Depending on the purpose of calculating the amounts of CO2 emissions suppression, the appropriate
Calculation Level shall be chosen according to the flow shown in Fig. 1.
In cases where the calculator is able to prepare the parameters and data to use for the calculation,
Calculation Level 1 or 2 may be used. In cases where it is difficult for the calculator to prepare parametersand data on his/her own, calculations shall be made using Calculation Level 3. To make simplified
calculations, the simplified calculation coefficients presented in this report (Table 8) shall be used, and the
Calculation Level will be 3. However, because simplified calculation coefficients are currently notavailable for solutions other than those shown in Table 8, the calculator will need to make calculations
based on the GIPC Explanatory Booklet as needed.
[Detailed procedure](Step 1)
If independent data on the primary unit, usage of the implemented system, and system
configuration are sufficiently available, consider whether Calculation Levels 1 or 2 can beused.
 Level 1 applies to cases where all of the data, including primary units, can be gathered
independently.
 Level 2 applies if the calculation will partially use primary units and other values presented
in this report.
 For details, see the calculation methods shown towards the end of this document(Appendix A2) and the GIPC Explanatory Booklet.
(Step 2)

If independent data on the primary unit, usage of the implemented system, and system
configuration are not sufficiently available, consider whether Calculation Level 3 can be used.
 You will need to have data that are in line with the parameters presented in the GIPC
Explanatory Booklet.
 Calculations using simplified calculation coefficients are also an option. (See the next
section.)(Step 3)

If the calculator seeks to make provisional calculations of approximate values, and is unable toprepare sufficient data in Step 2, consider using the simplified calculation coefficients.
 The calculator will need to prepare data (number of shops, etc.) that can be applied toTable 8. (See the next section.)

17

5.2

Calculation procedure using simplified calculation coefficients[Detailed procedure](Step 1)
From the solutions listed in Appendix A1, choose a solution of the same type in Table 8 thatyou wish to make calculations for.
(Step 2)

Consider whether or not the applicable solution in Appendix A1 and the solution that you seek
to make calculations for are similar. Their similarity shall be determined based on the"similarity of solution configuration and purpose" and "similarity of effects (eight effects) that
result from the solutions' specifications." Results of this determination are dependent on thecalculator.
Note 1) Compare the descriptions of solutions in Appendix A1 ("Overview" "Configuration
and CO2 emissions suppression effects of representative solutions") and the solutionthat you seek to make calculations for, to consider whether or not they are similar.
Note 2) Consider whether effects similar to the "CO2 emissions suppression effects"
attributed to solutions in Appendix A1 can be expected from the solution that you
seek to make calculations for.
Note 3) If the solutions can be deemed to be not similar, consider whether calculations canbe made at Level 1 or 2 based on the GIPC Explanatory Booklet.

[Calculation example]
The following is an example of a calculation where the solution that you seek to make calculations for isdeemed to be similar to a solution where simplified calculation coefficients can be used.

(Step 1)

Acquire information needed for the calculation.
Data required to make Level 3 calculations are the values of quantities that correspond to thesolution's primary units. Acquire or estimate data that are in line with Table 8 (number ofshops, etc).

(Step 2)

Apply the gathered data and applicable simplified calculation coefficients to the following
formula to calculate the CO2 emissions suppression amount.
(CO2 emissions suppression amount) = (Simplified calculation coefficient) x (Datagathered in Step 1)
The result of the calculation will be an approximate value that is different from the actual stateof the solution's implementation.

We also recommend that the calculator maintain a record of how the results were calculated, as well as
mention the Calculation Level that the calculation belongs to in the remarks area or other area.

18

5.3

Specific aggregation procedures

Several scenarios are conceivable for summing up the CO2 emissions suppression enabled by multiple
solutions.
 Summing up the effects of solutions of the same type
 Summing up the effects of solutions of different types
 Summing up the effects of solutions supplied by more than one vendor
 A mixture of the above
Table 9 lists examples of such cases. While Calculation Levels 1 thru 3 can be considered for theseexamples, it is preferable to match their Calculation Levels as much as possible for aggregation andsumming up.
Table 9: Cases of summing up more than one emissions suppression amount
CategoryCase
To indicate the sum of CO2 emissions suppression effects enabled bysolutions of the same type that are supplied by one or more IT solution
vendors:
Summing up the amount of[Ex 1] Case where vendor A has supplied customers a, b, c and so forth with TV
CO2 emissions suppression
conferencing systems  Σ (CO2 emissions suppression amounts at each customer
enabled by solutions of the[a, b, c ....])
same type*1.
(*1: Solutions designed to solve [Ex 2] Case where vendor A has supplied customers a, b, c and so forth with TV
conferencing systems, and vendor B has supplied customers 1, 2, 3 and so forth withthe same issues)
remote conferencing systems  Σ (CO2 emissions suppression amounts at each ofvendor A's customers [a, b, c ....]) +Σ (CO2 emissions suppression amounts at eachof vendor B's customers [1, 2, 3 ....])

