Pathfinder Framework
Guidance for the Accounting
and Exchange of Product Life
Cycle Emissions
Version 2.0

Powered by

Collaborators
WBCSD would like to thank the following companies and organizations that have supported andcontributed to the development of the Pathfinder Framework:

THE OPEN GROUP

FORUM

Knowledge partner

Technology partner

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions

2

Contents
Foreword

4

5. Assurance and verification
5.1

Context

43

5.2

Objectives and scope441.

Introduction

1.1

The challenge

6

5.3

Assurance roadmap

45

1.2

The solution

7

5.4

Evidence

50

1.3

The opportunity

8

5.5

Requirements for SMEs

51

5.6

Process and reporting

52

5.7

Special cases

53

2. Overview of general setup
2.1

Purpose and application

9

2.2

General structure

10

6. Data exchange

2.3

Approach10

6.1

Required elements for data exchange

54

2.4

Focus

11

6.2

Connecting through technology

56

2.5

Terminology

12

6.3

2.6

Summary of guidelines

13

Incorporating product-level data into
Scope 3 calculations

57

Appendix

3. Emissions accounting
3.1

Existing methods and standards

16

3.2

Scope and boundary

20

3.3

Guidance for calculating PCFs

22

4. Data integrity
4.1

Data sources and hierarchy

36

4.2

Data reliability

39

A

Terms and definitions (glossary) 

58

BPCF questionnaire

62

C

Existing standards and guidance

67

D

Assurance evidence pack

68

E

Scope 3 upstream accounting methods 72

EndnotesPathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions

74

3

Foreword
The world has already warmed by 1.1°C and is falling behind inlimiting the temperature increase to 1.5°C. Accurate and transparent
accounting of greenhouse gas emissions and their abatement
within the private sector is fundamental to preventing backsliding
on commitments and pledges aligned with the 1.5°C pathway.
There are still some significant hurdles todecarbonization, though, even for the most driven
organizations. Reduction of Scope 3 emissions
is a critical challenge, as they typically accountfor the largest and most diverse share of acompany’s footprint.

exchange primary data-based product carbon
footprints (PCFs) across the value chain. The
requirements captured in it seek to further enhancedata reliability and consistency across industries
and value chains, for instance via the inclusion ofa verification and assurance roadmap.

Due to a lack of transparency across value chains,these emissions are also the hardest to quantify andtackle. Solving this Scope 3 emissions challenge
presents one of the most powerful levers toaccelerate decarbonization.

It is important to emphasize that the goal toaccelerate decarbonization of value chainscannot be solved by individual actors in isolation.
It requires an aligned, coordinated, and open
approach, driven jointly by stakeholders acrossall industries and value chains, including SMEs.
Radical collaboration is key.

Regulators are beginning to recognize the power
and necessity of addressing the global Scope
3 challenge. The European Commission’s Corporate
Reporting Sustainability Directive (CSRD) requires
companies to disclose the percentage of primarydata used to calculate Scope 3 emissions. Whileas recently as October 2022, the International
Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) voted
unanimously to require company Scope 3 emissions
disclosures in addition to Scopes 1 and 2.
In order to achieve transparency, we need detailed
guidelines to consistently calculate and accountfor emissions at the most granular level, as well as
infrastructure to exchange the resulting verified
primary data across value chains.
As both a global business membership-basedorganization and co-convenor of the Greenhouse
Gas (GHG) Protocol, WBCSD has long understoodthese challenges and recognized the critical needfor Scope 3 emissions transparency. That’s why, incollaboration with 50 companies, standard setters,
regulatory bodies, and industry initiatives, we havedeveloped the Pathfinder Framework.
The Pathfinder Framework builds on the longstanding work with the World Resources Instituteunder the GHG Protocol to take a cross-sectoral
approach to help organizations develop andWe commend the large and growing number ofcompanies, organizations, and institutions that havecollaborated on and contributed to this Framework.
Thank you to those who provided valuable feedback
and insights, as well as McKinsey & Company, ourknowledge partner, and SINE, our tech collaborator.
We urge you to keep these actions up and ensure weall continue to join forces on this essential topic.
The uptake of the Pathfinder Framework represents
significant progress in solving the Scope 3 emissions
challenge. Now is the time for targeted and bold
action: we invite you to start applying the Framework
within your organizations and to ask key stakeholders
within your value chains to do the same.

Dominic Waughray
Executive Vice President, WBCSD

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions

4

The best timeto accurately
account for,exchange,
and reduce
Scope 3 emissions
was yesterday.
The second best
time is now.

1. Introduction
Current efforts to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are
insufficient to meet the Paris Agreement targets. Accounting forand exchanging reliable and consistent GHG emissions data is key
to supercharging decarbonization efforts.
1.1 The challenge
Accurately quantifying and reducing emissions,particularly those in value chains (Scope 3), are key
enablers for changing the global warming trajectory
and avoiding the worst effects of climate change.
However, while Scope 3 emissions often constitutethe lion’s share of companies’ carbon footprints(Figure 1)1, organizations are still struggling toadequately understand and address these. Whenaccounting for Scope 3 emissions, companies share
a common challenge: a lack of sufficiently granular,
accurate, and verified primary product-level data.
This is caused by issues with emissions accounting
and data sharing as well as by the increasingly
complex ecosystem of stakeholders emerging in theemissions accounting space.

Data accounting: Room forinterpretation and inconsistency inexisting methods and standards
Many companies lack Scope 3 primary data toaccurately account for emissions arising within theirvalue chains. Secondary emission factor databases
are used to fill this gap, though the average or typical
data these provide are often not specific enough tomeet the data needs of companies, which range fromclimate risk assessments to the implementation andtracking of decarbonization strategies and targets.
High-quality product life cycle accounting, considered
the most accurate approach to account for value
chain emissions, is also inhibited by the inconsistentuse of approaches to account for product emissions,with existing standards and protocols (such as ISO,GHG Protocol, or Product Environmental Footprint
standards) leaving room for interpretation.

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions

6

Figure 1: Percent of total Scope 1 to 3 emissions, 2019, based on self-reported CDP data

Cement and concrete1882

Air transport

22

78

Pharma26

74

Printing and packaging business

25

75

Fertilizera

79

21

Chemicals81

19

Oil and gas

892

Fast-moving consumer goods

793

Mining5

95

Apparel595

Retail4

96

Automotive

2

98

Scope 1 and 2

Scope 3a. Includes agricultural chemicals.
Source: McKinsey & Company analysis, drawing on select data from CDP and McKinsey’s Catalyst Zero solution

Accounting standards and guidelines that are notfully consistent create challenges for a streamlined,scalable application. This results in inconsistentaccounting, which in turn leads to insufficientreporting and exchange of emissions data.

Data access: Complex value chainsand lack of interoperability between
technology2 solutions
While value chains often span multiple(international) stakeholders from different
industries, most corporate systems are not able toexchange GHG emissions data with other systems(and across company boundaries), resulting in hightransaction costs for manual efforts in the formof surveys or spreadsheets. New GHG accounting
technology and data exchange platforms, while astep in the right direction, still lack one essential
feature: interoperability, i.e., the ability to connect toone another, exchange information, and understandthe information exchanged (or “speak the samelanguage”). In practice, this means companies will
typically only be able to access each other’s data if
they use the same technology solution.

Ecosystem alignment: Growing numberof stakeholders seeking to tackle thetransparency challenge
There has been significant momentum to resolve
the challenges around Scope 3 emissions.

Regulatory bodies (e.g., US Securities and Exchange
Commission, European Commission, International
Sustainability Standards Board) and companies aresearching for and developing individual approaches,
industry-focused associations are addressing theirmembers’ most pressing concerns, and the broader
ecosystem has also started identifying the role it canplay. A lack of integration and harmonization acrossthe ecosystem is a major roadblock to transparency,
given that no single company, association, or
ecosystem stakeholder can achieve this without
the others.
As a result of the above challenges, companies’
Scope 3 decarbonization efforts are inhibited. It is
impossible to track and reduce Scope 3 emissions
at the scale needed without determining andunderstanding emissions associated with products
and services that are transferred from one company
to the next in the value chain.

1.2 The solution
An infrastructure developed in close collaboration
with stakeholders is needed to enable the consistentcalculation and exchange of accurate, primary, andverified product-level emissions data across all value
chains and industries.
This infrastructure should be comprised ofstandardized approaches and common guidelines
across both methodology (product-level emissions

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions

7

accounting) and technology (product-levelemissions data exchange):•

On the methodology side, this is to ensure
product-level emissions are calculated in acomparable and consistent manner, resulting inaccurate, high-quality data.

•

On the technology side, there is a need forcommon data exchange guidelines andtechnical specifications for interoperable dataexchange across global companies and complex
value chains.

Furthermore, the creation of a free and open digital
network will significantly facilitate data exchange(upstream to downstream, but also downstream to
upstream) and strengthen quality and credibility.

1.3 The opportunity
Access to more granular data can unlock a host ofuse cases that reinforce internal business decision
making and support corporate accountability.
Transparency can, for example, positively influence
the bottom line, mitigate (climate-related) risk, or
drive competitive advantages.

Specifically, PACT:•

Creates convergence and harmonization on
upstream Scope 3 emissions transparency
to ensure an integrated and aligned global
ecosystem with close collaboration between
all stakeholders•

Establishes the Pathfinder Framework(methodological guidelines) by building on the
GHG Protocol and other existing standards
to enable consistent product-level emissions
accounting and primary data exchange•

Defines the Pathfinder Network (common
technology infrastructure) for the secureexchange of product-level emissions data
across technology solutions and dataexchange platforms, linking global value chains
and industries.

Transparency on carbon data can also set thefoundations for greater transparency on otherenvironmental factors. If organizations are readyto embark on this journey together, the rewards will
be significant—not least for the climate. This work,
therefore, has the potential to be a game changer.

This is precisely why the Partnership for Carbon
Transparency (PACT) was established. PACT seeks
to turn the Scope 3 emissions challenge into an
opportunity for companies and organizations byenabling consistent calculation and exchange ofprimary data of product cradle-to-gate emissions
across value chain partners.

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions8

2. Overview
of general setup
This section gives an overview of the general setup of the
Framework with the aim of easing navigation and providing
essential context.
2.1 Purpose and application
The Pathfinder Framework was created with theaim of addressing one of the key existing carbon
accounting challenges: the exchange of consistent
supplier-specific product carbon footprint (PCF)
data across the value chain. It seeks to help
businesses develop a better understanding of
their value chain emissions by encouraging andguiding the exchange of primary carbon footprint
data across value chains. The Framework builds
on existing frameworks and standards to provide
guidance on accounting, verification, and exchangeof cradle-to-gate PCFs with the aim of creating
more granular, comparable, and consistentemissions data.

The Framework should thus be seen as asupplement to the existing methods and standards
referenced in Section 3.1 and shall be used inconjunction with these. The Framework has beendrafted as a blueprint applicable to different
industries. It, therefore, constitutes a foundation tobuild on to meet additional sector-specific needs. Asalignment in this context is critical, PACT has been
set up to support this process.
While the Framework is designed to be a guidance
document and is therefore voluntary in nature,
its application will lead to greater emissions dataconsistency for all stakeholders across industries.
To further encourage broad application and facilitate
scaling, the Framework has been published openly
for everyone to freely access and use.

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions

9

The Framework should be applied by stakeholders
such as:•Businesses wishing to better understand andexchange the carbon footprint of their products
as well as the products they purchase•

Auditors supporting businesses in the above
endeavor by verifying carbon footprint
data exchanged•

Technology companies creating solutions for the
calculation or exchange of such carbon footprints•

Initiatives driving industry-focused approaches
to data transparency and developing additional
methodological guidance or technologicalsolutions for data exchange in this context•

Policy makers wishing to align their regulations to
PCF methodologies validated and implemented
industry-wide

2.2 General structure
The Pathfinder Framework is divided into three key
parts, which together drive forward the ambition ofcreating more transparency: emissions accounting,creating integrity, and data exchange (Figure 2).
While the first part provides some additional context
and outlines fundamental guardrails for suppliers’
calculation of PCFs by building on existing standards,
part two details key steps in the process toward
creating trust in the data and transparency across thevalue chain. The third part provides details on how
the Pathfinder Framework could be integrated as partof an IT infrastructure to facilitate application of the
Framework and enable the standardized exchange ofemissions data (Section 6).

A summary of key takeaways for each section can befound below (Figure 2).

2.3 Approach
The Pathfinder Framework has been developed
following a collaborative approach and is the result ofan iterative stakeholder consultation process that also
included a pilot testing exercise of the first version of
the Framework (published in November 2021).
This updated version of the Pathfinder Frameworkbuilds on the first version to incorporate further clarity
and additional guidance in the following key areas:
1. Hierarchy for the application of product categoryrules (PCRs)
2. Quality safeguards for PCRs and secondary
data sources
3. More specific PCF accounting guidance on:
a. Exemption rules
b. Allocationc. Biogenic emissions
4. Data quality indicators
5. Assurance and verification roadmap
6. Incorporation of PCFs into Scope 3 inventories
As the development of consistent rules requires sometrial and error, additions or adjustment revisions may
be necessary—e.g., as a result of the pilot testing
and the practical implementation of the guidance orto remain aligned with the evolving industry needsaround emission reduction opportunities and thelandscape of carbon accounting and reporting.

Figure 2: Overview of sections within the Pathfinder Framework

Section 3
Emissionsaccounting

Section 4
Data
integrity

Section 5
Assuranceand verification

Section 6
Data
exchange

Existing methods andstandards

Data sources andhierarchy

Assuranceand verification

Required elements for
PCF data exchange

Scope and boundary

Data reliability

Calculating productcarbon footprints

Connecting throughtechnologya
Incorporating PCFs into
Scope 3 inventories

a. Out of the Scope of the Pathfinder Framework.

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions

10

2.4 Focus
The Framework builds on existing product-levelaccounting standards and contains guidance
for the calculation of cradle-to-gate PCFs tofurther enhance consistency, data integrity, andcomparability. It also covers requirements regarding
the exchange of PCF data, in particular focusing
on data quality requirements and assessment
thereof, verification and assurance of data, and data
elements to be exchanged downstream (Figure 3).

This Framework focuses on emissions and removals
generated during a product’s life cycle and does
not address avoided emissions or actions taken
to mitigate released emissions. This standard
is also not designed to be used for quantifying
GHG reductions from offsets or claims ofcarbon neutrality.

Figure 3: Focus of the Pathfinder Framework

Guidelines for emissions accounting
Relating to existing product standards and methods

Additional elements

 Hierarchy of application

 Hierarchy of allocation approaches

 Unification of relevant approaches

 Approach to secondary data sources Exemption rules

Company A

PCF

Guidelines for data integrity

Company B

PCF

Company C

Guidelines for data exchangea

 Hierarchy of data types

 Temporal validity of exchanged PCFs

 Data quality assessment based on data
quality matrix

 Minimum required data elements forexchange Calculation process for determination ofprimary data share in PCFs
 Assurance and verification guidelines

Exchange of PCFs along the value chain
a. Additional technological guidelines and mechanisms for standardized data exchange have been developed in parallel by the Pathfinder Network(e.g., technical data specifications, company onboarding mechanism, or governance structure for the extension of required data elements).

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions

11

2.5 Terminology
The Pathfinder Framework uses different
terms to differentiate between requirements,
recommendations, and permissible or allowable
options (Table 1).

Additional definitions of frequently used terms
throughout the Framework can be found in theglossary (Appendix A).