Summing up the amount of
CO2 emissions suppression
enabled by solutions ofdifferent types*2.
(*2: Solutions designed to solve
different issues)

To indicate the sum of CO2 emissions suppression effects enabled bymultiple solutions that vendors supply to society at large:[Ex 1] Σ (CO2 emissions suppression amount from vendor A's solutions I, II, III ...)[Ex 2] Σ (CO2 emissions suppression amount from vendor A's solutions I, II, III ...)
+Σ (CO2 emissions suppression amount from vendor B's solutions 1, 2, 3 ...)

5.4

Examples of calculating and aggregating CO2 emissions suppression amounts
using simplified calculation coefficients

5.4.1

Examples of aggregating the total amount of CO2 emissions suppression enabled
by solutions of the same typeThe following are explanations for the aggregation of CO2 emissions suppression amounts based on theexample of TV conferencing systems that are supplied by two vendors.

19

Table 10: "TV conferencing systems" sold by vendor A in
FYxxxxNumber ofNo.
User
Shipped tosites

Table 11: "TV conferencing systems" sold by vendor B in
FYxxxxNumber ofNo.
User
Shipped to
sites

1

a

100

Kansai area

1

1

50

Nationwide

2

b

500

Nationwide

2

2

400

Nationwide

3

c

50

City X

3

3

200

Nationwide

100

Kansai, Kanto andregions in between

4

4

1,000

Nationwide

4

d

-

-

-

-

5

5

300

Nationwide

Total

-

4,000

-

Total

-

5,000

-

[Case: TV conferencing systems supplied by vendors A and B]
Tables 10 and 11 show the sales of TV conferencing systems (regular definition) by vendors A and B.
Vendor A's sales areas are mostly centered in Kansa, Kanto, and the areas between, while vendor B sells tosites nationwide.
(1) Example of aggregating results for one vendor using Calculation Level 3
To ascertain CO2 emissions suppression amounts in a simplified manner (where the simplified calculation
coefficients provided in this report are used): Calculation Level 3 is applied.
 Based on Table 8, the following applies to TV conferencing systems (regular definition):
Simplified calculation coefficient = 390kg/CO2/(site year)
Basic unit = site
From this, the amount of CO2 emissions suppression enabled by both vendors A and B can be calculated insimplified form below.
 Vendor A example, Number of sites: 4,000
Amount of CO2 emissions suppression = Simplified calculation coefficient x Basic unit
= 390kg/CO2/(site year) x 4,000 sites= 1,560,000 kg-CO2/year= 1,560 t-CO2/year Vendor B example, Number of sites: 5,000
Amount of CO2 emissions suppression = Simplified calculation coefficient x Basic unit
= 390kg/CO2/(site year) x 5,000 sites= 1,950,000 kg-CO2/year= 1,950 t-CO2/year(2) Example of aggregating results for more than one vendor using Calculation Level 3
 Amount of CO2 emissions suppression from vendor A's TV conferencing system: 1,560 t-CO2/year
 Amount of CO2 emissions suppression from vendor B's TV conferencing system: 1,950 t-CO2/year Total amount of CO2 emissions suppression for vendors A and B
Amount of CO2 emissions suppression from vendor A's TV conferencing systems + Amount of
CO2 emissions suppression from vendor B's TV conferencing systems = 3,510 t-CO2/year20

(3) Example of aggregating results for one vendor using Calculation Level 2
The following describes a case where a vendor seeks to ascertain the amount of CO2 emissions suppression
enabled by the sales of TV conferencing systems using its own activity quantities and other parameters,
taking into account real-world conditions.
[Calculation Level 2 is applied]
Vendor B ships its systems nationwide, and since their effects can be expected to be larger than thesimplified calculation coefficient shown in Table 8 for TV conferencing, vendor B creates a simplified
calculation coefficient for their TV conferencing system (vendor B) to ascertain their CO2 emissions
suppression amounts. Calculations for vendor B's TV conferencing system are performed by creating,in-house and based on the GIPC Explanatory Booklet, a coefficient that corresponds to the simplified
calculation coefficient.
 Representative usage conditions of vendor B's TV conferencing system
Conference frequency: 12 times/year
Distances between sites: 800km (one way between Tokyo and Sapporo, or Tokyo and Fukuoka)
where one person travels by air or rail.
Simplified calculation coefficient created in-house (vendor B) = 850 kg-CO2/(site year) Vendor B example, Number of sites: 5,000
Amount of CO2 emissions suppression = Simplified calculation coefficient (vendor B) x Basic unit
= 850kg/CO2/(site year) x 5,000 sites= 4,250,000 kg-CO2/year= 4,250 t-CO2/year
5.4.2

Examples of aggregating the total amount of CO2 emissions suppression enabled
by solutions of different types

The following are explanations for the aggregation of CO2 emissions suppression amounts based on theexample of TV conferencing and teleworking systems. The case of TV conferencing and teleworking
systems for one vendor is explained below.
Table 12: "TV conferencing systems" sold by vendor A in
FYxxxxNumber ofNo.
User
Shipped tosites

Table 13: "Teleworking" systems sold by vendor A in
FYxxxxNumber ofNo.
User
Shipped toclients1a100

Kansai area

1

I

250

Nationwide

2

b

500

Nationwide

3

c

50

City X

2

II

10

Kyushu region

3

III

10

Kanto region

4

d

100

Kansai, Kanto andregions in between

4

IV

100

Nationwide

-

-

-

-

5

V

30

Tohoku region

Total

-

4,000

-

Total

-

400

-

[Case: TV conferencing and teleworking systems supplied by vendor A]
Tables 12 and 13 show vendor A's sales of TV conferencing (regular definition) and teleworking systems.
These sales figures are for different types of solutions sold by the same IT solution vendor. Here, we
provide examples of calculations for a case where the simplified calculation coefficient provided in thisreport is used (Calculation Level 3).
Based on Table 8, the following applies to TV conferencing systems (regular definition):
Simplified calculation coefficient = 390kg/CO2/(site year)
21Basic unit = site
From this, the amount of CO2 emissions suppression enabled by vendor A's TV conferencing systems
can be calculated in simplified form below.
Number of sites to which TV conferencing systems were sold: 4,000 sites
Amount of CO2 emissions suppression = Simplified calculation coefficient x Basic unit
= 390kg/CO2/(site year) x 4,000 sites= 1,560,000 kg-CO2/year= 1,560 t-CO2/year
Based on Table 8, the following applies to teleworking systems.
Simplified calculation coefficient = 200kg/CO2/(client year)
Basic unit = client
From this, the amount of CO2 emissions suppression enabled by vendor A's teleworking systems canbe calculated in simplified form below.
Number of clients to which teleworking systems were sold (number of basic units): 400 clients
Amount of CO2 emissions suppression = Simplified calculation coefficient x Basic unit
= 200kg/CO2/(client year) x 400 clients= 80,000 kg-CO2/year= 80 t-CO2/year
Therefore, the sum of CO2 emissions suppression amounts from TV conferencing and teleworking systems
sold by vendor A equals:
Amount of CO2 emissions suppression from TV conferencing systems + Amount of CO2 emissions
suppression from teleworking systems= 1,560 t-CO2/year + 80 t-CO2/year= 1,640 t-CO2/year
The same calculations as above can be applied to solutions from multiple IT solution vendors.
Additionally, in cases where CO2 emissions suppression amounts are calculated by taking into accountvendor A's actual sales performance without the use of the simplified calculation coefficient provided inthis report, aggregations can be made using the CO2 emissions suppression amount as calculated in
5.4.1(3) above.

22

6.