Table 1: Pathfinder Framework terminology
TermDefinition“Shall”

Indicates which rules need to be followed by companies applying the Pathfinder Framework“Should”

Indicates which rules are recommendations“May”

Indicates an option that is permissible or allowable

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions

122.6 Summary of guidelines
Table 2: Summary of guidelines

Emissions accounting

3.1
Existing methods andstandards

 The Pathfinder Framework shall be read in conjunction withexisting methods and standards listed in Section 3.1 for theassessment of PCFs
 PCRs or sector-specific rules shall be prioritized for the calculation
and allocation of PCFs
 PCRs shall only be considered valid if they comply with thePathfinder Framework’s quality safeguards
 If multiple PCRs are applicable, companies shall follow the PCR
hierarchy laid out by the Pathfinder Framework Where no regulations or product- or sector-specific rules exist,
companies shall follow the Pathfinder Framework requirements
 For elements not specifically addressed by the Pathfinder
Framework, the PCF calculation shall be compliant with the sectoragnostic standards

3.2

 Companies shall account for all GHGs identified within the GHG
ProtocolScope and boundary Their respective 100-year global warming potential (GWP; including
carbon feedbacks) shall be derived from the latest
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment
Report publication
 Companies shall report cradle-to-gate PCF, comprising all
upstream stages of the product life cycle up to the reporting
company’s gate (including upstream transportation), excluding
downstream emissions from product use and end-of-life
 PCFs shall be exchanged upstream to downstream, providing kg ofCO2e per unit of analysis

3.3
Guidancefor PCFs

3.3.1
Accounting for
product GHG
emissions All attributable processes shall be identified
 Companies shall collect relevant activity data and emission factors
based on identified attributable processes Manufacturing of production equipment, buildings and other capital
goods, business travel by personnel, travel to and from work by
personnel, and research and development activities should not be
included within the boundaries of the PCF, unless materially significant
 Companies shall be able to exclude individual attributable processes
representing less than 1% of the total cradle-to-gate PCF
 In aggregate, exclusions shall represent less than 5% of the total
cradle-to-gate PCF emissions
 If necessary: allocation of emissions to outputs should follow the
Pathfinder Framework allocation hierarchy

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions

13

Table 2: Summary of guidelines (continued)

Emissions accounting

3.3
Guidancefor PCFs

3.3.2
Additional
guidance

Biogenic emissions and removals
 Biogenic emissions and removals associated with the following
shall be calculated and included as part of the “PCF (incl. biogenic
emissions and removals)” metric from 2025 onwards:— Direct land-use change (dLUC)— Land-management-related changes (including land carbon
pools and other non-CO2 emissions related to land
management)— Other biogenic GHG emissions not covered in dLUC and land
management— Biogenic CO2 withdrawals
 The biogenic carbon content of the product (mass of carbon) shallbe calculated and reported separately as part of the data exchangeform GHG emissions associated with indirect land-use change (iLUC)
emissions may be calculated and reported separately as part of thedata exchange form. iLUC emissions shall not be included as partof the PCF
 To support transparency, all of the metrics above shall also bereported separately whether they are included in the PCF or not
Transportation emissions
 Upstream and direct transportation emissions within the cradle-togate boundary, including storage, shall be calculated and includedin the PCF
 Only transportation emissions relating to the fuel—also known as
well-to-wheel emissions—and the energy consumed by storage
facilities shall be included (i.e., the manufacturing of the vehicles
used for the transport of goods shall not be included)
Waste treatment and recycling emissions
 All production emissions shall be allocated to the outputs witheconomic value, rather than to the waste or recyclable material
itself
 Emissions resulting from waste treatment as part of the
production process shall be calculated and included in the PCF ofthe company that manufactured the product and generated thewaste Emissions from the end-of-life stage of the products shall not be
included in the PCF boundary Since the Pathfinder Framework’s boundary is cradle-to-gate, the“recycled content” method should be used for the allocation ofemissions from recycling materials and energy recovery

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions

14

Table 2: Summary of guidelines (continued)

Creating integrity

4.1

 Pathfinder Framework definitions shall be used by companies todetermine the nature of activity data and emissions

Data sources and hierarchy

 Activity data that is used to calculate PCF shall be company-specific Secondary emission factors used shall be compliant with
Pathfinder Framework safeguards
 Companies may use proxy data to bridge minor data gaps

4.2
Data reliability Companies shall either assess the primary data share (PDS) or thedata quality of the PCF until 2025; after 2025, both KPIs shall becalculated and exchanged
 If calculated, the PDS shall be based on both the nature of theactivity data and the emission factors used
 If calculated, the data quality ratings (DQRs) shall use theFramework’s data quality assessment matrix, excluding any inputs
representing less than 5% of the total PCF

Assurance and verification

5
Assurance and verification

 Verification of the PCF shall be done by an independent third party
following the considerations laid out in the Pathfinder
Framework’s roadmap

Data exchange

6.1
Requirements for PCF dataexchange

6.2

 Data owners shall exchange their cradle-to-gate PCFs alongside a
set of minimum required data elements listed by the Pathfinder
Framework downstream in the value chain

 Companies that have calculated their PCFs should exchangethese using the Pathfinder Network

Connecting throughtechnology

6.2
Incorporating product-level
data into Scope 3 calculations

 Companies should incorporate PCFs into their corporate Scope 3
footprints by multiplying the PCFs provided by suppliers with thenumber of product units purchased from them

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions15

3. Emissions
accounting
In order to foster better understanding of emissions, companies
shall calculate their cradle-to-gate PCF and exchange this along
the value chain.
••

ISO standards (14044/40, 14067, 14025)

The Pathfinder Framework builds on existing
methods and standards to provide guidance on which
methods to use and when and to provide additional
guidance where existing guidelines offer flexibility.

•

PCRs by Environmental Product Declaration(the International EPD System) and otherprogram operators

3.1.1

•

Any other product- or sector-specific rules thatare compliant with the GHG Protocol rules

3.1 Existing methods
and standards

Relationship

The Framework leverages and builds on existing
methods and standards for the calculation andallocation of product-level emissions, including:•

Product Life Cycle Accounting and ReportingStandard (GHG Product Standard) andCorporate Value Chain (Scope 3) Standard(GHG Scope 3 Standard) by WBCSD and World
Resources Institute under the GHG Protocol

Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) method
and Product Environmental Footprint Category
Rules (PEFCRs) by the European Commission(see Box 2)

The Pathfinder Framework builds on these withthe aim of ensuring PCF accounting consistency
and comparability. Please refer to Appendix C
for examples.

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions

16

3.1.2 Hierarchy of application
In general, existing methods and standards can beclassified into three types:
1. Product-specific rules (e.g., PEFCRs)
2. Sector-specific rules (e.g., Together for
Sustainability or PlasticsEurope)
3. Overarching sector-agnostic or cross-sectoral
protocols and standards (e.g., GHG Protocol
standards, ISO standards, PEF method)
Application of these rules follows the hierarchy
shown in Figure 4, whereby three scenarios
are envisaged. Please note that product-level
regulations applicable to any given productor company (e.g., depending on the sector
they operate in) should be prioritized overother existing methods and standards.

Figure 4: Prioritization of methods and standards
1

2

3

Product-specific rules

Sector-specific rulesa

Cross-sectoral standardsb

Most prescriptive, productspecific guidelines (e.g.,
PEFCRs or PCRs) compliant
with PCR quality safeguards

Sector-specific guidelines built
on recognized standards tocater to sectoral specificities

Most-used guidelines inpractice, but not sufficiently
specific (e.g., GHG ProductStandard, ISO 14067, PEF)

+ Pathfinder Framework requirements

a. Sector-specific rules should align with Pathfinder Framework requirements and build from them. In cases where sectoral guidance does not
fully align, aspects not in alignment should be highlighted.
b. Elements specifically addressed by the Pathfinder Framework (e.g., allocation) shall be prioritized over cross-sectoral standards.

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions

17

Product-specific rules exist•

According to ISO 14067, 3 a PCR is a “set of specificrules, requirements and guidelines for carbon
footprint of a product or partial carbon footprint of a
product quantification and communication for one ormore product categories.”

PCRs shall be reviewed at least every five years
to ensure they are up to date with the latest
methodological developments, standards, andmarket expectations.

•

PCRs shall be applicable to the geography where
the product is being marketed or produced.

Where product-specific rules exist, their application
should always be prioritized for the cradle-to-gate
PCF calculation, as they provide the most detailed
guidance in relation to a specific product and hence
can contribute to increasing the accuracy andconsistency of data exchanged across value chains.4
PCRs will most likely overlap with the requirementsof Section 3.3 of this document. In such cases, in linewith the hierarchy, the PCRs should be prioritized.
To ensure robustness and reliability, only PCRs
meeting the following safeguards shall beconsidered valid for the purpose of this guidance:•

PCRs shall be developed in accordance with the
ISO 14000 series or other cross-sectoral guidance
to be considered an eligible PCR.

•

PCRs shall be developed through amultistakeholder process and independently
peer reviewed.

Please note, in some cases, the methodology
presented by a PCR may be relevant and appropriate
for a given product while their accompanying
databases may not be. For example, the methodology
presented by a PEFCR may be relevant for a productmanufactured in a non-European region, whereas theEuropean data sets may not be the most accurate
for that given region. In such cases, companies shallcommunicate whether a company has followed only
the methodological requirements of a PCR but not
the accompanying data set.
Sector-specific rules exist
Where no product-specific rules exist, companies
shall prioritize the use of sector-specific rules built
on cross-sectoral standards (i.e., ISO, GHG Protocol,PEF) for the calculation of PCFs. Please note thatthe development of new sector-specific guidanceshould build on and seek alignment with the proposed
Pathfinder Framework requirements and further refinethem to cater to sectoral specificities (e.g., Together
for Sustainability guidance for the chemical sector).5

Box 1: Hierarchy of PCRs
While the aim of PCRs is to provide more granular
product-specific guidance to facilitate accuracy
and consistency, in some instances several
PCRs compliant with the quality safeguards may
exist for a product or product category (e.g., two
PCRs covering the same product but in different
regions). The applicability of these different
PCRs for companies may vary depending on
the purpose behind the development of the
PCF. For example, a region-specific PCR may
be able to better capture nuances around the
manufacturing process of a product in a given
region, while a PCR from a global operating
association may be better suited to ensuringaccounting consistency worldwide. For the
purpose of this guidance, companies should thusbase their choices on the following hierarchy:
1. If the calculation is to be done for compliancepurposes, PCRs’ compliance with theregulation should be followed (e.g., PEFCRs).

2. If there is a global sector-specific initiative
validating PCRs, these should be prioritized(e.g., TfS, Catena-X).
3. If the calculation is to be done for commercial
purposes and no sector-specific guidanceon PCRs exists, companies should base their
PCR choice on the market in which the productis intended to be manufactured or sold. For
instance, if it is intended for the global market,
companies should prioritize PCRs from global
program operators (e.g., EPD International
Program), but if the intended market is a specificcountry or region, companies should prioritize
PCRs applicable to that given geography (e.g.,
PEFCRs being used for EU market).
4. If the intended market is unclear, companies
should prioritize more globally accepted PCRs
to favor consistency and broader acceptance.

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions

18

Only overarching rules exist
Where no product- or sector-specific rules exist,
companies shall follow the Pathfinder Framework
accounting requirements for more consistency of
PCF calculation.
For elements not explicitly addressed by the
Pathfinder Framework, the methodology used
to calculate PCFs shall be compliant with thecross-sectoral standards (GHG Product Standard,
ISO 14067, or PEF).

All of the above standards shall be compliant
with ISO 14040 and ISO 14044, which provide
foundational requirements and guidelines for life
cycle assessments (LCAs) and may be consulted asa reference. In parallel, businesses are encouraged
to develop more detailed product or sectoral rules
in collaboration with other stakeholders to address
any sector- or product-specific needs and drive
further consistency in the PCF calculation of any
given product.6

Box 2: EU PEF method and PEFCRs
Background

Use

While the demand for environmental declarations
at the product (and organizational) level has
increased in recent years, so far there has notbeen a single, widely adopted approach, resulting
in a lack of comparability and consistency. The
European Commission has sought to address
this gap through the development of accounting
methodologies captured within the PEF and theaccompanying PEFCRs.a

From 2013 to 2019, the European Commission
led a pilot phase for 26 product categories. The
development phase is now entering a transition
stage where the PEFCRs will be implemented ona larger scale, which will determine if and how the
PEFCRs will come into effect or be required by
law within the European Union.

As defined in the PEFCR Guidance:•

The PEF is based on an LCA method toquantify the relevant environmental impacts
of products (goods or services).

•

PEFCRs are rules based on product category
and life cycle rules that complement
general methodological guidance for
PEF assessments by providing further
specifications at the level of a specificproduct category.

To date, PEFCRs have been developed for morethan 20 different product categories, following
a common process defined by the PEF method
and, whenever possible, building on existing work
such as PCRs.

Link to the Pathfinder Framework
The Pathfinder Framework promotes theapplication of PEFCRs where available. Notably,
PEF methodology and PEFCRs include a setof overarching and product-specific rules,
definitions, and proprietary secondary data
sources, as well as further life cycle impact
categories, which are an addition to the generalframework stipulated here. In order to meet theadditional requirements from the PEF and PEFCR
methodology, companies should refer to the PEF
method and respective PEFCR documentation.
Any developments by the European
Commission in this context will be closely
monitored to evaluate and assess the further
implementation of PEF and PEFCR requirements
into future iterations of this Framework.

The objective of these PEFCRs is to help
companies identify the most significant
environmental impacts and activities throughout
the life cycle of a given product. In addition, theuse of these common PEFCRs will increase thecomparability and consistency of results.
a. Equivalent methods have been developed with regard to organizational declarations.

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions19

3.2 Scope and boundary
Understanding the Scope and boundary of thisFramework is an essential starting point for the
calculation of PCFs.

3.2.1 LCA approach
The Pathfinder Framework is based on theattributional LCA approach. This approachseeks to determine the ex post environmental
impacts associated with a product’s life cycle.
GHG emissions are attributed to a specific unitof a product by adding up the emissions of all
attributable processes along its life cycle. A PCF
represents the potential life cycle impact of a
product on the environmental impact category ofclimate change. This impact category considers thatdifferent GHGs have different impacts on climatechange, expressed as their GWP with the unit kg
CO2 equivalent (CO2e).7
The basic equation to calculate GHG emissions(CO2e) for activity data is:
Kg CO2e = Activity
× Emission × GWP
data
factor(kg CO2e/(amount(kg GHG/
kg GHG)of activity)
unit ofactivity)

3.2.2 Focus on GHG emissions
The Pathfinder Framework provides themethodological framework for studying GHG
emissions. Companies shall account for the GHGs
identified within the GHG Protocol titled “Required
Greenhouse Gases in Inventories; Accounting andReporting Standard Amendment.”8The list includes carbon dioxide (CO2), methane(CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons(HFCs), perfluorinated compounds, sulfur
hexafluoride (SF6), nitrogen trifluoride(NF3), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), fluorinatedethers (HFEs), perfluoropolyethers (e.g.,
PFPEs), chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), andhydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs). Following
common practice, the global warming impact ofthese gases can be converted into and expressed
as CO2e. Their respective characterization factors(100-year GWP, including carbon feedbacks) shallbe derived from the latest version of the IPCC
Assessment Report publication.9

3.2.3 Scope and boundary of thePathfinder Framework
The life cycle of a product is composed of fivestages: (1) material acquisition and preprocessing,(2) production, (3) distribution and storage, (4)product use, and (5) end-of-life.
The boundary of the Pathfinder Framework—i.e., theprocesses and their associated GHG emissions thatshall be accounted for and exchanged as part of the
PCF by a company—is a cradle-to-gate PCF, covering
stages 1 to 3 above.
This includes all the attributable upstream and directemissions10 of a product, including all upstream
transportation activities.11 The life cycle emissions
that shall be accounted for in this cradle-to-gate
PCF exclude downstream emissions related to the
product use and end-of-life stages.
When accounting for emissions, companies shallfurther define their cradle-to-gate boundary byorganizing the attributable process of their studied
product into the defined life cycle stages (Figure 5).
In calculating cradle-to-gate PCFs, which are inturn shared downstream with the next value chain
actor, the entire value chain of products and carbon
emissions can be linked up, ultimately creating
greater transparency for businesses and end
consumers alike.
The selected system boundary facilitates theintegration of received PCF data from suppliers into
own PCF calculation and downstream sharing withrespective customers. To increase the transparencyof data exchange and to prevent double counting
or excluding emissions, the Pathfinder Framework
requires companies to report on the attributional
processes included in each of the life cycle
stages covered by the PCF. The requirements andrecommendations for data exchange are explained
further in Section 6 and Appendix B.

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions

20

Figure 5: Life cycle stages included in the boundary of the Pathfinder Framework

Material acquisitionand preprocessing

NatureReturned tonatureRecycled orreused(circularity)

End-of-life

Production

Distribution
and storagea

Product use

Not included in Pathfinder Framework boundary

Included in Pathfinder Framework boundary

a. Contains product storage and shipping processes, including transportation within and between these life cycle stages.

3.2.4 Unit of analysis
The unit of analysis of the product serves as the basis
for all data collection and inventory results. Final PCF
inventory results shall thus be disclosed as kg of CO2e

per unit of analysis (e.g., GHG emissions per 1 kg or
1 liter of product). Please note that cradle-to-gate
PCFs typically use a “declared unit” approach (Box 3).

Box 3: Distinction between functional and declared unit
LCA inventory results are provided in terms offunctional units.a A functional unit describes thefunction of a product in question. For example, fora laundry detergent, the functional unit could be
defined as “washing 4.5 kg of dry fabric with therecommended dosage with medium-hard water.”
Understanding the functional unit is essential forcomparability between products with the samefunction, as it provides the reference to which the
input (materials and energy) and output (such as
products, by-products, waste) are quantified.

Intermediate products, i.e., products that will still
be processed further to create a final product,can, however, have several functions based on
their eventual end use. In this case (and where an
LCA does not cover the full life cycle), the term
declared unit—typically referring to the physicalquantity of a product, e.g., “1 liter of liquid laundry
detergent with 30 percent water content”—can beused instead.

a. This term is used in ISO 14044 and PEFCRs.

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions21

3.3 Guidance for calculating PCFs
This section provides guidance on how to calculate a PCF, which should be used in conjunction with existing
methods and standards. Companies calculating their PCF in accordance with a PCR or sector-specificguidance may skip this section.

Figure 6: Overview of steps for PCF calculation

1aIdentify all
attributableprocesses andcollect primaryactivity data

Activity data: material and energy inputs, purchased productcomponents, and other direct emissions

1b

Direct activities

Upstream activities

If available: primary emission
factors

If available: cradle-to-gate PCF(primary emission factora)

Otherwise: emission factors fromsecondary databasesb

Otherwise: emission factors fromsecondary databasesb

Categorize
data
1cCollect
emissionfactors2

Activity
emissions

Activity data

emission factors

Activity
emissions

Activity
emissions

Activity
emissions

Calculate andadd emissions

Directemissions
Multi-input/output unit process emissions

3

Depending on type ofprocessesc

Allocateemissions(if necessary)

Share PCF

PCF
From internal systems

From suppliers

Emissions from different activities added upa. E.g., x kgCO2 per y tons of steel.
b. Using secondary database(s) according to agreed upon guidelines.
c. Companies shall avoid allocation whenever possible.

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions22

If packaging is included, it should be visible in thedescription of the product.

3.3.1 Accounting for product GHG
emissions

To determine multi-input/output unit process
emissions, relevant activity data and emission
factors based on a company’s own processes (direct
activities) as well as the relevant material or energy
input flows from suppliers upstream (upstream
activities) shall be collected.

The following steps are used in the calculation of a
PCF: (i) identifying and collecting necessary data,(ii) calculating emissions using relevant emission
factors, and (iii) allocating these to specific products
or materials (Figure 7).

Inventory data shall be compiled with regard to thefollowing processes:

3.3.1.1 Data identification
First, all the attributable processes linked with
the Scope identified in Section 3.2 (cradle-togate) should be identified. This guidance defines“attributable processes” as any processes associatedwith services, materials, or energy flows that become,make, or carry a product throughout its life cycle.

•

Material inputs (e.g., 10 tons of steel, 300 kg
of aluminum)•

Energy inputs12 such as purchased electricity,cooling, and heating (e.g., 100 kWh)•In alignment with the GHG Product Standard, only
those processes that are immediately related to the
production of the studied product are part of theassessment. In light of this, the following activities
should not be included within the boundaries of the
PCF, unless materially significant for the reference
product: manufacturing of production equipment,
buildings and other capital goods, business travelby personnel, travel to and from work by personnel,
and research and development activities. While
all of these activities are linked to company
operations and should be accounted for withincompanies’ Scope 3 inventories in line with the GHG
Scope 3 Standard, they do not tend to be specificto any given product and should therefore not be
included in PCFs unless they represent a material
percentage of the PCF (e.g., in the case of wind or
solar power generation, where the building of thepanels and turbines is not negligible on a per kWhbasis over the lifetime of the equipment).

Purchased materials or feedstocks (e.g.,chemical component, unit, amount)•

Inbound transport and storage-related inputs(e.g., 10 km transport of 10 kg of chemicalcomponents from supplier to manufacturing site
in a diesel-fueled truck)•

Production waste and treatment (e.g., 10 kg ofcardboard waste sent to landfill)•

Any other direct emissions not included (e.g.,
CO2 formed during the production process)

After identification of the data, all data shall be
categorized as direct or upstream activities (Figure 6).
3.3.1.2 Exemption rules
Companies should seek to incorporate all
attributable cradle-to-gate processes into their PCF.
However, there are instances where the lack of data
availability or the effort and resources required to
calculate certain attributable processes can far
outweigh their overall GHG contribution to the PCF. In
these cases, companies can exclude the processes
if they disclose and justify these, based on theirdegree of significance to the final PCF.

In accordance with the cut-off criteria defined in
Section 3.3.1.2 of this guidance, packaging may
be excluded or included in the PCF calculation,
depending on its contribution to the PCF.

Figure 7: General steps for the calculation of a PCF
1

2

3

Data identification

Calculation

Allocation (if necessary)

Identify all attributable processes
and collect primary activity dataand emission factors (if notavailable, use secondary data)

Calculate total emissions basedon activity data and emission
factors (CO2e) per activity data

Partition emissions among
multiple outputs to calculate
PCF on product level(CO2e/declared unit)

Section 3.3.1.1 and Section 3.3.1.2

Section 3.3.1.3

Section 3.3.1.4

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions

23

To do so, companies can conduct an initial screeningof the product to identify all attributable processes
and their contribution to the total PCF to understandwhether, in the most conservative case, a process
may be deemed insignificant (e.g., via a sensitivity
analysis). For this purpose, companies shall only beable to exclude individual attributable processes
representing less than 1 percent of the total cradleto-gate PCF.
In aggregate, the sum of excluded processes (inpercentage contribution to total PCF) shall be lessthan 5 percent of the total estimated cradle-to-gate
PCF emissions.13
Should no major product modifications occur,
companies can employ the results of the initial
screening in future iterations.
To justify any exclusions, companies shall provide
the percentage of emissions excluded from the PCF
as well as a description of the excluded attributableprocesses and the estimation technique used todetermine insignificance.

3.3.1.3 Calculation
GHG emissions arising from a process are determinedby multiplying activity data with the relevant emission
factor (CO2e per declared unit). The resulting activity
emissions can then be added to direct emissions, ifany, to obtain multi-input/output unit process GHG
emissions (Figure 6). Emission factors, used to convert
a given amount of activity data into GHG emissions,
are not to be mistaken for characterization factors,
which in the context of emissions assessments referto the 100-year GWP of the GHGs included in theassessment based on a CO2e amount (e.g., the GWP ofmethane is 22 kg CO2e/kg).
Relevant emission factors can be obtained in
two ways:•

Primary emission factors. Where such emission
factors are available directly from suppliers orinternal processes, these shall be used (e.g., blast
furnace of gas mix emissions measured directlyon site).14•

Secondary emission factors. Where no such data
is available, secondary sources compliant withthe safeguards listed in Section 4.1.3.2 shall be
used to find the most suitable emission factors.

Please refer to Section 4.1.1 for a more detailed
definition of the different types of emission factors.

Example: Case study demonstrating a justified exclusion
Consider a process for which no primary or
secondary data is available on material input X.
The company estimates that even if material X
has the highest possible GHG intensity basedon a threshold of GHG intensity for proxy data,
its impact, based on the total amount present

in the product, does not exceed 1 percent of the
carbon emissions impact; therefore, the material
input is a justified exclusion as long as the total
5 percent threshold including all other exclusions
is not surpassed.

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions24

3.3.1.4 Allocation
In the context of this guidance, allocation means
splitting multi-input/output processes into single
output unit processes by using physical, economic,
or other criteria to partition the emissions between
the product system being studied (also known as
the studied product) and one or more other productsystems (also known as co-products).15 When
outputs include both co-products and waste (i.e.,
outputs with no economic value), the emissions shall
only be allocated to co-products.
While there are methods to avoid it, allocation is
unavoidable in many cases. In the absence of a PCRor sector-specific guidance on allocation rules,
companies should allocate the emissions in linewith the hierarchy presented by recognized crosssectoral standards (i.e., ISO 14067 and the GHG
Protocol) and reflected in Table 3. These standards

state that companies are to prioritize physicalallocation if an underlying physical relationshipcan be established and is applicable, or to allocate
the inputs and emissions based on economic orother established and justifiable relationships if an
underlying physical relationship does not exist or is
not applicable (Table 3).
However, the flexibility these standards provide
means that in many cases it may not be clear
whether a physical relationship is applicable or not(see examples on Figure 9, 10, and 11). Companies
may therefore struggle to determine if an economic
relationship should be prioritized instead. To
promote a consistent decision-making process andminimize the room for interpretation, the Pathfinder
Framework has developed a cross-industry
allocation hierarchy (Figure 8) that companies
should follow to increase the consistency andautomatization of PCF calculations.

Table 3: Allocation methods presented by ISO and the GHG Protocol by order of priority
MethodDefinition

Physical
allocation

Allocating the inputs and emissions of the system based on an underlying physical relationshipbetween the quantity of product and co-product and the quantity of emissions generated

Economic
allocation

Allocating the inputs and emissions to the product and co-product(s) based on the market valueof each when they exit the common process

Other
relationships

Allocating the inputs and emissions to the product and co-products(s) based on established andjustifiable relationships other than physical or economic

Source: GHG Protocol

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions

25

Figure 8: Pathfinder Framework decision-making tree to consistently implement ISO and GHG Protocol
allocation rules

Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

Step 4

Avoid allocation

Prioritize PCRs
and sectoral
guidance

Determine ratioof economic
value

Select most suitable allocation

Yes Apply
process
subdivision
Is process
subdivision
possible?

Follow PCR
Yes or sectorApproveda
PCRs or
sectorNo specificguidance?

specific
guidance

Is there adominant,
identifiable
No substituteproduct?b

Apply
Yes system
expansion
via
substitution≤5

Ratio of theeconomic
value of theNo
co-products?

Is there anunderlying
physicalrelationshipbetween the
co-products?

ApplyphysicalYes allocation
based onmost suitablephysicalrelationshipc

No

>5

Apply
economic
allocation forco-products

Use
economic or
alternative
allocation

Best-case approacha. Sector-specific guidance or PCRs shall be used only if compliant with quality safeguards presented in Section 3.1.2, or if approved and requiredby sector-specific standards aligned to the Pathfinder Framework.
b. System expansion via substitution should only be used if there is a dominant, identifiable displaced product and production path for the
displaced product based on sector consensus.
c. If in doubt, mass allocation should be prioritized, but there are instances where other allocation factors may be more suitable (e.g., liters forliquids, energy content for energy).

Step 1: Avoid allocation

Step 2: Prioritize PCRs and sector-specific guidance

In accordance with the LCA International Standard(ISO 14044) and the GHG Product Standard,
allocation shall be avoided whenever possible byusing process subdivision, i.e., disaggregating
the common processes into subprocesses that
separately produce the studied product andco-products. The common process needs to be
subdivided only to the point at which the studied
product and its function are isolated, not to thepoint that every co-product has a unique anddistinct process.16

When avoiding allocation is not possible, allocation
methods in line with published and accepted
sector-specific guidance or PCR fulfilling the quality
requirements listed in Section 3.1.2 shall be prioritized.
When more than one PCR exists for a product or
product category, priority shall be determined in linewith the hierarchy specified in Section 3.1.2.
Should no PCR or sector-specific guidelines exist,
companies shall apply system expansion via direct
substitution only when companies have “direct
knowledge of the function and eventual use of the
co-product.”17 This entails defining a dominant,identifiable displaced product and production
path for the displaced product for which sector
consensus exists.

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions

26

Step 3: Determine the ratio of economic value
When allocation cannot be avoided and there are no
established product- or sector-specific allocation
rules, companies shall calculate the ratio of theeconomic value of the co-products. To calculate
the ratio, the highest value product is placed in the
numerator, regardless of whether it is the reference
product or not. This ratio is employed in the next step
to determine the most suitable allocation approach.
The underlying logic is that, in the case of highdiscrepancy in the market value of product comingfrom a common process (i.e., economic value ratio
higher than five), the product(s) with significantly
higher economic value can be considered the“driver(s) of the process.” In other words, theproduction would not take place in the absence ofthe product with the highest economic value.
The economic value of products should be
calculated based on stable market prices. In caseof high year-on-year price fluctuation (i.e., over
100 percent), companies should use the average
market price of products over ideally the last five

years, and, if not possible, over the last three years
in order to reduce the economic value fluctuations.
If market prices are not available, other financial
metrics (e.g., costs) may be used as long as they are
justified and transparently communicated.
Step 4: Select the most suitable allocation method
If the calculated economic value ratio is equal to or
lower than five,18 companies should apply physicalallocation between the studied product and theco-product(s). That is, allocating the inputs andemissions of the system based on the most relevant
underlying physical relationship between the productand co-product. For this, the physical property usedas the allocation factor should most accuratelyreflect the underlying physical relationship between
the studied product and co-product. Should nounderlying physical relationship exist, companies
shall allocate emissions based on the economic
value and amount of each co-product that is
produced or based on alternative factors establishedby the sector, company, academia, or other sourcesof conventions and norms (Figure 9).

Figure 9: Example of physical allocation based on mass

Case study: Factory produces two different clothing garments on equal measure but is unable to perform process
subdivision. No PCRs exist. Our studied garment weighs 0.5 kg and has an economic value of $2, while theco-product weighs 1 kg and has an economic value of $3. There are 10 tCO2e to be allocated.
Applyphysical
allocation
based onmost suitablephysicalrelationship

Yes Apply
process
subdivision
Is process
subdivision
possible?

Approved
PCRs or
sectorNo specificguidance?

Follow PCR
Yes or sectorspecificguidance

Is there adominant,
identifiable
No substituteproduct?

Yes
Apply
Yes system
expansion
via
substitution≤5

Ratio of theeconomic
value of the
No co-products?
3÷2 = 1.5
>5

Is there anunderlying
physicalrelationshipbetween the
co-products?

Studiedgarment =(0.5÷1.5)×10= 3.33 tCO2e
of factory
GHG
emissions
allocated

Yes, mass

Co-product:(1÷1.5)×10 =6.66 tCO2e

Apply
economic
allocation forco-products

Use
economic or
alternative
allocation

No

Path followed

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions

27

When the calculated economic value ratio ishigher than five, companies shall directly apply an
economic allocation between the studied productand the co-product(s). That is, allocating the inputs
and emissions to the product and co-product(s)based on the economic value and the amount ofeach that is produced when they exit the common
process (see Step 3 for more detailed guidance on
how to calculate the economic value) (Figure 10).

Figure 10: Example of economic allocation

Case study: Lobster fishing company has caught significant amounts of fish (by-catch) alongside lobsters during
the studied year. When seeking to allocate 500 tCO2e emissions associated with the yearly activity, they account for
10 t of by-catch and 2 t of lobster (our studied product). A lobster’s economic value is $3/t, compared to $0.5/t forthe by-catch.

Yes Apply
process
subdivision
Is process
subdivision
possible?

Approved
PCRs or
sectorNo specificguidance?

Follow PCR
Yes or sectorspecificguidance

Is there adominant,
identifiable
No substituteproduct?

Apply
Yes system
expansion
via
substitution

Ratio of theeconomic
value of the
No co-products?
3÷0.5 = 6

≤5

Is there anunderlying
physicalrelationshipbetween the
co-products?

ApplyphysicalYes allocation
based onmost suitablephysicalrelationshipNo

Useeconomic or
alternative
allocation

Apply economic allocation forco-products

Path followed

Lobster =3×2
×500 = 272.7 tCO2e
3×2+0.5×10>5
By-catch =0.5×10×500 = 227.3 tCO2e
3×2+0.5×10

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions

28

Allocation with more than one co-productIn the case of more than one co-product, theeconomic value ratio shall be calculated based on theratio between the highest valued and the lower valued
co-product, regardless of whether that includes
the studied product. This approach aims to ensure
consistency in the allocation followed regardlessof which product becomes the studied product.
Similar to above, if the difference between the highest
and lowest valued co-products is lower than five,emissions shall be allocated following physicalallocation if possible, and economic or alternative
allocations if not possible. See Figure 11 below for amore visual representation of this process.
Regardless of which allocation methods areused to avoid or perform allocation, companies
shall disclose and justify these, including why themethods and factors most accurately reflect thestudied product’s or co-product’s contribution to thecommon process’ total emissions.

Figure 11: Example of allocation with more than one co-product

Case study: Mining company extracts and sells three products from a single mine. Process subdivision is notpossible, and no PCRs are available. Studied product’s economic value is $500 M/t and has a mass of 1.5t; it has
two co-products with values of $10 M/t and 30 t (co-product A) and $400 M/t and 0.5 t (co-product B), respectively.
There are 10,000 tCO2e to be allocated.

Yes Apply
process
subdivision
Is process
subdivision
possible?

Approved
PCRs or
sectorNo specificguidance?

Follow PCR
Yes or sectorspecificguidance

Is there adominant,
identifiable
No substituteproduct?

Apply
Yes system
expansion
via
substitution

Ratio of theeconomic
value of the
No co-products?
500÷10 = 50

≤5

Is there anunderlying
physicalrelationshipbetween the
co-products?

ApplyphysicalYes allocation
based onmost suitablephysicalrelationshipNo

Useeconomic or
alternative
allocation

Apply economic allocation forco-products
Studied product =500×1.5
×10,000 =500×1.5+10×30+0.5×400= 6,000 tCO2e
Co-product A =30×10>5×10,000 =500×1.5+10×30+0.5×400= 2,400 tCO2e

Path followed

Co-product B =400×0.5
×10,000 =500×1.5+10×30+0.5×400= 1,600 tCO2e

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions29

3.3.2 Additional guidance

B. Accounting for land management emissions
and removals

3.3.2.1 Accounting for biogenic emissions
and removals

GHG emissions and removals associated withland-management-related changes should be
calculated and included in the PCF and shall also
be reported separately as part of the data exchange
form. Land management emissions and removals
include all land carbon pools—i.e., soil organiccarbon, dead organic matter, and biomass carbon
stocks—as well as other non-CO2 emissions related
to land management. The following list provides
an overview of non-CO2 sources related to land
management GHG emissions:This section provides guidance and requirements on
how to account for and report biogenic emissions
and removals associated with land-based products
as part of the PCF.
The calculation of all the below metrics shall bedone in accordance with internationally recognizedmethodologies. The methodologies and resources
used to calculate and report on biogenic emissions
and removals shall be provided and documented aspart of the PCF data exchange form.
Please note, 2025 has been set as the firstmandatory year to report biogenic emissions
and removals to give companies enough time tofamiliarize themselves with the content. However,companies who consider biogenic emissions
and removals to be relevant for their products
should include these in the calculations anddata exchanged.
A. Accounting for direct land-use change (dLUC)
emissions
GHG emissions associated with dLUC (allocatedto the reference product) shall be calculated andincluded as part of the PCF and shall also bereported separately as part of the data exchange
form. In the case of no value chain and/or data
traceability to account for dLUC, companies shallaccount for statistical land-use change (sLUC)
emissions as a proxy for dLUC and follow the same
reporting requirements.