In utilizing methods for evaluating Green by IT

In this report, we have described how to calculate and aggregate the effects of IT solutions that can be
expected to make major contributions towards CO2 emissions suppression moving forward.
It is thought that IT solutions used in our societies offer great potential for CO2 emissions suppression, andthat by 2020, the emissions suppression potential for Green by IT is expected to reach between 68 and 137
million t-CO2/year as compared to that for Green of IT, which is expected to be between 21.4 and 42.8
million t-CO2/year.
It is expected that the suppression of CO2 emissions by way of IT solutions will be bolstered by using themethods introduced in this report to make quantitative evaluations of the impact that IT solutions have onsociety.
Meanwhile, methods for these evaluations are not without issues because IT solutions take a diverse rangeof forms. The simplified calculation procedures outlined in this report make use of representative models
based on cases gathered by this committee, and therefore, readers should keep in mind that the following
issues exist in quantifying CO2 emissions suppression amounts using these procedures.
[Reminders for users](1) The simplified calculation coefficients, with which representative models can be defined and effects
can be calculated, are confined to the scope of Table 8. Simplified calculations of CO2 emissions
suppression amounts enabled by IT solutions as described in this report (Calculation Level 3), arelimited to solutions listed in Table 8. While we believe that this scope needs to be expanded moving
forward, readers are asked to refer to the documents listed in Section 1.2 for non-applicable solutions.
(2) Even where calculations for CO2 emissions suppression amounts are sought for a solution included inTable 8, if an effect is foreseen to be divergent from that of a representative solution configuration
included in the Appendix, it is preferable to use calculations that match the configurations at eachcompany.
Ex) See the aggregation example for one company using Calculation Level 2 in 5.4.1 (3).
Representative models were created on the basis of one to several cases, and their configurations may differ
from the solution whose CO2 emissions suppression amounts the user seeks to ascertain. In such cases,
proceed in the same way as in (2) above.

23Appendix
A1. Representative configurations of solutions
Greater efficiency in production processes
SolutionA1.1 QC operations solution
Overview:
Solution supports quality information management and market actions in the event of a product defect.
Representative solution configuration and its CO2 emissions suppression effects:
The solution is used to quickly gather, share, and analyze quality information, as well as visually represent
the defect response actions to improve the efficiency of QC operations. It also reduces the use of paper in
the areas of reducing "response lead time" and "cost of response" in the event of a defect, and contributes
to the suppression of CO2 emissions.
Customer/Sales rep

Maintenance section

QC section

Supplier

Manufacturing section

Request forinvestigation

Request forinvestigation

Request forinvestigation

Request forinvestigation

Reply

Reply

Reply

Reply

Investigation

Investigation

Beforeimplementation

Customer/Sales rep

Maintenance section

Paperwork

Paperwork

Shipment records
Manufacture records

Procurement records
Manufacture records

QC section

Manufacturing section

Supplier

Request forinvestigation

Request forinvestigation

Request forinvestigation

Request forinvestigation

Reply

Reply

Reply

Reply

Investigation

Investigation

Traceability system

After
implementation

CO2 emissions suppression effects
Consumption Movement Movementof physicalof peopleof physical
items
items


Shipment records
Manufacture records

Officespace

24

Procurement records
Manufacture records

Warehouse
spacePower andenergyconsumptionNetwork data
communication

BEMS (Building energy management system)
SolutionA1.2 BEMS (Building energy management system)
Overview:
Improves the efficiency of energy use by visibly representing and controlling energy use in buildings.
Representative solution configuration and its CO2 emissions suppression effects:

Before implementation
Energy management is performed by each building independently.

After implementation
The solution visually represents building energy use, analyzes it, implements countermeasures (controls
and operational improvements), and carries out operations.
A roughly 2% improvement in energy efficiency is presumed from a BEMS with a visualization
function, and a roughly 5% improvement by way of air-conditioning control from a BEMS withvisualization and control functions.

(4) Operations(1) Visualization (confirmationof effects)(3) Countermeasures(Controls andoperational
improvements)(2) Analysis(Source) JEITA Green IT Committee "Working Group for Promoting BEMS Implementation" document(http://home.jeita.or.jp/greenit-pc/bems/index.html)

CO2 emissions suppression effects
Consumption Movement Movementof physicalof peopleof physical
items
items

Officespace

25

Warehouse
spacePower andenergyconsumptionNetwork data
communication
Paperless office (with small rate of paper consumption)
SolutionA1.3 e-Document solution
System that supports digitalization of slips, forms, and other documents
Overview
By digitalizing slips, forms, and other documents, this solution enables greater efficiency, and reduces
paper, storage space, and document transport. Cabinets are unnecessary as paper slips can be thrown away,
enabling more efficient use of office space. Tasks such as document searching and filing can be reduced,
enabling reductions in man-hours.
Representative solution configuration and its CO2 emissions suppression effects:
Flow of invoices and receipts in payment processing
Payment processing operations

BeforeimplementationHead office accounting dept.

Different sections

Cross-checking andpayment processing

Application

Electronic
ledgerSend

Frequent
searches
Electronic
Hard copy(paper)Inquiry response(Suppliers/in-house)- 3,000/month, 50 cartons/year

Operations began in Dec. 2005 after a review by national tax authorities.
Payment processing operations

After
implementationStored in separate
archive (for sevenyears)Stored in office archive (forone year)

Paper
Invoices
Receipts

Head office accounting dept.

Different sections

Cross-checking andpayment processing

Application

Send

Electronic
ledgerLinkedElectronic
signatureStoredscanned files

Time stamp
Invoices
Receipts

ScannerFrequent
searches

Effects
Efficiency improvements in inquiry responses:
Roughly 10 fold
Major reduction in document search times:
Roughly 10 fold

Faster(Man-hours reduced by85%)

Electronic
Hard copy(paper)Inquiry response(Suppliers/in-house)

Invoice storage costs: Completely eliminatedReduce paper consumption
Paperless operations achieved with the PFU
e-Document solution! This reduces paper
consumption.

Reduce document storage space
Cabinets are unnecessary as paper slips canbe thrown away, enabling more efficient use of
office space.

Reduce document transport costs
Reduce document transport costs by sending
and receiving digital files instead of sending
documents by mail or courier.

Reduce man-hours required for tasks
Document search and filing tasks can be
reduced dramatically with the PFU
e-Document solution.

CO2 emissions suppression effects
Consumption Movement Movementof physicalof peopleof physical
items
items



Officespace

Warehouse
space





26

Power andenergyconsumptionNetwork data
communication

Paperless office (with large rate of paper consumption)
SolutionA1.4 Electronic forms system
Overview
The electronic forms system is a solution that enables large reductions in paper slips and forms used inadministrative tasks for purchases, sales and other processes by digitalizing them. By reducing the numberof printed slips and forms, efficiency can be achieved in sorting, distribution, searching, and storage.
Representative solution configuration and its CO2 emissions suppression effects:

Beforeimplementation

Print

Sorted at the center

Sorted at offices

Transport

Slips and forms are printed
on paper, and all work isdone manually.

Stored and managed until expiry.
Viewing

Reduce printing of slips(to one-tenth)Store and view on server

After
implementation

Automatic storage
management

Reference

Automatic
forwarding
Automatic sorting

Electronic slips
serverElectronic slips
clientReduce printing, sorting, and transporting. Entails power
consumption by server.

CO2 emissions suppression effects
Consumption Movement Movementof physicalof peopleof physical
items
items


Officespace27Warehouse
spacePower andenergyconsumptionNetwork data
communication

Delivery management system
SolutionA1.5 Customer and delivery destination information management system
Overview:
Provides a system that supports operations that handle deliverable items throughout the year regardless of
season by managing information on customers and delivery destinations.
Representative solution configuration and its CO2 emissions suppression effects:
Reduces customer interaction times with simple order-taking functions that run on the terminal devices
being used. Allows users to select output destinations and printers for printing the forms, creating an
optimized workflow. Sticker slips are used to reduce paper usage and contribute to the suppression of CO2
emissions.

Before implementation

After implementation
Waiting time

Waiting time

Laptop PC

Desktop PC

Storage

Small printer(Off-season)
Large printerNetwork
Duplicate
forms

Stickerslips

Duplicate
forms

Manufacturers,
etc.

Manufacturers,
etc.

CO2 emissions suppression effects
Consumption Movement Movementof physicalof peopleof physical
items
items


Officespace

Warehouse
space





28

Power andenergyconsumptionNetwork data
communication

e-Learning
SolutionA1.6 e-Learning system (remote learning system)
Overview:
As opposed to traditional learning settings where the teacher and students convene at the same place andtextbooks are handed out, this is a remote learning system using the Internet where the teacher prepares theclass content at a location that suits the teacher, students take the class at a location and time that suits
them, and textbooks are provided as digital files. This eliminates travel by road, rail, or air that was neededin traditional learning, and reduces excess waste of paper resources that were traditionally needed formaking textbooks.
Representative solution configuration and its CO2 emissions suppression effects:

After
implementation

Beforeimplementation- Seated learning using textbooks- Travel to the learning facility

CO2 emissions suppression effects
Consumption Movement Movementof physicalof peopleof physical
items
items



- Students can remain at their desks totake classes online.

Officespace

29

Warehouse
spacePower andenergyconsumptionNetwork data
communication

Teleworking
SolutionA1.7 Teleworking
Overview:Cloud-based call center is used in a teleworking setting.
Enables call center support by operators working out of their homes, and provides operators different
working arrangements.
Representative solution configuration and its CO2 emissions suppression effects:
Operators access the server from their particular location to carry out call center tasks. This reduces energy
consumption for commuting, and suppresses CO2 emissions.