•

CH4 and N2O emissions from livestock, including
emissions from enteric CH4 fermentation andmanure management•

Non-biogenic CO2 and N2O emissions fromagricultural soils and inputs, including fertilizers,
pesticides, and herbicides•

CH4 and N2O emissions from biomass burningand fires••

CH4 emissions from rice production
Other CH4 , N2O, non-biogenic CO2, HFCs, andPFCs emissions, including emissions fromon-site fuel and energy consumption, fuelcombustion, air conditioning and refrigerant use,on-site waste or wastewater management, andindirect emissions from purchased energy.

If land management emissions and removals are notassessed, this decision shall be justified in the PCF
data exchange form.

Box 4: GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Guidance
To enable better and more consistent
quantification of emissions related to land use,land-use change, and biogenic products in thevalue chain, the GHG Protocol is developing
the GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals
Guidance. The Guidance provides corporate-levelguidelines and requirements on accounting forand reporting biogenic emissions and removals
across the value chain. While the guidance

focuses on corporate-level accounting, it has
clear implications and overlaps with biogenic
emissions within product-level accounting (seeSection 6.3). Please note that this section of thePathfinder Framework will be revisited once theLand Sector and Removal Guidance is publishedto ensure companies are able to consistently
report biogenic emissions and removals at boththe corporate and product level.

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions

30

C. Accounting for other biogenic emissions

F. Accounting for indirect land-use change (iLUC)

All other biogenic GHG emissions associated withproduct manufacturing and transport that are notincluded above should be calculated and includedin the PCF and shall also be reported separately as
part of the data exchange form. If such biogenic
emissions are not included as part of the PCF,
this decision shall be justified in the PCF dataexchange form.

GHG emissions associated with iLUC emissions may
be calculated and reported separately as part of thedata exchange form. iLUC emissions shall not be
included as part of the PCF.

D. Accounting for the biogenic carbon content
The biogenic carbon content in the product (mass ofcarbon) shall be calculated and reported separately
as part of the data exchange form.

The following table summarizes the requirements
specified above, detailing which elements shall bereported within the “PCF (incl. biogenic emissions
and removals)” metric and which elements shallnot be included but may be reported separately. To
support transparency, all of the metrics shall also bereported separately, regardless of whether they areincluded in the PCF or not (Table 4).

E. Accounting for biogenic CO2 withdrawals
Biogenic carbon content in the product converted toCO2e shall be calculated and reported separately as
part of the data exchange form.19

Table 4: S ummary of biogenic emissions and removals data attributes to be included in the PCF dataexchange form
Unit

Included in PCF(incl. biogenic emissions
and removals)aReported
separately

MandatorydLUC emissions

KgCO2eYes

Yes

Yes, from 2025

Land management GHG
emissions or removals(incl. non-CO2 sources)

KgCO2eYes

Yes

Yes, from 2025 b

Other biogenic emissions(excl. land-use change andland management)

KgCO2eYes

Yes

Yes, from 2025 c

Biogenic carbon content

Kg

No

Yes

Yes, from 2025

Biogenic CO2 withdrawal

KgCO2eYes

Yes

Yes, from 2025

iLUC emissions

KgCO2e

No

Yes

No

a. For the full list of data attributes to be calculated and exchanged as part of the data exchange form, please refer to Appendix B.
b. If changes in land carbon pools are not assessed, this decision shall be justified in the PCF data exchange form.
c. If such biogenic emissions are not included in the PCF, this decision shall be justified in the PCF data exchange form.

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions31

3.3.2.2 Accounting for transportation anddistribution emissions

To this end, the following data and information
should be collected and used:

Transportation and storage of products can takeplace as follows:•••

Fuel usage

•
•
•
•

Distance covered••

Internally and as part of direct activities in vehicles
and sites owned by the company undergoing
the assessment, e.g., the transportation ofintermediate or final products between different
sections within the factory or agricultural mobile
emissions such as tractors
Externally between different tiers in the supply
chain in vehicles or facilities owned by third-party
companies, e.g., the transportation of raw materials
to the company site (upstream) or transportation of
the final product to consumers (downstream).

Mode of transportation, such as road or rail
Mass of transported product in tons (expressed
per unit of analysis)
Load specifications (if available)
Energy consumed by storage facility
Area contracted to store reference product(in case of third-party storage).

All significant upstream and direct transportation
emissions within the cradle-to-gate boundary—i.e.,transportation and storage emissions related to acompany’s direct activities and distribution activities
between tiers in the supply chain relating to the
PCF—shall be accounted for. For all these activities,
only emissions pertaining to the fuel life cycle (wellto-wheel emissions) and the energy consumed bystorage facilities shall be included (Figure 12).20

Figure 12: Transportation emissions accounted for within the transportation boundary of the Pathfinder
Framework

Storage

Fuel life cycle emissions(well-to-wheel)

Vehicle construction

Infrastructure construction
and maintenance

Emissions related tothe energy consumed by
the storage facilities

Emissions related to: Well-to-tank: upstream
fuel production andtransportation
 Tank-to-wheel: fuelcombustion

Emissions related toconstruction of vehicletransportation equipment

Emissions related tomaintenance ofinfrastructure fortransportation services(e.g., road or port
infrastructure)

Included in Pathfinder Framework boundary

Not included in Pathfinder Framework boundary

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions

32

A. Accounting for storage emissions
If material, calculation of storage emissions will bedone by multiplying the percentage of the total areathat is covered by the reference product with the totalenergy consumption of the storage facility, which
in turn will be multiplied by the emission factors

GHG emissionsstorage =AreaproductAreastorage site

associated with the different energy sources used onsite (see the formula below).
Should no information be available on the totalenergy usage of the facilities, companies may
use industry benchmarks based on the site’s total
floor area.

× Energy consumptionsite × Emission factorenergy type

B. Accounting for transportation emissions
Calculation of product transportation emissions
depends on the availability of data on fuelconsumption, mass, distance, and load factor(Figure 13).

The prevalent unit of measure used for calculationand exchange of logistics emissions is ton-km,
reflecting the mass of the shipment (in tons) anddistance transported.
For further guidance, please refer to the Global
Logistics Emissions Council (GLEC) Frameworkand GHG Protocol standards.

Figure 13: Steps for calculating product transportation emissions based on data availabilityaAnd/orPrimary data forfuel available?

Calculate transportation emission factora (CO2e/t-km) andapply to mass and distance data to obtain product-specifictransportation emissions

Yesb
And/orCalculate product-specific emission factor (CO2e/t shipped)
and apply to mass data to obtain product-specifictransportation emissions

Yes

Apply emission factor to primary mass (and/or distance)data to calculate product-specific transportation emissions

No

Obtain relevant emission factor from secondary databaseand apply to primary mass (and/or distance) data tocalculate product-specific transportation emissions

No

Verified emission
factor from third
party available?

a. Emission factors are always per transportation mode and type.

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions33

3.3.2.3 Accounting for waste treatment andrecycling emissions within the cradle-to-gateboundary
In alignment with the GHG Product Standard and theInternational EPD System, responsibility for waste
processing is placed on the company that generates
the waste during the production phase until thewaste is returned to nature (e.g., incinerated) or
has reached its end-of-waste state, 21 e.g., is used inanother product’s life cycle (recycled).
For each product that generates waste, companies
need to determine whether such waste will berecycled or discarded as waste. If it is discarded,
any emissions arising from the treatment of waste
during the production process shall be included in
the total PCF.
Since the Pathfinder Framework’s boundary does
not include the end-of-life stage (see Section 3.2),
the “recycled content” or cut-off method of the GHG
Product Standard22 should be used for the allocationof emissions from recycling materials. The recycledcontent method stipulates that companies using
recycled material as an input in their production shallaccount for the emissions from the recycling stage,
similar to when they account for the emissions of
the material they purchase (Figure 14). The cut-off
approach should also be used when accounting for
waste treatment with energy recovery. Companies
following a different approach shall communicate
this when exchanging the data to ensure all wasterelated emissions are accounted for and allocatedamong the different value chain players.
The cut-off method is preferable as it is applicable
to most use cases, including complex supply
chains or where the product system includes many
recycled material inputs and outputs.23 Additionally,
it is recommended for Scope 3 inventories due toits ease of implementation and consistency withinventory accounting methods and secondary
emission factors.24 Finally, the method also prevents
emissions from being double counted if a company
both purchases and sells recycled products.
Regardless of the approach followed, avoided
emissions shall not be included in the final PCF.

Figure 14: Allocation of waste treatment and recycling emissions

Production phase
Waste

Waste treatment

Product 1

Company A

Material forrecyclingb

Collection processesc

Company B

Recyclable
material

Recycling processes

Recycled
material
Company C

Emissions from material flows within production phase included in PCF of Product 1 a
Emissions included in subsequent life cycle stagea. Waste and recyclable material streams are not burdened by production impacts (exit burden-free). Direct emissions should be only allocated tomain products and by-products (Product 1).
b. Material that would otherwise have been considered waste.
c. Can include preprocessing.

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions

34

Emissions from the treatment of waste generated
during production shall be allocated to the studied
product or co-products following the hierarchy
stipulated in Section 3.3.1.4. Since waste isconsidered an output without economic value, no
production emissions are allocated to the actual
waste generated during production.
The applicable approach to calculating emissions
depends on where the waste is treated.
A. Waste treated by the company that generates it
Emissions shall be calculated using primary activity
data regarding the type of waste, its composition,and type of waste treatment activity. Dependingon the type of waste treatment (e.g., landfill or
incineration), companies may use waste treatment
emission factors calculated based on internal
primary data. Internal emission factors should beverified by an independent auditor prior to being
used. If no primary emission factors are available,
emission factors derived from accepted secondary
sources can be employed (Section 4.1.3.2).

B. Generated waste sent to a third party for waste
treatment
Waste treatment facilities should calculate theirwaste treatment emissions (Scope 1 and 2), develop
emission factors, and verify and communicate theseto either the company that generated the waste in
instances where the waste is not recycled or thecompany making used of the recycled material ininstances where it is.25 This approach is consistent
with the cut-off method detailed above.
Alternatively, the waste treatment facility may shareprimary data via the supplier-specific method.26
This involves collecting certified emissions datafrom waste treatment companies and allocating
the corresponding emissions to the products inquestion (if required) using the same allocation
framework used to allocate direct emissions acrossthe products (Section 3.3.1.4).
If companies do not have access to primary datafrom waste treatment facilities, they shall estimate
waste treatment emissions using primary activity
data on the waste type and composition andsecondary emission factors according to the type ofwaste treatment and disposal (landfill, incineration,or recycling). The criteria used to determine valid
secondary emission factors in Section 4.1.3.2 shallbe referred to in this context.

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions35

4. Data
integrity
One of the core aims of PACT is to increase the share of quality
primary data used to calculate PCFs.
4.1 Data sources and hierarchy
This section provides definitions and overarchingguidance for the prioritization of data sources andthe use of secondary data when primary data is
not available.27

4.1.1

Defining the data hierarchy

For a PCF calculation to take place, two types of data
are required: activity data and emission factors. Bothof these can be derived from different sources, which
this guidance categorizes into primary, secondary,and proxy data. Table 5 presents the definitions thatshall be used by companies to determine the natureof activity data and emission factors.
One of the core aims of the Pathfinder Framework
is to enable the use of high-quality data for PCF
calculations. In line with this ambition, companies
are encouraged to directly measure GHG emissions

or calculate GHG emissions based on both primaryactivity data and emission factors (“best case”).
However, the use of secondary or proxy data ispractically unavoidable, especially in the case of
missing data or when conducting an initial PCF
screening.28 Table 6 shows a hierarchy for data
sources that can be used for energy (electricity,
heating, cooling) and material inputs.

4.1.2 Selecting primary data
Companies shall prioritize the collection of primaryactivity and emissions data to calculate their PCFs
(e.g., by requesting that suppliers report PCFs
following Pathfinder Framework requirements).
In some cases, further polishing and aggregating
the data may be required to refine the emissions
estimate. Algorithms may be used to fill in the
missing data, or data aggregation may be required todampen the effect of revisions, turnarounds, or otheratypical production conditions.

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions

36

Table 5: Data type definitions
Data type

Activity data

Emission factor

ExamplePrimary

Site- or supplier-specific data
directly measured, collected,
or calculated (e.g., engineering
estimates)

Calculated based oncompany-owned primaryactivity data or provided by asupplier for a process under
their control

Direct GHG combustion
emissions or wellcharacterized emission factors
based on stoichiometry

Secondary

Data not directly collected,
measured, or calculated
based on specific company
production data

Emission factors derived fromsecondary sources

Default factors, regional
industry averages, literaturestudies, government
statistics, financial data, andenvironmentally extended
input-output databases (EEIO)

Proxy

Extrapolated, scaled-up, or customized data.
Data from similar processes used as a stand-in for a specificprocess, e.g., based on geography, outdated data

Customizing amount ofmaterial consumed bya process from anotherproduct’s life cycle
Using electricity grid emission
factors from one region foranother region with similar
generation mix

Table 6: Data hierarchy for energy and material inputs
Activity data source
Data type

Energya

Material

Best caseIn-house/process-based data

Emissions factor source
EnergyMaterial

For on-site production: in-house/primary

Supplier-specific(e.g., via Pathfinder
Network)

For purchased electricity: supplierspecific or via a certification
mechanism (e.g., guarantees of origin)b
For other purchased energy: supplierspecific or well-characterized emission
factors based on stoichiometry
Best casec

In-house/process-based data

Secondary process-based sources

Worst caseIn-house/spend data

EEIO databases and data proxies

a. Electricity, heating/cooling, steam.
b. Allowed only if mechanism excludes renewable energy purchased from regional grid mix.
c. Prevalent approach in practice.

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions

37

Box 5: Market-based approaches
Further work is ongoing to understand theapplication of market-based approaches(e.g., purchases of carbon credits, value chaininterventions, mass-balance certification, bookand-claim certification) in company and product
GHG inventories. The aim is to standardize theaccounting methodologies, reflected in the
GHG Protocol’s update to corporate, Scope 2,
and Scope 3 standards. PACT will revisit theuse of market-based mechanisms when further
evidence from ongoing review of the accounting
standards emerges.

The use of modeling tools to estimate GHG
emissions is a common practice in many sectors(such as agriculture), where emissions calculationis complex and affected by several interrelatedparameters (such as geography, temperature,
type of input, and agricultural practice). For the
purposes of this guidance, the results of a modelthat uses primary data as an input would also be
considered primary.

of safeguards that secondary emission factors
shall comply with if they are to be used for the
calculation of PCFs:
1. Documentation:•

Data included in the secondary emission
factor shall be validated in line with globally
recognized LCA principles.29•

The emission factor source should ensuretransparency by providing information on key
methodological (i.e., LCA modeling approach,aggregation and allocation approach, if any)
and data (time period, geography, technology,
representativeness) elements.

4.1.3 Selecting secondary data
4.1.3.1 Activity data
As displayed in Table 6, activity data that is used
to calculate product-level GHG emissions shallalways be company-specific. However, this guidance
acknowledges that there may be instances wherecompany-specific process-based data may not be
available (e.g., where there is no traceability in thevalue chain). In these instances, companies may
resort to using spend-based data and EEIO emission
factors for their PCF calculations (“worst case”),
bearing in mind this will reflect negatively in theirdata quality assessment scores (see Section 4.2.2).
4.1.3.2 Emission factors
Primary emission factors are also not always
available. For instance, suppliers may be unable
to provide GHG data for a component required to
manufacture the product for which Company X
wishes to calculate a PCF. In such scenarios,
emission factors from secondary sources should be
used (base case).
The employment of secondary emission factors
shall be compliant with the general quality rules
for secondary data sources. To ensure the use ofverified and credible secondary emission factors
while still allowing for flexibility in the data sources
used, the Pathfinder Framework defines a series

2. Management and maintenance:•

If life cycle inventory databases are used, theyshall be periodically maintained and updatedwith the latest data sets.

3. Choice of modeling:•

The modeling of the secondary emission
factor shall be consistent with themethodological principles of this Framework(e.g., attributional approach).

Companies shall provide references to the main
sources used for their PCF calculation, including thespecific data set used, as part of the data exchange
form. Examples of secondary emission factor
sources can be found in Table 7 below.

4.1.4 Filling in data gaps
When primary and secondary data are not available,
proxy data may be used to bridge minor data gaps
(worst case). The selection of proxy data sets is
usually based on the knowledge and experience of
the LCA practitioners and the subject matter expert
for that sector or product category.30

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions

38

Table 7: Examples of secondary emission factor databases accepted under the Pathfinder Framework
Database

SectorLink

EcoinventAll

https://www.ecoinvent.org/

GaBi (thinkstep)All

http://www.gabi-software.com/international/databases

GLEC database

Transportation

https://www.smartfreightcentre.org/en/downloads/

Official national emission
factor databases

AllE.g., US EPA database:https://cfpub.epa.gov/ghgdata/inventoryexplorer/

PEF

All

https://www.openlca.org/product-environmental-footprintspefs-in-openlca/

UNEP Global LCA Data AccessNetworkAll

https://www.globallcadataaccess.org/

4.2 Data reliability

4.2.2 Primary Data ShareThis Framework introduces two metrics to track,
report, and improve data quality, as well as increase
the use of primary data. By managing these metrics,
companies can assess and improve the overall
quality of PCF calculations.

To create visibility on the share of primary data in
PCF calculations, the PDS in each data set should
be determined and exchanged across the value
chain. This can be done by calculating the proportion(percentage) of the total GHG emissions (CO2e) thatis derived using primary data:

4.2.1 Introduction
Initially, companies shall calculate and report, aspart of PCF data exchange, on at least one of thefollowing metrics:••

Primary Data Share (PDS). Percentage of PCF
emissions that were calculated using primaryactivity and emissions data (Section 4.2.1)
Data Quality Ratings (DQRs). Quantitative score
for five data quality indicators based on the data
quality matrix (Section 4.2.2)

From 2025, both metrics shall be reported bycompanies to ensure continued alignment with
the Pathfinder Framework. This will ensure a fuller
picture of both the quality of the PCFs and theamount of primary data being used to calculate
them. Until 2025, companies should base theirinitial choice of metric(s) on the relevance to theirsituation and resources available. For instance, acompany calculating a PCF for the first time may nothave access to a large amount of primary data andmay wish instead to reflect on the accuracy of thesecondary sources used to calculate its PCF.

Part of PCF based on
primary data (CO2e)=

PDS PCF (%)

PCF (CO2e)
In order for an input to be considered primarydata, both the activity and emission factor shall becompliant with the primary data definitions includedin Table 5 (see a clarifying example below, Table 8).
In order for the upstream emissions’ PDS to begreater than 0, companies would need to request
PCFs and their corresponding PDS from their
suppliers. Should PDS for relevant components
be obtained from upstream suppliers (tier n-1), thetotal PDS of the PCF should be calculated using
a weighted average approach of the material andenergy inputs based on their GHG contribution to thestudied product’s PCF.
To do so, the individual PDSs received fromevery input supplier (PDSPCFcomponent 1 andPDSPCFcomponent 2) as well as other components,
such as energy inputs or direct emissions from

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions

39

production, should be multiplied by their respective
relative contribution (in percentage) to the PCF
emissions. All weighted PDS components should

then be added up to obtain an overarching PDS(PDS PCF product) (Figure 15).

Figure 15: Calculation of PDS

PDSPCF component 1%
PDSPCF productCompany A%
PDSPCF component 2

Company D

Company C%
Company B

Formula to calculate PDSPCF product
PDSPCF component
1

Relativeemissioncontribution to
PCF, %PDSPCF component
2

Relativeemissioncontribution to
PCF, %PDSPCF productWeighted PDS components, %Table 8: Example of calculation of PDS
Component

Data input,
kWh

Activity
data source

Emissionfactor,kgCO2eEmissionfactorsourceTotal,
kgCO2ePCF

Total PDSPDS PCF component 1

10,000Primary

0.19

Primary

1,900

42%

42%

PDS PCF component 3

10,000

Secondary

0.18

Secondary

1,800

38%

0%

PDS PCF component 3

5,000

Primary

0.18

Secondary

900

19%

0%

4,600

42%

Note: For the purpose of this example, please note that Component 1 is considered to have a PDS of 100%, since both the activity and emission factor
data come from primary sources

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions

40

To help increase transparency on primary data use, theoverarching PDS (PDSPCF product) should be exchanged
downstream (tier n+1) together with the PCF.

•

The inclusion of an explanation for the share ofprimary data is thus encouraged, with the objectiveof helping businesses support each other inunderstanding the nature of the exchanged dataand promoting an increase in the amount of primarydata flowing through the system. This process willcontribute to more accurate PCFs.

Geographical representativeness. The degree
to which the data reflects the actual geographic
location of the processes within the inventory
boundary (e.g., country or region).32•

Temporal representativeness. The degree towhich the data reflects the actual time (e.g., year)
or age of the process.33•

Completeness. The degree to which the data is
statistically representative of the process sites.

•

Reliability. The degree to which the sources, datacollection methods, and verification procedures
used to obtain the data are dependable.

4.2.3 Data quality assessment
With companies able to calculate their PCFs using
several data types, data quality assessments
provide data users with a better understanding of
the overall integrity of the data and the resulting
PCF. Additionally, understanding the quality of thedata allows companies to identify key secondary
data sources that should be improved or replacedwith primary data in order for companies to be able
to track the impact of emissions reduction plans
more accurately.

By adapting the data quality assessment matrix
proposed by the GHG Protocol, subjectivity in theassessment will be minimized and a more clear-cut
distinction across all levels ensured. The quality levels
against which each indicator shall be assessed are 1—
Good, 2—Fair, and 3—Poor (Table 9). This matrix shallbe used by companies to derive quantitative DQRs foreach of the indicators. Companies shall include in theassessment any contribution that represents at least
5 percent of the overall PCF.

Once the GHG calculations for the PCF havebeen completed, companies undergoing the data
quality assessment shall calculate a DQR for thefollowing five indicators, defined in line with the GHG
Protocol guidelines:

To facilitate clarity and transparency, companies
shall report the ratings of each data quality indicator
separately. If a company produces the studied
product in more than one site, it shall define the
DQRs using the weighted average of production
volumes of the respective sites.

•

Technological representativeness. The
degree to which the data reflects the actualtechnology(ies) used in the process.31

Table 9: Streamlined version of GHG Protocol data quality assessment matrix
Data quality indicators

1 — Good

2 — Fair

3 — Poor

TechnologicalrepresentativenessSame technology

Similar technology (basedon secondary data sources)

Different or unknown
technology

Temporal
representativenessSame reporting year

Less than 5 years oldMore than 5 years old

GeographicalrepresentativenessSame country or country
subdivision

Same region or subregion

Global or unknown

Completeness

Activity data collected
for all relevant sites for
specified period

Activity data collected for<50% of sites for specified
period or >50% of sites for
shorter period

Activity data collected for<50% of sites for shortertime period or unknown

Reliability

Measured activity data

Activity data partly basedon assumptions

Financial data or nonqualified estimate

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions

41

The contributions of the different PCF components(i.e., material and energy inputs) to the final DQRs
are determined via a weighted average based on
their emissions contribution to the total PCF (see theformula below).

DQRindicator = DQRcomponent 1 ×

PCFcomponent 1
PCFtotalThis is exemplified below (Table 10).

+ DQRcomponent 2 ×

PCFcomponent 2
PCFtotal+ DQRcomponent 3 ×

PCFcomponent 3
PCFtotal

Table 10: Example of data quality assessment
Data quality indicators

Component 1

GHG contribution to total PCF

Component 2

Component 3

Total DQR

25%

30%

45%

100%

Technological representativeness

2

1

1

1.25

Temporal representativeness

1

3

1

1.60

Geographical representativeness

2

3

3

2.75

Completeness

1

1

1

1.00

Reliability

2

3

2

2.30

Box 6: Improving data quality over time
The aim of data collection and quality assessments
is to improve the overall accuracy of the productinventory and should thus be considered an
iterative process to be completed alongside any
calculation updates that may take place.
For instance, improving the quality of data forlarge emission sources can result in a significant
improvement in the overall inventory quality.
If significant data sources are identified as
low quality using the data quality indicators,
companies should aim to center their datacollection and quality improvement efforts onthese particular processes, either by engaging
with their suppliers and requesting PCFs fromthem or by researching and assessing moreaccurate secondary data alternatives.
Please note that in certain cases, the reductionof PCF emissions may lead to a variance in the
PDS or DQR scores reported by companies. For
instance, if the electricity used to manufacture
a product becomes 100 percent renewable, theshare of emissions associated with electricity
will decrease to almost zero, thus losing its
representation in the PDS and DQR calculations.
These variances caused in PDS and DQR should
be communicated to the entities receiving thedata to ensure the changes in PDS and DQR are
not perceived negatively.

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions42

5. Assurance
and verification
The resolution of the Scope 3 challenges businesses face today
requires that high-quality (relevant, complete, consistent,transparent, and accurate) data can be shared across value
chains. Assurance and verification ensure the reliability of thisdata, creating the necessary trust among all stakeholders to drive
decarbonization at scale.
5.1 Context
While the Pathfinder Framework—as well as theexisting methods and standards it builds on—paves
the way toward data exchange, assurance andverification are key in ensuring the credibility andreliability of the exchanged data. Assurance andverification represent the two processes required
to undergo a carbon audit. While verification is
the process of evaluating the accuracy of carbon
emissions disclosed by a company, assurance is theact of provision of an opinion based on the degreeof confidence that is provided during the verification
process. Since the requirements detailed in thisguidance aim to enable standardized, high-quality
carbon audit processes, this guidance will use bothterms interchangeably.
Assurance and verification undertaken byindependent verifiers can help establish whether
PCFs have been accounted for in compliancewith the Pathfinder Framework and relevant
standards, sectoral guidance, PCRs, andaccompanying methods.
This section provides guidance and requirements
for assurance and verification of PCF results taking
place in the context of the Pathfinder Framework.

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions

43

5.2 Objectives and scope
5.2.1 Objectives
The overarching objective of this section is to define
the requirements around assurance and verificationof PCFs in alignment with the Pathfinder Framework.
By clearly defining requirements, this guidance
seeks to:•Establish a common basis and language aroundassurance and verification for all stakeholders in
the ecosystem•

Increase the uptake of product-level assurance
and verification practices across industries via aphased-in approach•

Provide clarity on future assurance andverification requirements to support the
preparation process for stakeholders wishing
to remain aligned with the Framework’s
assurance requirements•

Streamline the assurance and verification
process by providing guidance on whatevidence companies need to prepare for anassurance engagement

5.2.2 Scope and limitations
This guidance defines the minimum assurance
and verification requirements companies
shall fulfill when exchanging data through thePathfinder Network. However, companies arestrongly encouraged to align with the longer-term
requirements defined in this guidance as earlyas possible, increasing emissions data reliability
and trust in the overall ecosystem. Going beyond
the minimum requirements of assurance andverification will also be reflected in the dataexchange (Section 1), allowing companies
to distinguish themselves through greater
data credibility.

This guidance recognizes that assurance andverification of emissions disclosures involves many
challenges, including:•

The limited visibility and control of companies
over emission sources•

Assurers’ limited ability to obtain sufficientevidence on all necessary items•

The evolving scientific consensus on questions
directly affecting emissions disclosures, such as
emission intensity factors•

The required subject-matter expertise that not
all companies and assurers may currently haveat scale

The Pathfinder Framework seeks to help mitigate
these challenges by providing clarity and a reference
point. Nonetheless, companies and assurers should
continue to collaborate to assure PCFs to the best of
their knowledge and improve emissions disclosure
assurance and verification practices acrossdifferent sectors.
Finally, it is important to note that this guidance is
not by itself intended to be used as an assurance
standard. It defines the requirements and proposed
outcomes of the assurance process (i.e., the “what”
of assurance) but does not prescribe the assurance
process itself (i.e., the “how” of the assurance
process). Assurance providers should therefore referto additional assurance standards when verifying
PCF data and methodology in the context of thePathfinder Framework.

From a practical standpoint, verified PCF dataobtained from another upstream supply chain
stakeholder not only increases credibility in the data
received, but also reduces the cost of a company’s
own audit. The reasoning is that verified PCFs shallnot need to be (re)verified if used for calculationsof a company’s own PCF, as long as no changes are
made to the underlying calculation models and data
used by the company that shared the data in thefirst place.

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions44

5.3 Assurance roadmap
5.3.2 Overview

5.3.1 StructureThis guidance is structured as a roadmap consistingof three time horizons, each one encompassing
requirements across eight assurance andverification dimensions, as shown in Figure 16. Whilesome of the long-term requirements, applicable
starting in 2030, would currently be challenging tofulfill, this guidance assumes that the evolution ofcarbon accounting technology, the methodologicalecosystem, and auditing practice will significantly
enhance companies’ ability to comply. However, if
necessary, long-term requirements could be revised.

Figure 17 presents an overview of the Framework’s
assurance and verification requirements for thethree time horizons by dimension.
The following sections provide further details oneach dimension and requirement.

Figure 16: Time horizons and dimensions of the assurance roadmap

Time horizons
Short term

Medium termaLong terma

2023–2025

2025–2030

2030 onwards

Assurance dimensions
Coverage

Conformance

Boundary

Level of assurance

Section 5.3.3

Section 5.3.4

Section 5.3.5

Section 5.3.6

ProviderProcess cycle

Evidence

Requirements for SMEs

Section 5.3.7

Section 5.3.8

Section 5.4

Section 5.5

a. Requirements to be fulfilled for PCFs being updated after 2025 for the medium term and after 2030 for the long term.

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions

45

Figure 17: Assurance roadmap overview

Dimension

Short-term
requirements

Medium-term
requirements

Long-term
requirements

2023–2025

2025–2030

2030 onwards

Corporate level

Representative productor PCF system

Representative productor PCF system

PCR or sector-specificguidance, if followed

PCR or sector-specificguidance, if followed

If not, Pathfinder
Framework

If not, Pathfinder
Framework

Coverage
Granularity of data
to be assured

Conformance
Basis for theassurance

Any recognized standard

Boundary

Gate-to-gate

Depth of the data to
be assured

Scope 1 and 2 forcorporate-level

Cradle-to-gate

Cradle-to-gate

Limited assurance

Limited assurance

Reasonable assurance

Independent third party

Independent third party

Independent third party

Temporal validity of
the assurance

Annual3 years or earlier if
variance >10%

3 years or earlier if
variance >10%

Evidence

Evidence pack guidance

Guidance forconsolidation

Companies should use guidance around evidence consolidation (see Appendix D)
to facilitate and streamline the assurance process

Level
Degree ofconfidence

ProviderEntity providing theassurance

Process cycle

Application to SMEs
SME requirements

Phased-in approach for SMEs
All requirements above identically apply to SMEs but with a 2-year time lag to allow
for capacity building

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions46

5.3.3 Coverage
The coverage of the assurance and verification
defines the type and level of GHG data to be assured(e.g., corporate level, product line level, or PCF level).
Short term
Companies shall assure emissions data at thecorporate level. Assurance on a more productspecific level, such as product line or product level,
is desirable but not required.
Medium term
Companies shall assure PCFs are aligned with
Pathfinder Framework requirements:•

At the product-line level, where the PCF of arepresentative product is assured•

By verifying the underlying methodology usedby a system (e.g., software) for the purpose of
PCF calculation

The rationale behind these options is to approachand build capabilities around product-levelassurance without requiring product-specificassurance directly. Figure 18 below gives an
overview of the definitions and steps that companies
shall comply with when following either ofthese approaches.
Please note that companies may still need to verify
specific PCFs at the product level if regulations or
customers require it.
Long term
In the long term, companies shall follow the samerequirements as in the medium term.

Figure 18: Assurance coverage options in the medium term

Option A: product line
Representative productsharing key
characteristics withgroup of products (e.g.,
purpose, materials, ormanufacturing process)Option B: PCF
calculation system
Calculation tool
applicable acrossproducts used bycompanies to convert
raw data inputs intoa finalized PCF

Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

Pick representative
product (RP) by defining
the product line it
represents based on theabove definition

Assure RP following
Pathfinder Framework
requirements

Use assurance statementof RP as proof ofverification for any
product within productline, provided explanation
on representativenessis given

Define what constitutes
the PCF system, i.e.,
whether there is only one
software tool or several
interconnected tools

Assure whether thetool(s) calculate(s)company PCFs following
Pathfinder Framework
requirements

Use assurance statementof PCF system as proofof calculation beingaligned with Pathfinder
Framework.
Communicate data inputs
have not been assured

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions

47

5.3.4 Conformance
The assurance process verifies whether
emissions data output was calculated according
to methodological rules. The conformance of theassurance defines adherence to which standard isverified, i.e., which methodological standards serves
as the reference.
Short term
Companies may use any recognized standard
included in Appendix C has the basis for corporatelevel assurance. Companies wishing to go beyond
the minimum coverage requirements of thisguidance and assure on a product-specific levelmay use any recognized standard as the basis
for assurance.
Medium term
Companies should use the Pathfinder Frameworkas the methodological basis for assurance andverification. Please note that, in line with thestandards hierarchy established in Section 3.1,
companies may be required to calculate certain
PCFs following PCR or sector-specific guidelines.
In those cases, conformance with the PCR or
sector specific methodology shall be followed.
To the extent possible and relevant, conformancewith the Pathfinder Framework is encouraged,
but not required. Any PCR or sector-specificmethodology or standard used shall be publicly
disclosed and referenced in the assurance andverification process as well as in the data exchange
information to ensure downstream users of theinformation have a complete understanding of theconformance of the PCF.

requirement (see Section 5.3.3). In the context of
this guidance and in line with the corporate-level
coverage requirement, gate-to-gate emissions on
the company level are considered to be equivalent
to Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions, as defined by
the GHG Protocol.
Medium term
Companies shall ensure that the entire cradle-togate footprint of PCFs has been verified, i.e., theentire footprint up to the point where it is passed on
downstream (see Figure 5).
Long term
Companies shall follow the same requirements as in
the medium term.

5.3.6 Level of assurance
The level of assurance defines the degree ofconfidence in the assurance statement. Box 7 provides
further context on assurance levels.34
Short term
Companies are required to conduct
limited assurance.
Medium term
Companies shall follow the same requirements as in
the short term.
Long term
Companies shall conduct reasonable assurance tofulfill the requirements of this guidance.

Long term
Companies shall follow the same requirements as in
the medium term.