After implementation

Before implementation

Public cloud

In-house
Database

Application server
Data center

API server
Search server

Application

Regular/Emergency
operations

Database
Internet
ServerRegular/Emergency
operations

In-house system setup

Operators

Work-at-home
operator

Contact center

Operators at the office

Contact center
CommuteCommuteCO2 emissions suppression effects
Consumption Movement Movementof physicalof peopleof physical
items
items


Officespace

30

Warehouse
spacePower andenergyconsumption

Network data
communication

TV conferencing (remote conferencing)
SolutionA1.8 TV conferencing (regular definition)
Overview:
TV conferencing solutions enable users in remote locations to hold conferences on video monitors. The
effects of these solutions were calculated as differences with average in-person conferences where people
travel between two sites. The average conference was presumed to involve traveling by three individuals
between two sites, one in Tokyo and one in Osaka, at a frequency of roughly once a week and a duration ofroughly one hour.
Representative solution configuration and its CO2 emissions suppression effects:

After
implementation

Beforeimplementation

High-definition TV conferencing solution
26 conferences presumed per year
All conferences are presumed to be twohours long.

 Personal travel for conferences
26 conferences presumed per year

Tokyo to Osaka: Three people travel by
Shinkansen

CO2 emissions suppression effects
Consumption Movement Movementof physicalof peopleof physical
items
items


TV conferencing system provides a sense ofpresence with high definition and sound quality.

Officespace

31

Warehouse
spacePower andenergyconsumptionNetwork data
communication

TV conferencing (remote conferencing)
SolutionA1.9 TV conferencing (regular definition)
Overview:
 Conferences attended by participants in remote locations. High definition and sound quality available.
Enables reductions in travel expenses and time.
Representative solution configuration and its CO2 emissions suppression effects:
Reduces the consumption of energy for personal travel by conference participants, and suppresses CO2
emissions.
Digitalization enables reductions in the number of paper documents.

After
implementation

Beforeimplementation

 Conferences held
 Uses TV conferencing system Uses network

 Conferences held: 19 times monthly Paper documents handed out PC and projector are used

Tokyo to Osaka: One person travels on
Shinkansen

CO2 emissions suppression effects
Consumption Movement Movementof physicalof peopleof physical
items
items



TV conferencing system provides a sense ofpresence with high definition and sound quality.

Officespace

32

Warehouse
spacePower andenergyconsumption

Network data
communication

Remote medicine, electronic medical records
SolutionA1.10 Remote consultation
Overview:

Receive health consultation at remote locations.

Reduce the effort and costs involved with making doctor visits.
Representative solution configuration and its CO2 emissions suppression effects:
Consultations are carried out by connecting a PC installed at a public location, such as a community center,with a healthcare consultant's PC.
This reduces the energy consumed for travel by the consulting person, suppressing CO2 emissions.

Beforeimplementation

Consulting
personBus

Bus transportation

Train transportation
On foot

On foot

Health consultation and instruction booklet- Reduce travel and instruction booklets.
- Expectations for reduced medical spending from greater
consultation frequency

After
implementation

Consulting
personHealthcare instructions based on audio, video, and information sharing
On foot

Connection assistance
Scheduling

Community
center PC
VPN routerServerCO2 emissions suppression effects
Consumption Movement Movementof physicalof peopleof physical
items
items


Officespace

33

Warehouse
spacePower andenergyconsumption

Network data
communication

Electronic procurement
SolutionA1.11 Central management solution for administrative work
Overview:
Provide a system for centrally managing all administrative work, such as item procurement, in construction
projects.
Representative solution configuration and its CO2 emissions suppression effects:
Reduces labor by connecting sub-systems seamlessly. Provides operability that helps reduce human errors
when users operate the screen, improves the efficiency of related administrative work, and contributes tothe suppression of CO2 emissions.

Before implementation

After implementation

Waiting time

SearchWaiting time

SearchSearchSI
Information searchfunction to bechanged.
Servers
Servers

CO2 emissions suppression effects
Consumption Movement Movementof physicalof peopleof physical
items
items


Officespace

Warehouse
space





34

Power andenergyconsumptionNetwork data
communication

Electronic publishing, electronic applications
SolutionA1.12 Solution for managing administrative rules
Overview:
Solution for managing operational risks that may occur in a company's business activities.
Representative solution configuration and its CO2 emissions suppression effects:
Reduces paper use, time, and personnel required for managing administrative rules for administrative
quality analyses, efficiency improvements and risk management, and contributes to the suppression of CO2
emissions.