5.3.5 Boundary
The boundary of the assurance and verification,
as its name suggests, defines the boundary of life
cycle stages included in the assurance process.
While the PCFs exchanged under the Pathfinder
Framework are cradle-to-gate footprints, theboundary of the assurance and verification of
the PCF can be broader, narrower, or equal to theboundary of the PCF.
Short term
Companies shall assure their gate-to-gateemissions. This requirement is, in part, aconsequence of the initial corporate-level coverage
Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions

48

Box 7: Assurance levels•

Why?
To ensure all stakeholders understand the degree
to which emissions disclosures have beenverified. The goal is to enable:•

Companies to plan the assurance process anddepth of verification they desire•

Assurers to prepare the verification according
to standardized practices•

External stakeholders, such as downstream
companies, to understand the reliability of thereported data

What?
There are two assurance levels commonly usedin emissions disclosure assurance:•

Limited level. The conclusion of a limited
level of assurance is framed in a negative
sense, indicating that the assurer did not findany evidence that the emission disclosurescontain any material misstatement based on
the applicable criteria.

Reasonable level. The conclusion of areasonable level of assurance is framed in apositive sense, indicating that, according to
the assurer, the emission disclosures havebeen prepared according to the applicable
criteria in all material aspects.

Table 11 provides an additional overview of thedifferent characteristics of the two levels.
How?
Companies should define which level ofassurance they are going to seek before
an assurance engagement, in line withthe requirements set by this guidance.
The assurance provider may suggest
adjustments if they believe the desired level
will not be feasible (provided that the minimum
requirements of this guidance are met).

Table 11: Assurance levels comparison
Dimension

Level

Aspects

Limited assurance

Reasonable assurance

Opinionstatements

Negative

Positive“Nothing has come to our attention that theassurance statement does not conform with thePathfinder Framework and contains material
misstatements”“In our opinion the disclosure conforms
with all Pathfinder requirements and isfairly stated in all material aspects”

Application

Commonly used for nonfinancial disclosures

Commonly used in financial disclosures

Process

Limited in Scope—different or fewer checks thanreasonable assurance

Greater sampling at a greater depth andcomprehensivenessPathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions49

5.3.7 Provider
The provider of the assurance is the entity thatverifies the emissions data. When the reporting
company also performs the assurance, this is known
as first-party assurance. When a party other than thereporting company performs the assurance, this is
known as third-party assurance.35
Companies shall choose an independent third
party to conduct the verification process. While
first-party quality controls and plausibility checks
are encouraged, they do not suffice to fulfill theassurance requirements of this guidance.

– Deployment of a different PCF systemproduct (e.g., switch to a different vendor orchange in product line of same vendor)– Changes to the data flows necessary for

PCF calculation within the PCF system(e.g., when the type of digital input data haschanged or when there is a qualitative change
to other digital systems participating in
PCF calculation)Long term
Companies shall follow the same requirements as in
the medium term.

Companies may choose any qualified assurance
provider, as long as the provider meets the expertise
requirements to conduct an assurance engagement.
Proof of such expertise may include previous
assurance engagements around PCFs, industryspecific knowledge, and technical capabilities
in carbon accounting. Section 5.6.2 provides
additional details on criteria to consider whenselecting an assurance provider.

5.4 Evidence

5.3.8 Process cycle

This section is therefore meant to guide companies’
efforts to gather and organize the evidence thatmight be required in an assurance engagement.
This guidance does not replace any guidance
that assurers themselves may provide during theverification process and is not a blueprint for anassurance engagement. Rather, it is meant to help
companies prepare for an assurance engagement
ahead of time, speeding up and streamlining theassurance process.

The process cycle defines the validity period of theassurance statement (e.g., one year or more).
Short term
In line with the coverage requirement (seeSection 5.3.2), the assurance statement shall be valid
for one year. Accordingly, companies shall renew theassurance annually. The requirement for an annual
renewal of assurance on the corporate level aims to bealigned with regulatory requirements such as the EU’s
Corporate Sustainability Disclosure Directive (CSRD)
and the US Securities and Exchange Commission’s(SEC) proposed rules on nonfinancial disclosures.
Medium term
The assurance statement shall be valid for a
maximum of three years or until:••

The underlying PCF of the representative productchanges by more than 10 percent compared to the
PCF that was previously assured, if the company
chooses to assure on the product-line level
The PCF system’s underlying methodology
or system build has changed qualitatively.
A qualitative change includes:

5.4.1 Context and purpose
The provision of standardized and relevant evidence
to substantiate emissions claims and support
the assurance process is the cornerstone of any
verification and assurance process.

5.4.2 Structure and dimensions
The guidance around evidence is structured along
three dimensions central to verifying product-levelemission disclosures:
1. Data. Evidence around the required data
elements, sources, and quality of data used in
the calculations
2. Methodology. Evidence around the calculation
steps, results, and assumptions
3. Governance. Evidence around the underlying
processes used during the calculations, including
how data was stored, how quality was ensured,and how risks were mitigated– Relevant fixes or changes with the existing
PCF system

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions

50

Each dimension contains five concrete elements
listed in Appendix D that constitute the evidence
pack for that dimension. As the maturity ofcompanies’ product-level emission reporting varies,
the evidence pack distinguishes between minimum
and optional elements that might bring further clarity
to the assurance process.

5.4.3 Assumptions
In providing guidance on evidence, the assumptions
listed in Table 12 below were made. Not allof them may apply to a company’s situation;companies should therefore check to what extent
the assumptions are applicable and, accordingly,
to what extent this guidance may be relevant for
their context.

5.4.4 Evidence packA full version of the evidence pack, including thedifferent dimensions and minimum and optional
requirements, is included in Appendix D.

5.5 Requirements for SMEs
While this guidance encourages any company
to assure its emissions data according to therequirements laid out in Figure 17, small andmedium-sized enterprises (SMEs)36 may face
additional challenges in meeting assurance andverification requirements due to initial resource andcapability constraints.
To give SMEs time to build the necessary capabilities
to fulfill assurance and verification requirements,
each requirement as defined in Section 5.3.2 shallbecome applicable for SMEs two years after
the requirement first comes into force for larger
companies. For example, short-term requirements
as per Figure 17 shall become applicable for SMEs
in 2025.
While these are the minimum requirements, it isstrongly encouraged that SMEs begin to meet theassurance and verification requirements sooner
than they are required to by this guidance.

Table 12: Key evidence consolidation assumptions
Assumption

Explanation

Product level

This evidence pack assumes that the carbon emissions data is calculated on the productlevel. It therefore does not apply to corporate-level emission disclosure assurance
engagements

PCF already exists

This evidence pack assumes that the relevant PCF has already been calculated. It does
not contain guidance around how to calculate a PCF

Level agnostic

This evidence pack assumes that the assurance level is either limited or reasonable. The
guidance provided here is therefore applicable to either level

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions51

5.6 Process and reporting

5.6.3 Reporting

5.6.1 Timing

In line with the GHG Product Standard, companies
shall include the assurance statement in theemission disclosure. An assurance statement, at theminimum, shall include:

Assurance engagements in the context of thisguidance shall begin after the result to be assured,e.g., a PCF, has been calculated and before theresult is exchanged through the Pathfinder
Network. Given that the verification process
may take time, depending on the complexity of
the underlying emissions disclosure, it is thecompany’s responsibility to start the assurance andverification process early enough to avoid delays todata exchange.

5.6.2 Requirements for choosing
assurance providers
While this guidance does not include specificrequirements around choosing an assurance
provider, the following criteria may be used to selectassurance providers:
1. Expertise and experience:•

Proven experience conducting assurance
engagements and applying assurance
standards•

Capabilities around LCA and carbon
accounting, as shown by experience,educational qualifications, and tools used

2. Industry and sectoral knowledge:•

Understanding of the underlying industry that
the PCF data to be assured belongs to•Understanding of business operations within
the sector which the product or corporation
belongs to

3. Credibility:•

Proof of no conflicts of interest between theassurance provider and reporting company•

Proof of successful verification processes•••

The assurer’s assertion•

A summary of the assurance process andwork performed

•
•
•
•

The relevant expertise of the assurer

The level of assurance
The assurance provider’s name and theexecuting individuals

Any potential conflicts of interest
The assurance standard applied, if any
A list of criteria that were evaluated to reachthe assertion.

The format of reporting will depend on the applicablerequirements, particularly the coverage requirements.
In the short term, companies shall report theassurance statement alongside the relevant
emissions disclosure. In the medium and longterm, companies shall need to share the assurance
statement as a link in the data attributes or as an
attachment to the relevant PCF being exchanged, i.e.,
the reporting of assurance-related information will
directly be part of the data exchange.
In general, companies shall exchange informationon the assurance itself through the Pathfinder
Network. It is the company’s responsibility toensure that assurance-related information for each
PCF exchanged through the Pathfinder Network
is up to date and aligned with the requirements ofthis guidance.

4. Capacity:•

Enough staff capacity to conduct theassurance engagement

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions52

5.7 Special cases
5.7.1

Existing assurance

It may be the case that a company needs to verify
carbon emissions disclosure for purposes other thanadherence to this guidance, e.g., to fulfill reportingor regulatory requirements. If verification has
already taken place, even if not for the purposes of
exchanging data through the Pathfinder Network, theresulting assurance may be used for the assurance
requirements of the Pathfinder Framework provided
that the existing assurance conforms to theapplicable requirements of this guidance at the time
the assurance was undertaken.

5.7.2 Conformance based on
Pathfinder hierarchy
If a company uses an industry-specific standard
or PCR for its PCF calculation, as described in

Section 3.1.2, and if that standard or rule includes
an assurance requirement, then the company may
fulfill the assurance requirement of the standard
used without having to fulfill the requirements of thisguidance in case they do not fully align. However,companies shall indicate in the data exchange form
which standard was followed, what the assurance
requirements of that standard entail, and any
potential divergence from the requirements ofthis guidance.

5.7.3 Partial or noncompliance withthis guidance
If a company is unable to meet the assurance andverification requirements as defined in this guidance
before exchanging the data, the company may
still exchange it through the Pathfinder Network.
However, the reporting company shall maketransparent, through the Data Exchange Protocol
and the relevant data attributes, to what extent theassurance requirements were fulfilled or not.

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions53

6. Data
exchange
Standardized PCF accounting and data exchange constitutes a key
step toward creating greater comparability and consistency within
the supply chain.
6.1 Required elements fordata exchange

6.1.1

Emissions data calculated in line with the Pathfinder
Framework shall be exchanged in accordance withthe guidelines set out in this section.

•

Once a company has calculated its PCF, anotherfactor to enhance comparability and consistency
is the standardized exchange of data relating to
the PCF between stakeholders within the supply
chain. Emissions data calculated in line with
the Pathfinder Framework shall therefore be
exchanged in accordance with the guidelines set
out in this section.

Minimum data elements required

As a minimum, the following data elements shall be
exchanged with a data recipient within a value chain:
Product information:– Data provider’s company name– Product name, short description of the

production technology (if relevant), and unique
UN Central Product Classification code37– Declared unit (e.g., mass or energy, dependingon the product) and number of declared units
contained within the product which the PCF
refers to

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions

54

•

PCF information:– Reporting period (see Section 6.1.2.1)– Geography (see Section 6.1.2.2)– Product-specific PCF (CO2e per unit ofanalysis), covering cradle-to-gate fossil
emissions (see Section 3.2):• Excluding biogenic emissions andremovals• Including biogenic emissions and removals(to be mandated only from 2025 onwards—
see Section 3.3.2.1)38– Biogenic carbon content (seeSection 3.3.2.1)38– IPCC version of the GWP characterization

factors used in the calculation of the PCF (seeSection 3.2.2)38– Boundary, including a description of all

attributable processes per life cycle stage, as
well as exclusions, if any (see Section 3.2.3)– Standards used for calculating or allocating

GHG emissions (including PEF, PEFCRs, PCRs,
sector-specific initiatives, GHG Protocol, ISO)and any additional approaches used (e.g.,
mandatory flagging when proxy data is used)(see Section 3.1)38••

Data reliability. Companies to share at least oneof the two attributes below:– Share of primary data in a PCF (see Section 4.2.1)– Data quality indicators (see Section 4.2.2)38
Assurance information (see Section 5)38

Further details on data semantics and standards
can be found in the Pathfinder Network Technical
Specifications. Many companies already use
software solutions and are thus encouraged to
exchange data digitally (see Section 6.2). However,companies that do not yet employ software solutions
to calculate their PCFs are welcome to exchange thedata using the template included in Appendix B.

6.1.2 Details on the required data
elements
6.1.2.1 Time boundary
The time boundary of a PCF refers to the time
period for which the PCF value is considered tobe representative.39

While PCFs should be calculated on a regular basis
to track improvements over time, the resources
required to calculate PCFs also need to beconsidered to ensure companies are able to scale
the calculations to a larger number of products. Thisis especially true for companies that currently rely on
manual PCF calculations and that do not yet have an
automated calculation approach.
PCFs shall therefore have a maximum validity
period of up to three years, provided that no majorchanges to the production process take place within
the validity period. Major changes are defined asa variance of 10 percent or more compared to theoriginal PCF. After three years or if the PCF hasvaried by more than 10 percent, PCF values will nolonger be considered representative and shall berecalculated and exchanged.
Companies that are able to do so are invited to
update their PCFs more regularly and may also wish
to request suppliers to update their PCF calculations
on a more regular basis (e.g., annually) based oncontractual agreements.
The temporal validity of the PCF calculation will
be captured by the reporting period.40 The PCF’s
reporting period and date of publication shall always
be disclosed. Emissions that were averaged over
several years may be reported, e.g., to reduce theeffect of revisions, turnarounds, or other untypical
production conditions.
6.1.2.2 Geography
Providing information on the geographicalrepresentation of the PCF is required. However, it is at
the sole discretion of the company to choose the levelof granularity of geographical information (e.g., at aplant, region, or country level). ISO 3166-1 alpha-2—
defining the most widely used country codes (suchas US for the United States or FR for France)—shallbe used to indicate specific countries or regions. If
the same product is produced in various locations
and the data owner chooses to provide regional
information, the data owner can provide several
product footprints pertaining to each respective
geography. As an alternative, it is possible to reporta single footprint for products that are produced invarious locations. When following this approach, aweighted average of the respective product-specificemissions according to each geography’s production
quantity shall be calculated and exchanged.

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions55

6.2 Connecting throughtechnology
Application of the guidance in this Pathfinder
Framework will help businesses create morecomparable and consistent product-level GHG
emissions. However, to comprehensively tackle
the lack of emissions transparency, it is equally
essential to enable straightforward and confidential
cross–value chain and cross-industry exchange ofsuch data.
Technology is without a doubt a key driving force
in enabling straightforward and confidential
cross–value chain and cross-industry exchange of
product-level emissions data. Beyond the creationof this Framework, stakeholders within PACT are

also collaborating on developing a network for theexchange of emissions data (Pathfinder Network).
The aim is to establish the missing (technological)
link between companies through the creation of
an interoperable ecosystem, connecting multiple
underlying technology solutions and in turnincentivizing the latter to provide support in theirproducts for the import and export of data in the
PACT format(s).
In addition, the Network can strengthen theapplication of the Pathfinder Framework—and
hence achievement of data comparability andconsistency—by, e.g., simplifying access to primarydata or supporting data verification.
The Pathfinder Network will be underpinned by the
key values of PACT (Figure 19).

Figure 19: Key values of PACT

Inclusivity

Equality

All members jointly shape thePartnership by providing
expertise, resources, data, andactive participation in targetedworking groups

The Partnership reflects thedifferent ambitions of its
members and ensures nomember on their own is able todirect the initiative downa particular path

Data confidentiality andsovereignty
Data owners have the flexibility
to exchange different levels ofdata granularity with adjustable
access rights and can approveeach exchange

Openness

Scalability

Reach

Methodological andtechnological solutions aredesigned to allow forinterconnectivity,interoperability, and integration

The Partnership creates aninteroperable network of
networks compatible acrosssectors and supply chains,serving multiple business needs

Synergies with other initiatives
focused on emissions
transparency are fostered andleveraged as much as possible

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions56

6.3 Incorporating product-level
data into Scope 3 calculations
By establishing a plan to expand the number ofpurchased products and services being calculatedwith primary data, transparency on emissions can be
progressively created across upstream emissions ofa company.
Corporate- and product-level standards are highlyinterrelated, since emissions resulting from theprocurement of products and services represent
the largest share of corporate Scope 3 emissions
in most sectors. Management of these is therefore
highly dependent on high-quality accounting for
product-level emissions.
While the GHG Scope 3 Standard accepts several
methods to account for upstream Scope 3 emissions(Appendix E), obtaining emissions data directlyfrom suppliers is considered best practice. Whilerequiring greater effort, this approach allows
companies to collaborate with their supply chain
to improve the efficiency of products and services
purchased and accurately monitor the impact ofthese improvements on their footprint. This, in turn,can become a procurement criterion rewarding
those that are more sustainable or even supporting
suppliers in their emissions reduction journeys.

It is important to note that the shift to supplierspecific product-level data can be done graduallyby combining PCFs with other Scope 3 accounting
methods for the less material elements.
By establishing a plan to expand the number ofpurchased products and services being calculatedwith primary data, transparency on emissions
can be progressively created across upstream
emissions of a company. Similarly, by incentivizing
Tier 1 suppliers to do the same, transparency will
be expanded across the value chain. With thisknowledge, companies can make informed sourcing
and product-development decisions, investing intargeted decarbonization activities in their supply
chains, measuring and tracking decarbonization
progress, and adhering to requirements aroundenvironmental transparency. All of this will create
deep visibility on the emissions of hundreds ofthousands of companies sitting in global supply
chains, providing the missing key to supercharging
decarbonization efforts.

Figure 20: Recommendation for use of Pathfinder Framework to enhance transparency

Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

Step 4

Step 5

Identify the largest
sources ofemissions at eitherpurchased productor supplier levelbased on initial
Scope 3 calculation.

Request suppliers
associated with themost material sources
to calculate andprovide the relevant
PCFs following thePathfinder Framework
and Pathfinder
Network requirements.

Incorporate PCFs
into their corporate
footprint by
multiplying the
PCFs provided bysuppliers with thenumber of productunits purchasedfrom them.

Work with suppliers
to understand the
PCF emissions
trajectory or identify
and implement
opportunities tofurther reduce their
PCF emissions,
ultimately favoring
suppliers with lower
PCFs for equivalent
products.

Gradually incorporate
additional products
and suppliers into
the PCF dataexchange request.

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions

57

Appendix A: Terms anddefinitions (glossary)
Definitions

Explanations

Activity data

Quantified measures of a level of activity that results in GHG emissions or removals.

Allocation

The process of partitioning GHG emissions from a single facility or other systems (such as aprocess vehicle or business unit) among its various outputs, in particular products.

Attributableprocess

Service, material, and energy flows that become the product, make the product, and carry the
product through its life cycle.

Attributional
approach

Approach to LCA accounting where GHG emissions and removals are attributed to the unit ofanalysis of the studied product by linking together attributable processes along its life cycle.

Biogenic carbon

Carbon derived from living organisms or biological processes, but not fossilized materials or
fossil sources.

Biogenic
CO2 emissions

Emissions resulting from the combustion of biogenic fuel, broken down into land use (e.g.,
agricultural practices), land-use change (e.g., deforestation), and other (e.g., biogenic waste
treatment) emissions; to remain optional until GHG Protocol FLAG standard is published.

Biogenic
CO2 withdrawal

Biogenic carbon content converted into CO2e.

Boundary

The attributable processes and their associated emissions that should be accounted for andreported by a company as part of its PCF.

Carbon dioxide
equivalent (CO2e)

Unit comparing the radiative forcing (global warming impact) of a GHG, expressed in terms of
the amount of CO2 that would have an equivalent impact.

Characterization
factors

A characterization factor is a quantitative representation of the (relative) importance of a
specific intervention, e.g., the GWP (GWP 100) of methane is 22 kg CO2e/kg.

Corporate-levelstandards

Corporate-level standards (such as ISO 14064 or the GHG Protocol Corporate Value Chain
Standard) focus on aggregate emissions arising from the value chain of a company and apply
to company activities as a whole, including business travel and employee commuting.

Cradle-to-gate PCF

Part of a product’s full life cycle, covering all emissions allocated to a product upstream of acompany plus all emissions resulting from processes within the company until the productleaves the company’s gate.

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions

58

Definitions

Explanations

Data quality

Characteristics of data (completeness, reliability and technological, temporal andgeographical representativeness) that relate to their ability to satisfy stated requirements (themost common frameworks are the pedigree matrix [ecoinvent] and the data quality matrix/
requirements [PCRs]).

Data semantics

Naming, format, and definition of the data attributes required to be exchanged by the company
calculating the PCF.

Declared unit

Unit of analysis chosen for PCF, which serves as the reference for which the inputs (materials
and energy) and outputs (such as products, by-products, waste) are quantified.

Default value

Average value reflecting the mainstream level of the industry (such as material composition
ratio of passenger car, carbon emission factor of material production, carbon emission factor
of vehicle production, etc.).

Definitions

Explanations.

Direct emissions

Data on emissions released from a process (or removals absorbed from the atmosphere)
determined through direct monitoring, stoichiometry, mass balance, or similar methods.

Direct land-use
change (dLUC)

A recent (i.e., previous 20 years) carbon stock loss due to land conversion directly on the areaof land under consideration.

Downstream
emissionsIndirect GHG emissions that occur in the value chain following the processes owned orcontrolled by the reporting company.

Emission factor

Amount of GHGs emitted, expressed as CO2e and relative to a unit of activity (e.g., kg of CO2e
per declared unit).

Environmentallyextended input
output (EEIO)

Models used to estimate energy use and/or GHG emissions resulting from the production andupstream supply chain activities of different sectors and products within an economy. EEIO
models are derived by allocating national GHG emissions to groups of finished products basedon economic flows between industry sectors.

Functional unit

Unit based on the function and performance of the studied productGreenhouse gases(GHGs)

Gaseous constituents of the atmosphere, both natural and anthropogenic, that absorb andemit radiation at specific wavelengths within the spectrum of infrared radiation emitted by the
Earth’s surface, its atmosphere, and clouds. GHGs include CDCO2, methane (CH4), nitrous oxide(N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6).

Indirect land-use
change (iLUC)

A recent (i.e., previous 20 years) carbon stock loss due to land conversion on land not owned
or controlled by the company or in its supply chain, induced by change in demand for products
produced or sourced by the company.

Input

Product, material, or energy flow that enters a unit process.

Inventory

Summary of all input and output flows of a system (such as a company’s or product’s GHG
emissions and sources).

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions

59

Definitions

Explanations

Inventory results

GHG impact of the studied product per unit of analysis.

Life cycle

Consecutive and interlinked stages of a product system, from raw material acquisition or
generation of natural resources to end-of-life, inclusive of any recycling or recovery activity.

Life cycle
assessment (LCA)

Compilation and evaluation of the inputs, outputs, and potential environmental impacts of a
product throughout its entire life cycle.

Land management
GHG emissions

GHG emissions from sources that occur on land from land management activities and during
production of food, feed, fiber, or other biogenic product(s). Land management GHG emissions
are also referred to as agricultural emissions, production emissions, or on-farm emissions.

Life cycle
emissions

The sum of GHG emissions resulting from all stages of the life cycle of a product and within thespecified boundaries of the product.

Material

Physical products supplied from a supplier upstream, used as input for production processesof products.

Multi-input/output
unit process

Operation or process with multiple inputs, such as materials and energy, and multiple outputs,
such as co-products and waste.

OutputProduct, material, or energy that leaves a unit process.

Partnershipfor Carbon
Transparency(PACT)A project led by WBCSD set up to provide a forum for businesses across value chains andindustries as well as for key decarbonization stakeholders to collaborate on the creation of
GHG emissions transparency.

Pathfinder
Network

Network for the exchange of carbon footprint data that is being developed by the Partnershipfor Carbon Transparency, with the aim of establishing the missing (technological) link between
different supply chain actors, such as through the creation of interoperability for underlying
technology solutions.

Primary data

Data pertaining to a specific product or activity within a company’s value chain. Such data
may take the form of activity data, emissions, or emission factors. Primary data is sitespecific, company-specific (if there are multiple sites for the same product), or supply chain–
specific. Primary data may be obtained through meter readings, purchase records, utility
bills, engineering models, direct monitoring, material or product balances, stoichiometry, orother methods.

Product

Any good (tangible product, such as material) or service (intangible product).

Product carbon
footprint (PCF)

Total GHG emissions generated during the life cycle of a product measured in CO2e. Within theboundary of the Pathfinder Framework, only material acquisition, preprocessing, production,
distribution, and storage are included in the PCF.

Product category

Group of products that can fulfill equivalent functions.

Product categoryrules (PCRs)

A set of specific rules, requirements, and guidelines for calculating PCFs (among other things)
and developing environmental declarations for one or more product categories according to
BS EN ISO 14040:2006.

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions

60

Definitions

Explanations

Product-levelstandards

Product-level standards (such as ISO 14067 or the GHG Product Standard) focus on individual
products or services. They support accounting for products’ life cycle emissions (see Section
3.3 for details on the stages). In doing so, they enable a more granular approach compared
to company accounting, offering insights to help identify targeted emission reduction
opportunities.

Proxy data

Data used to bridge data gaps without changing the original values beyond statistical
calculations, such as averaging. The selection and use of proxy data sets is usually basedon the knowledge and experience of the LCA practitioner, and the possibility to validate suchchoices is often limited.

Raw material

Primary or secondary material used to produce a product.

Site-specific data

Initial data obtained within a production system

Scope 3 emissions

The GHG Protocol Corporate Standard classifies a company’s GHG emissions into three
Scopes: Scope 1 emissions are direct emissions from owned or controlled sources.
Scope 2 emissions are indirect emissions from the generation of purchased energy.
Scope 3 emissions are all indirect emissions (not included in Scope 2) that occur in the value
chain of the reporting company, including both upstream and downstream emissions.

Secondary data

Data that is not from specific activities within a company’s value chain but from databases,
based on averages, scientific reports, or other sources.

Tier 1 suppliers

Suppliers that companies directly conduct business with, including contracted manufacturing
facilities or production partners.

Unit process

Smallest part of a product’s life cycle for which input and output data is quantified.

Upstream
emissionsIndirect GHG emissions that occur in the value chain prior to the processes owned orcontrolled by the reporting company. All upstream transportation emissions are also included
as part of upstream emissions.

Use phaseThat part of the life cycle of a product that occurs between the transfer of the product to theconsumer and the end-of-life of the product.

Value chain

All the upstream and downstream activities associated with the operations of a company.

Waste

Materials, co-products, products, or emissions without economic value that the holder
discards, intends to discard, or is required to discard.

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions

61

Appendix B:
PCF questionnaireThis PCF questionnaire contains the information that companies shall include to report their PCF according
to the Pathfinder Framework. Please refer to full technical specifications for further information.

Product information
Data attribute

Description

MandatoryID

Unique identifier of the PCF.

Yes

Technical specification:version

Identifier to define the version of the Pathfinder Framework used (e.g.,“2.0.0”).

Yes

Time created

The UTC timestamp indicating when the PCF was created.

Yes

Time updated

The UTC timestamp indicating when the PCF was updated, if at all.

No

Company name

The name of the data provider of the PCF.

Yes

Company IDs

The set of company identifiers (encoded as URNs) identifying thecompany sending the PCF, depending on the context and the two parties
exchanging the data.

Yes

Product descriptions

A free-form description of the product and any related information, suchas production technologies.

Yes

Product IDs

The set of product identifiers (encoded as URNs) identifying the product,
depending on the context and the two parties exchanging the data.

Yes

Product category
UN Central Product
Classification

The category of the product based on UN Product Classification codes.

Yes

Product name

The trade name of the product as given by the selling company.

Yes

Digital record signature

Digital signature covering the full PCF. The technical specifications
specify details on company identification and digital signature
verification.

No

Comment

Any comments related to the product that facilitate the interpretation orverification of the PCF.

Yes

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions

62

PCF information
Data attribute

Description

Mandatory

PCF (excl. biogenic
emissions and removals)

The product carbon footprint of the product, excluding biogenic
emissions, in kg CO2e per declared unit.

Yes

PCF (incl. biogenic
emissions and removals)

The product carbon footprint of the product, including fossil andbiogenic emissions (dLUC, land management, other biogenic
emissions, and biogenic CO2 withdrawal), in kg CO2e per declared unit.

Yes, from2025 onwards

Declared unit

The unit in which the PCF was calculated: liter, kilogram, cubic
meter, kilowatt hour, megajoule, ton kilometer, or square meter.

Yes

Reporting period

The start and end date and time of the data collected for theunderlying PCF calculation.

Yes

Geography

The location that the PCF refers to; different levels of granularity
can be provided, ranging from country subdivision to global.

Yes

Product amountThe amount of declared units contained within the product towhich the PCF refers.

Yes

Boundary process description

Description of the processes attributable to each life cycle stage.

Yes

Characterization factors

In the context of this guidance, characterization factors refer to
GWP factors of the GHGs included in the PCF.

Yes

Fossil emissions (perdeclared unit)

The emissions resulting from the combustion of fossil fuels, as per
declared unit of the PCF, in kg CO2e per declared unit.

Yes

Fossil carbon content

Fossil carbon amount embodied in the product, in kg.

Yes

Biogenic carbon content

The amount of biogenic carbon contained within the product, in kg
CO2e per declared unit.

YesdLUC emissions

Emissions resulting from recent (i.e., previous 20 years) carbon
stock loss due to land conversion directly on the area of land underconsideration, in kgCO2e per declared unit. In the case of no value
chain and/or data traceability to account for dLUC, companies
shall account for sLUC emissions as a proxy for dLUC.

Yes, from2025 onwards

Land management GHG
emissions or removals (incl.
non-CO2 sources)

GHG emissions and removals associated with land-managementrelated changes, in kg CO2e per declared unit. If changes in landcarbon pools are not assessed, this decision shall be justified.

Yes, from2025 onwards

Aircraft GHG emissions

GHG emissions resulting from aircraft engine usage for thetransport of the product, per declared unit

No

Other biogenic emissions(excl. land-use change andland management)

All other biogenic GHG emissions associated with productmanufacturing and transport that are not included in dLUC andland management, in kg CO2e per declared unit. If such biogenic
emissions are not included in the PCF, this decision shall be justified.

Yes, from2025 onwards

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions

63

PCF information
Data attribute

Description

Mandatory

Biogenic CO2 withdrawal

Biogenic carbon contained within the product converted to kg CO2e
per declared unit.

Yes, from2025 onwards

iLUC emissions

Emissions resulting from recent (i.e., previous 20 years) carbon
stock loss due to land conversion on land not owned or controlled
by the company or in its supply chain, induced by change indemand for products produced or sourced by the company. iLUC
emissions shall not be included as part of the PCF.

No

Methodology used toaccount for biogenic
emissions and removals

Name of the standard followed to account for biogenic emissions
and removals.

Yes, from2025 onwards

Primary data share (PDS)

The percentage of the PCF that was calculated using primary activity
and emissions data (see guidance in Section 4.2.1).

From 2025
onwardsa

From 2025 onwards

If secondary data was used to calculate the PCF, this attribute lists
the data sources.

No

Secondary data sources

If secondary data was used to calculate the PCF, this attribute lists
the data sources.

No

Exemption rules: %Percentage of emissions excluded from PCF.

Yes

Exemption rules: explanation

Rationale behind exclusion of specific PCF emissions.

Yes

Packaging inclusion

Confirm inclusion or exclusion of packaging emissions in the PCF.

Yes

Packaging emissions

Emissions resulting from the packaging of the product, in kgCO2e.

No

Cross-sectoral standard

Cross-sectoral standard used to calculate the PCF, e.g., GHG
Product Lifecycle Standard.

Yes

Product- or sector-specificrules

If sector- or product-specific standards were used in the PCF
calculation, they shall be disclosed here. If none were used, theattribute may be left empty.

No

Allocation rules

If relevant, a description of any allocation rules applied andthe rationale explaining how the selected approach aligns with
Pathfinder Framework rules (see Section 3.3.1.4).

No

Uncertainty assessment

Results, key drivers, and a short qualitative description of theuncertainty assessment, if applicable.

No

a. Please note, companies are mandated to report on either the PDS or the data quality indicators until 2025, when both will become mandatory.

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions

64

Data quality indicatorsa
Data attribute

Description

Mandatory

Coverage of data
quality assessment

Percentage of PCF included in the data quality assessment based on
the >5% emissions threshold.

From 2025
onwards

Technologicalrepresentativenessb

Quantitative DQR based on the data quality matrix (Table 9), scoring
the technological representativeness of the datac used for PCF
calculation based on a weighted average of all inputs representing>5% of PCF emissions.

From 2025
onwards

Temporal
representativeness

Quantitative DQR based on the data quality matrix (Table 9), scoring
the temporal representativeness of the data used for PCF calculation
based on a weighted average of all inputs representing >5% of PCF
emissions.

From 2025
onwards

Geographicalrepresentativeness

Quantitative DQR based on the data quality matrix (Table 9), scoring
the geographical representativeness of the data2 used for PCF
calculation based on a weighted average of all inputs representing>5% of PCF emissions.

From 2025
onwards

Completeness

Quantitative DQR based on the data quality matrix (Table 9), scoring
the completeness of the data2 collected for PCF calculation basedon a weighted average of all inputs representing >5% of PCF
emissions.

From 2025
onwards

Reliability

Quantitative DQR based on the data quality matrix (Table 9), scoring
the reliability of the activity data collected for PCF calculation
based on a weighted average of all inputs representing >5% of PCF
emissions.

From 2025
onwardsa. Please note, companies are mandated to report on either the PDS or the data quality indicators until 2025, when both will become mandatory.
b. The term “technological” as used here refers to the technology of specific production processes. Throughout the rest of the Framework, this term isused to refer to IT.
c. When primary activity data has been used in the calculation of PCF and assuming that the primary data would be representative of the process underquestion, these data quality indicators should reflect the degree of representativeness of emission factors used in the calculation.

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions

65

Assurance information
Data attribute

Description

Mandatory

Assurance

Binary indicator stating whether the PCF has been assured in linewith Pathfinder Framework requirements (Section 5).

Yes

Yes

Level of granularity of the emissions data assured: corporate
level, product line, PCF system, or product level. Option to state“n/a” if no assurance has taken place.

No

Assurance coverage

Level of granularity of the emissions data assured: corporate
level, product line, PCF system, or product level. Option to state“n/a” if no assurance has taken place.

No

Assurance level

Level of assurance applicable to the PCF: limited or reasonable.
Option to state “n/a” if no assurance has taken place.

No

Assurance boundary

Boundary of the assurance, e.g., gate-to-gate or cradle-to-gate.
Option to state “n/a” if no assurance has taken place.

No

Assurance provider

The name of the independent third party engaged to undertakethe assurance.

No

Assurance completion date

The date at which the assurance was completed.

No

Assurance standard

Standard(s) against which the PCF was assured.

No

Assurance statement

A reference to the assurance statement that is used to prove
the assurance of the PCF. This can be a PDF attachment or adigital signature. The technical specifications specify details on
company identification and digital signature verification.