Before implementation

After implementation

Waiting time

Waiting time

Document
manuscript

Registereddedicated
representative

Document
uploadView
SearchDocument
uploadView
SearchSI
Viewing method
Dedicated editor

Commercial
XML

CO2 emissions suppression effects
Consumption Movement Movementof physicalof peopleof physical
items
items


Dedicated
XML

Officespace35Warehouse
spacePower andenergyconsumptionNetwork data
communication

Eco-driving
SolutionA1.13 Digital tachograph
Overview:
This system is installed on trucks and other vehicles to log driving records such as speed, distance, andtime, which are then fed back to the driver and operations manager. Implementation of this system can help
drivers avoid inefficient modes of driving, such as unneeded idling, over-speeding, and rapid acceleration
or deceleration, to achieve eco-driving and improve fuel efficiency. Additionally, paper use and man-hours
can be reduced as daily and monthly reports, which were previously handwritten, are recorded
electronically.
Representative solution configuration and its CO2 emissions suppression effects:

After implementation

Before implementation
Inefficient driving
 Unneeded idling Over-speeding Rapid acceleration
or deceleration
 Handwritten daily
reports

CO2 emissions suppression effects
Consumption Movement Movementof physicalof peopleof physical
items
items



Speed, distance, andtime, etc. arerecorded as data.
 Eco-driving
 Guidance for safe
driving

Officespace

36

Warehouse
spacePower andenergyconsumptionNetwork data
communication

Tape storage
SolutionA1.14 Tape storage system
Overview:
With the increase in the amount of data in storage, the volume of archival data that is accessed only very
occasionally continues to increase. This system automatically transfers data from hard disk drives to tapestorage depending on their access frequency, and automatically reads the data from tape when it is needed.
Representative solution configuration and its CO2 emissions suppression effects:

After
implementation

Beforeimplementation

Data storage

User

User

Data use

Data storage

ClientHierarchical data
management system

Data use

ClientDisk storage

Tape library

Disk storage
Hierarchical data management
server(2) Convert tofile stubs

Disks(1) Automatic writing

Tape device

Disks(3) Automatic reading

The representative size of the solution in a storage system at a single site to apply the archival data tapestorage was presumed to be 400TB.

CO2 emissions suppression effects
Consumption Movement Movementof physicalof peopleof physical
items
items

Officespace

37

Warehouse
spacePower andenergyconsumptionNetwork data
communication

A2. Basic calculation method for the effects of Green by IT
The following is an overview of the "Energy-Saving Contributions for Society at Large from IT Solutions
Explanatory Booklet" (Green IT Promotion Council, Feb. 2013)
A2.1 Overview
The amount of CO2 emissions suppression from IT solutions can be calculated by summing up a number ofcomponents (Table A2-1). Individual CO2 emissions suppression amounts can be evaluated based on the
differences in CO2 emissions in a particular field before and after IT solution implementation.
Table A2-1: Components of the effects of IT solutions, and formulae for their calculation(re-listed from above)
Components(1) Consumption ofmaterial(2) Amount traveled bypersons(3) Amount traveled by
items(4) Office space(5) Warehouse space

Component subjects
Paper, CDs, books, etc.
Aircraft, automobiles,
trains, etc.
Trucks, railroad, cargo,etc.
Space occupied bypersons (including work
efficiency), space
occupied by IT
equipment, etc.
Warehouses, refrigerated
warehouses, etc.

(6) Electricity and energy
consumption (IT andnetwork equipment)

Power consumed byservers, PCs, etc.

(7) Network data
communication
volumeNetwork data
communication volume(8) Other

Activities other than theabove

Component calculation formulae
Reduction in consumption of material x Primary unit ofconsumption of material
Reduction in personal travel distance x Primary unit of travel
Reduction in item travel distance x Primary unit of travel
Space reduction x Primary unit of energy consumption per space* Space reduction equals the number of persons reduced
multiplied by the space occupied per person, or the number ofpieces of equipment reduced multiplied by the space occupied
per piece of equipment.
Space reduction x Primary unit of energy consumption per space
Amount of change in power consumption x Primary unit of gridpower
* This applies when converting electrical power into CO2emissions.
* This represents the amount of energy consumed from the use of
IT equipment, and does not include energy consumed for the
manufacture or disposal of such equipment.
Amount of change in data communication volume x Primary
unit associated with data communication* The amount of energy consumed for network communications
includes energy consumed for Internet communications, but not
intranet communications.
Amount of change in activity x Primary unit of the amount ofchange38

In the area of teleworking, for example, energy consumed for personal travel is reduced when the amountof travel by office staff (people) is reduced. Additionally, the number of staff working in the office isreduced by the implementation of teleworking, which in turn can be expected to have an effect on reducing
office space. Therefore, the amount of energy reduced is the sum of components such as the effects fromreduced personal travel (component 1), and that from reduced office space (component 2). Conversely,
there is concern for greater electrical power consumption from working at home from the use of items suchas appliances, IT equipment, and network (component 3). Therefore, the overall energy-saving effects ofteleworking can be evaluated as (component 1) + (component 2) - (component 3).
"Office space" in this context covers the energy consumption reduction effect (energy used for lighting,air-conditioning, etc.) that results from less hours that the office and other facilities are used, which in turnis a result of improvements to work efficiency enabled by the implementation (or use) of the IT solution.
The effects of IT solutions can be expressed in terms of the energy consumed for personal travel,transport/consumption of physical items, and space (offices and warehouses), in combination with energy
consumed by IT equipment and network communications. Individual effects can be calculated bymultiplying the difference in activity quantities (amount of travel, consumption, etc.) by the primary unit
for CO2 emissions per unit amount.
A2.2 Procedures for calculating energy conservation (CO2 emissions reductions) enabledby IT solutions
Calculations for energy consumption reduction effects enabled by IT solutions are made according to theflow shown in Fig. A2-1.
1: List components.

2: Finalize the formulae forcalculating the effects.
3: Gather the information to
input.

4: Calculate the effects.

Fig. A2-1 Flow of calculations for the energy consumption reduction effects of IT solutions(1) List components
First, clearly define the pre- and post-implementation states (scenarios).
Next, ascertain which of the components listed in Table A2-1 relate to the effects of IT solution
implementation. Specifically, identify components where differences will arise before and after
implementation*.

*If the differences before and after implementation are not obvious, you may calculate the CO2 emissions before and after
implementation, and then calculate the differences.

39

In doing so, you must list all components that either result in a greater or smaller energy consumption for
the whole (society at large) before and after implementation of the IT solution.
The following points must be taken into account in doing so.
 Take into account increases in energy consumption from IT equipment or information
communication infrastructures (negative effects), and not only the effects that achieve reductions inenergy consumption (positive effects). While power consumption by IT equipment generally tends
to increase with the implementation of IT solutions, it may also decrease, such as when servers areintegrated.
 While the overall form, including IT solution implementation, will be different before and after
implementation, compare the scenarios that provide the same functionality (interchangeable
scenarios).
(2) Finalizing the formulae for calculating the effects
Next, finalize the formulae for calculating the CO2 emissions (or emissions suppression amounts) (inkg-CO2 or other unit) for each component listed. In doing so, use the component calculation formulae
shown in Table A2-1, and develop them based on the availability of data to arrive at the actual formulae.
Generally, make sure that the formulae produce CO2 emissions values for a one-year period (calculation
coverage period).
Whether or not the data to be pre-input can be gathered must be taken into account when finalizing theformulae.
(3) Gathering the information to input
Once you have finalized the formulae for calculating the components, gather the data to input into theseformulae. There are two types of information that will be needed for evaluating the energy-saving effects of
IT solution implementation.
(i) Activity quantity
This refers to the amount of change in energy and resource usage from utilizing the IT solution.
For example, reductions in private car fuel consumption from eliminating commutes can be
included for teleworking, and reductions in the consumption of paper and other items can be
included for paperless offices.
(ii) Primary unit information
This refers to the value that is used to convert the changes in energy consumption that result fromutilizing IT solutions into amounts of CO2. In teleworking, this will be the amount of CO2
reduced from reductions in private car fuel consumption as a result of commutes being eliminated,
and, in a paperless office, the amount of CO2 that is emitted in the production of a per-unit weightof paper that is not consumed.
In some cases, where data cannot be directly acquired or measured, simplified calculations of CO2
emissions suppression amounts are made by applying averages, representative values, or other referential
values to (i) and (ii).

40Additionally, the following points must be taken into account when selecting a primary unit.
 It is preferable to use a common primary unit (or primary units that vary to only a limited degree)when comparing the CO2 emissions suppression amounts of different IT solutions.
 Some primary unit values may be subject to updates (e.g., CO2 emissions coefficient for grid
power). When using such primary units, it is preferable to select the appropriate primary unit bytaking into account the point in time for which you seek to calculate the effects, as well as the
purpose for which the calculation results will be used.
For example, when comparing changes in the effects of the same solution over time, steps such as using
specific primary units for different points in time will be needed.
(4) Calculating the effects
Based on the information gathered, calculate the effects of each of the components according to theformulae that were finalized in step (2). Then, calculate the sum of all effects, paying close attention to thevalues' signs.

41