No

Assurance comments

Any additional comments that clarify the interpretation of theassurance.

No

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions

66Appendix C:
Existing standards
and guidanceThis guidance builds on the development of emissions accounting standards of the GHG Protocol, ISO, andthe European Commission. The table below summarizes some of the key standards and geographical focusof these entities.

Publisher

Geographicalfocus

Corporate level

Productlevel

Specific to given
sectors

Specific to given
products

EuropeanCommission

EU

Organizational
Environmental
Footprint (OEF)

PEF

OEF Sector Rules(e.g., for retail)

PEFCRs (e.g., for IT
equipment)

ISO

GlobalISO 14064

ISO 14067

ISO 20915:2018 forsteel products

PCRs (e.g., ISO
22526 for biobased
plastics)

E.g., Agriculture
Guidance

PCRs (e.g., PCRs forconcrete)

ISO 14040
ISO 14044
GHG Protocol(WRI/
WBCSD)

GlobalCorporate,
Scope 2, andScope 3standards

Product
Life Cycle
Standard

Land Sector andCarbon Removal
Guidance

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions

67

Appendix D:
Assurance evidence pack
This evidence pack contains the information thatcompanies should consolidate before undergoingproduct-level assurance in conformance with thePathfinder Framework. It is structured along three
dimensions of evidence central to verifying productlevel emission disclosures:
1. Data. Evidence around the required data
elements, sources, and quality of data used in
the calculations

Each dimension is subdivided into five concreteelements that constitute the evidence pack for that
dimension. As the maturity of companies’ productlevel emission reporting varies, the evidence packdistinguishes between elements that are likely to beneeded at a minimum and elements that might be
optional as evidence.

2. Methodology. Evidence around the calculation
steps, results, and assumptions
3. Governance. Evidence around the underlying
processes used during the calculations, including
how data was stored, how quality was ensured,and how risks were mitigatedPathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions

68

Data
Element

Description

Minimum

Optional

Data collection

In order to perform a PCF calculation,companies are expected to identify
all relevant GHG sources and map theactivity data available for each

Inventory of all GHG
sources and therelevant activity data
broken down by site

N/A

Primary data
sources

Understanding which of the GHG sources
have been calculated via primary datacollection is considered key for the
purpose of the Pathfinder Framework

Comprehensive listof all primary data
sources used

Additional information
on how and when thedata was accessed

Secondary data
sourcesCompanies downstream want toensure that secondary data used for the
calculation comes from credible andglobally recognized sources

Comprehensive listof all secondary data
sources used

Additional information
on how and when thedata was accessed

Proxy data

Should primary and secondary data
sources not cover the entirety of thestudied PCF, proxy data can be used to fillin the gaps as long as this is documented
transparently

List of proxy data
used and rationale ofapplication

Steps taken to ensurethat proxy data used isminimized in the future

Data quality

As data quality shall only be assessed
for GHG sources surpassing the defined
5% threshold, companies will need togive evidence of this exercise to ensure
all material sources are covered in theassessment

Results of materiality
threshold assessmentof PCF’s GHG sources

An individual data
quality statement
for each GHG source
surpassing themateriality threshold

Overall data quality
assessment statement

Companies will also need to give
evidence of the data quality assessment
statement

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions

69

Methodology
Element

Description

Minimum

Optional

ConformanceStandards followed will define theFramework requirements and thus
the correctness of the steps taken bycompanies to calculate the PCF

Comprehensive
checklist of standard(s)requirements followed

N/A

Companies will need to demonstratealignment to Scope boundary conditionsprescribed by the Framework

List of Scope boundary
conditions

Calculation steps

It is essential for companies to be able
to produce a list of calculation steps
taken to convert activity data into GHG
emissions for each life cycle stage
included in the system boundary of
the PCF

Comprehensive list of
calculation steps perlife cycle stage

N/A

Assumptions

A list of assumptions used in calculation
to ensure completeness of calculation

Comprehensive list ofassumptions made ateach stage

N/A

Allocation

Downstream companies will want tounderstand whether allocation has takenplace, and if so, what approach was used

Description of
allocation approach
followed

Evidence to confirm
avoided allocation

Results

Results will allow verification parties
to understand whether the calculation
steps required by the standard have been
completed accurately

Comprehensive list of
all intermediate andfinal results

N/A

Ensures mass balance validation

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions

70Governance
Element

Description

Minimum

Optional

Data governanceIn order to ensure replicability andfacilitate knowledge transfer, companies
should have in place a data governanceplan mapping the data processes,
ownership, and responsibilities, as wellas documentation on the steps taken to
consolidate and validate different data
inputs, e.g., from different sites

Comprehensive mapof all processes andresponsibilities

N/A

Quality control

Internal mechanism in place to ensure
quality control takes place and that
responsibilities associated with it
are clear

N/A

Comprehensive
list of controls andresponsibilities

Expertise

There is a need to ensure that the team
employed to undergo the calculation
process has sufficient expertise in
the subject in order to minimize PCF
misstatements

N/A

Total years of expertise
within team employed
to undergo PCF

Capacity

When asked, companies should be able
to list internal and contracted teammembers (if any) responsible for the
product footprint calculations

N/A

List of all responsible
individuals

Riskmanagement

Companies need to be able to identify
potential shortcomings or pitfalls
associated with the PCF calculation
process in order to be able toaddress themComprehensive list of
all risks and mitigation
tactics

Progress on mitigation
tactics employedComprehensive list of
all data consolidation
steps and rationale

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions

71

Appendix E:
Scope 3 upstream
accounting methods
Currently, three main methods are used to account for upstream Scope 3 emissions. These methods aredefined by their accuracy and the type of data that the calculations are based on.
Figure 21: Three main calculation methods for Scope 3 upstream calculations

Resources required
Time and effort

Supplier-specificprimary data method
Average-data method
Function: product-level
performance tracking
Spend-based method
Function: evaluate
materiality and identify
hotspots
Data source: company
expenditures

Data source: physicalactivity data
Emission factor: LCA ofingredients/components
based on peer-reviewed
studies of given products

Function: performancetracking at ingredient,component, andmaterial level
Data source: suppliers
Emission factor: supplierspecific data by product orservice

Emission factor: economic
input-output databases
Achieving greater
accuracy requires
more detailed analysis

Granularity
Accuracy and ability to influence
Source: EcoAct

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions

72

Spend-based method
Companies calculating Scope 3 emissions for the
first time tend to use data already being collected
for other company processes, such as company
expenditures, and to multiply these by a revenue
intensity factor representing the Scope 1 and2 emissions per dollar revenue for an activity or
sector. While this method is less precise whenquantifying emissions, it offers an initial overview
of the focus areas within a value chain. This, inturn, allows companies to adapt their strategies
to improve data quality based on the activities
or products that have a greater impact. Thismethod should only be seen as a first step in thequantification of Scope 3 emissions, after which
companies should seek to improve data collection toachieve greater accuracy, as shown in Figure 2.

Average-data method
The second method uses physical metrics, i.e.,
primary activity data on material weight, fuelconsumption, or distances traveled that allows theuse of relevant secondary emission factors thatare more specific to the nature and origin of thesecomponents when carrying out the calculations.
These secondary emission factors can be found inprocess-based life cycle inventory databases andare present in the format of cradle-to-gate emission
factors of the purchased good or service per unit ofmass or unit of product.
While this is a step in the right direction, it
continues to rely on industry averages, whichhinders companies’ abilities to determine the bestperforming supplier for any given product or material
or to understand how well company initiatives
to reduce emissions (e.g., supplier engagement
programs) are performing.

Supplier-specific data method
The ultimate goal, while requiring greater effort,
is to obtain product-level emissions data directlyfrom suppliers, as this would allow companies tocollaborate with their supply chain to improve theefficiency of products and services purchased
and accurately monitor the impact of these
improvements on the footprint. This, in turn,can become a procurement criterion rewarding
companies that are more sustainable or evensupporting suppliers in their GHG reduction journeys.

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions

73

Endnotes
1. Based on more than 50 selected stakeholders,
including Shell, adidas, Pfizer, 3M, Volkswagen,GreenGauge, CDP, and McKinsey & Company.
2. Any reference in this document to the term
“technology” shall be taken to refer to IT (asopposed to production technology).
3. ISO 14067:2018.
4. Existing overarching methods and standards,
in contrast, do not provide a sufficient level of
specificity. For instance, under the GHG ProductStandard, two companies producing similar
products can choose two different methods forallocating emissions, leading to results being
incomparable.
5. To drive consistency, PACT is collaborating withseveral sectoral initiatives to build sector- andproduct-specific guidance in alignment with thePathfinder Framework.
6. Prior to commencement, the list of work-inprogress PCRs by relevant program operators
shall be consulted to avoid duplication. Any new
development activities should further be brought
to the attention of the Partnership for Carbon
Transparency.
7. Together for Sustainability (2022), The Product
Carbon Footprint Guideline for the Chemicalindustry.
8. World Resources Institute/World BusinessCouncil for Sustainable Development, GHG
Protocol (2013), Required Greenhouse Gases inInventories; Accounting and Reporting Standard
Amendment.
9. This guidance allows for a one-year grace period
to give companies sufficient time to update
their calculations and systems to the latest
characterization factors provided by the IPCC.
Please find the IPCC 2021 update in the following
link (page 1034).

10. The Pathfinder Framework uses a value chain
perspective to account for and exchange productlife cycle emissions. As such, the Framework
organizes a company’s emissions into threemajor categories: (i) upstream emissions:indirect GHG emissions that occur in the value
chain prior to the processes owned or controlled
by the reporting company; all upstream
transportation emissions are also included aspart of upstream emissions; (ii) direct emissions:
GHG emissions from the processes that are
owned or controlled by the reporting company;(iii) downstream emissions: indirect GHG
emissions that occur in the value chain following
the processes owned or controlled by thereporting company.
11. Accounting for and reporting for transportation
emissions is described further in
Section 3.3.2.2.
12. If bioenergy biomass is used as a feedstock
material, please refer to Section 3.3.2.1 forreporting guidance.
13. These rules are aligned with PAS2050 cut-off
criteria. While alignment with other frameworks
was sought, the divergence found across them
led to this guidance aligning with the mostlenient approach to ensure that PCFs following
other frameworks are still compliant with these
exemption rules.
14. The Pathfinder Network will help facilitate directaccess to these.
15. ISO 14044.
16. GHG Product Standard (page 67).
17. GHG Product Standard (Table 9.1).
18. Please note this is an arbitrary number agreed
on with other PCF calculation initiatives that is
intended to reflect a significant divergence in thevalue of the different co-products.

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions7419. Please refer to ISO 14067:2018 Section 6.4.8
for further information on how to account forbiogenic CO2e withdrawals and the temporarystorage in product carbon pools.
20. Please note that aircraft GHG emissions undercertain circumstances in high altitudes haveadditional climate impacts because of physicaland chemical reactions with the atmosphere.
For more information on GHG emissions fromaircraft, see the IPCC Guidelines for National
Greenhouse Gas Inventories and the IPCC
Special Report on Aviation.
21. See EPD International for detailed criteria on
when the end-of-waste state is achieved.
22. This method is also known as the 100-0 method.
23. World Resources Institute/World BusinessCouncil for Sustainable Development, GHG
Protocol (2013), Technical Guidance for
Calculating Scope 3 Emissions.
24. World Resources Institute/World BusinessCouncil for Sustainable Development, GHG
Protocol (2013), Technical Guidance for
Calculating Scope 3 Emissions.
25. The Pathfinder Network will help facilitate
access to such emission factors.
26. World Resources Institute/World BusinessCouncil for Sustainable Development, GHG
Protocol (2013), Technical Guidance for
Calculating Scope 3 Emissions.
27. Specific guidance focused on data sources fortransportation can be found in Section 3.3.2.2.
28. While this guidance advocates for the useof primary data, in some cases primary data
may be associated with high uncertainty and/or measurement inaccuracies, thus making
secondary data more representative of activity
data or emission factors.

29. More information on validation of databases canbe found in Section 2.3 of the Global Guidance
for Life Cycle Assessment Databases (2011).
30. Canals et al. (2011), Approaches for Addressing
Life Cycle Assessment Data Gaps for Bio-based
Products.
31. Assuming company-specific activity data has
been used in the calculation of the PCF and thatthe data are representative of the process inquestion, the assessment of this data quality
indicator shall be based on the degree ofrepresentativeness of the emission factors usedin the calculation.
32. See endnote above.
33. See endnote above.
34. Retrieved from ISAE 3000 and related standards
such as ISAE 3410.
35. GHG Product Standard (page 96).
36. In the context of this guidance, SMEs aredefined in accordance with the latest EU
recommendation 2006/361 criteria andthresholds, where SMEs are defined ascompanies that employ fewer than 250 persons
and have an annual turnover not exceeding€50 million and/or an annual balance sheet total
not exceeding €43 million.
37. UN Statistics Division (September 22, 2021),
Economic statistics. Retrieved fromhttps://unstats.un.org/unsd/classifications/
Econ/cpc.
38. New compared to version 1.0.
39. Retrieved from ISO 14067:2018:17.
40. May also be referred to as reference year.

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions

75

Disclaimer

Acknowledgements

The Pathfinder Framework is designed to ease GHG
accounting and encourage businesses to exchange
verified primary data on product carbon emissions
across the supply chain. It has been developed in a
multi-stakeholder process, including experts frombusiness, industry initiatives, standard-setting andreporting bodies, government and nongovernmentalorganizations. The process was led by the World
Business Council for Sustainable Development(WBCSD), within the context of its Partnershipfor Carbon Transparency. McKinsey & Company,
the global management consulting firm, provided
analytical insights and support to the Partnershipfor Carbon Transparency.

The World Business Council for Sustainable
Development (WBCSD) would like to thank all PACT
members, WBCSD staff, and other individuals
who shared their detailed and thoughtful input
and contributed actively to the development of
this document.

Contact details
If you would like to find out more about PACT,
please contact:
PACT@wbcsd.org

While WBCSD encourages the use of the Pathfinder
Framework by all corporations and organizations,the preparation and publication of reports orprogram specifications based fully or partially onthese guidelines is at the discretion of each entity
producing them. Neither WBCSD nor any otherindividuals who contributed to these guidelines
assume responsibility for any consequences ordamages resulting directly or indirectly from its
use (e.g., in the preparation of reports, program
specifications or the use of reports based onthese guidelines).

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions76About WBCSD

About PACTWBCSD is the premier global, CEO-led communityof over 200 of the world’s leading sustainablebusinesses working collectively to accelerate thesystem transformations needed for a net zero,nature positive, and more equitable future.

PACT is seeking to accelerate decarbonization
through the creation of transparency on emissions in
the value chain.

We do this by engaging executives and sustainability
leaders from business and elsewhere to sharepractical insights on the obstacles and opportunities
we currently face in tackling the integrated climate,nature, and inequality sustainability challenge;
by co-developing “how-to” CEO-guides fromthese insights; by providing science-based target
guidance including standards and protocols; andby developing tools and platforms to help leadingbusinesses in sustainability drive integrated actions
to tackle climate, nature, and inequality challenges
across sectors and geographical regions.
Our member companies come from all businesssectors and all major economies, representing a
combined revenue of more than $8.5 trillion and19 million employees. Our global network of almost
70 national business councils gives our members
unparalleled reach across the globe. Since 1995,
WBCSD has been uniquely positioned to work withmember companies along and across value chainsto deliver impactful business solutions to the mostchallenging sustainability issues.
Together, we are the leading voice of business forsustainability, united by our vision of a world in which
9+ billion people are living well, within planetary
boundaries, by mid-century.
www.wbcsd.org
Follow us on Twitter and LinkedIn

PACT provides a forum for stakeholders to jointly
tackle this challenge, uniting businesses from acrossindustries, technology players, industry-focused
initiatives, standard-setting bodies, reportingorganizations, and regulators in their shared
mission. Jointly, the PACT community definesand publishes the necessary methodological andtechnological basis for emissions data exchange,
integrating existing standards and approaches andcreating a trusted and holistic foundation.
PACT is hosted by WBCSD and supported by its
knowledge partner, McKinsey Sustainability, as wellas its technology partner, SINE Foundation.
www.carbon-transparency.com

About McKinsey Sustainability
McKinsey Sustainability is McKinsey’s clientservice platform with the goal of helping all industry
sectors transform to get to net zero by 2050 and to
cut carbon emissions by half by 2030. McKinsey
Sustainability seeks to be the preeminent impact
partner and adviser for their clients, from the board
room to the engine room, on sustainability, climate
resilience, energy transition, and environmental,social, and governance (ESG). It leverages thought
leadership, innovative tools and solutions, top
experts, and a vibrant ecosystem of industry
associations and knowledge partnerships to leada wave of innovation and economic growth thatsafeguards our planet and advances sustainability.

About SINE Foundation
The SINE Foundation is a tech for good organization
founded by progressive entrepreneurs, academic
experts, and software engineers. SINE designs
and implements the foundation for lastingdata collaboration—delivered as ready-to-use
governance tools and open-source software.
The nonprofit foundation supports globalorganizations to identify, initiate, and maintain use
cases for data collaboration within complex multistakeholder environments.

Copyright © WBCSD, January 2023.

Pathfinder Framework: Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions

77World Business Council
for Sustainable Development
Geneva, Amsterdam, New Delhi, London, New York City, Singapore
www.wbcsd.org

Powered by