Measuring Carbon Footprints of Agri‑Food Products

10. Scaling up carbon footprints while keeping costs low

Abstract

The seventh building block for carbon footprints consists of ways to scale up carbon footprints while keeping costs low. This chapter discusses several ways in which this can be achieved, with particular attention to removing barriers faced by farmers, small and medium-sized enterprises, and producers in the developing world.

To achieve widespread carbon footprints, it is not sufficient to design an approach feasible only in theory, or feasible only for the most sophisticated and largest firms: the approach must be feasible for all actors. If calculating and sharing carbon footprints is costly, difficult, or time consuming, progress will be slow.

In a sense, all building blocks discussed so far tackle a particular barrier to scaling up: it would be hard for farmers to calculate their carbon footprints if farm level calculation tools are not available, for example. But real-world efforts to scale up carbon footprint calculations will probably encounter other barriers too.

At the moment, no systematic overview exists of the barriers to scaling up carbon footprints. But it seems plausible that farmers, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), and producers in the developing world may face barriers related to the cost and complexity of calculating and sharing carbon footprints (WEF, OECD and BIAC, 2023[1]). One concern is that this may lead to their exclusion from supply chains (Deconinck, Jansen and Barisone, 2023[2]; WTO, 2022[3]). This chapter discusses several approaches to overcome such barriers.

10.1. Using default values as a starting point

Design choices can help prevent or reduce some of the barriers. For example, one way to keep costs and complexity down is to use default values as a starting point. Retailers, food manufacturers and others along the supply chain could start from product carbon footprint estimates based on secondary data but with the possibility of replacing this with an estimate based on primary data where feasible.

Because secondary data is already widely available (cfr. Chapter 7), this approach would make it possible to quickly arrive at a first approximation of product carbon footprints in food supply chains. For example, Clark et al. (2022[4]) showed that it is possible to combine product ingredient lists and publicly available LCA information on agri-food commodities to create first estimates of the environmental impact of more than 57 000 food products available for sale in supermarkets in the United Kingdom and Ireland. Likewise, the BRC Mondra Coalition (https://www.mondra.com/coalition) in the United Kingdom is using detailed product recipe data from private-label manufacturers to quickly generate a first estimate of carbon footprints and other environmental impacts for thousands of products, while allowing manufacturers to update these estimates using primary data.

Firms would have an incentive to replace default values with estimates based on primary data if their suppliers’ operations and their own have relatively low emissions and if gathering primary data is not too costly. Increasing the share of primary data could be done by increasing the default value over time (to gradually increase the incentive for firms to collect primary data) and by investing in other initiatives to reduce the cost of collecting primary data over time.

10.2. Private sector engagement with suppliers

Downstream supply chain actors are increasingly asking suppliers for carbon footprint information, for example to refine their Scope 3 reporting (Box 1.1 in Chapter 1). It often makes sense for larger firms to support their suppliers in providing this information.

One example is Unilever.1 In developing its strategy for reducing emissions, the firm discovered that upstream suppliers accounted for two-thirds of Unilever’s total emissions, yet many suppliers lacked climate targets or even detailed emissions data. In response, Unilever launched a supplier engagement programme in 2021. The programme aims to eventually support suppliers of all sizes, industries, and geographies in measuring and reducing their emissions. 

Recognising that suppliers were at various stages of their carbon reduction journeys, Unilever categorised them into three maturity levels: “Low maturity” suppliers with limited to no knowledge about their emissions, “Medium maturity” suppliers that had started their emissions reporting, and “High maturity” suppliers with fully defined Scope 1, 2, and 3 targets and capabilities to calculate product carbon footprints. Based on this categorization, Unilever provided tailored assistance. Low maturity suppliers were asked to simply get started with quantifying emissions. Medium maturity suppliers were asked to transition towards product carbon footprint reporting. High maturity suppliers were asked to provide product carbon footprint data in line with the PACT approach (Chapter 8).

Unilever’s assistance to suppliers includes one-on-one engagements, e-learning tools and capacity development trainings. Initially, suppliers’ biggest challenge was the lack of resources to monitor emissions. But in Unilever’s experience once tools were in place many suppliers were keen to move from the e-learning phase to actual data gathering.

In addition to this engagement tailored to suppliers’ maturity level, a second element in Unilever’s approach was to align its own requests with emerging industry standards, notably PACT. Suppliers will be more willing to invest in data gathering and reporting if they know that the same numbers will be accepted by multiple clients.

Private actors along the supply chain can thus play an important role by engaging their own suppliers and assisting them in scaling up product carbon footprint calculations. Cooperatives can play a similar role.

10.3. Public-private awareness campaigns

The public sector and industry groups can also work together to drive the adoption of carbon footprint calculations in the agricultural sector.

In New Zealand, an estimated 84% of farmers had by 2023 calculated their on-farm GHG emissions. Following the Climate Change Response Act 2002, the government established the He Waka Eke Noa partnership between industry, Māori agribusiness interests, and the Ministries for Primary Industries and the Environment. They developed a practical framework to measure, manage and reduce agricultural GHG emissions, including step-by-step guidance documents. 

As part of He Waka Eke Noa, the Ministry for Primary Industries launched the awareness campaign “Know Your Numbers”.2 The initiative offered an overview of the available farm level calculation tools, and guidance for farmers. Farmers could choose between three options for calculating their on-farm emissions:

• Use a calculation tool themselves

• Ask farm advisors which tool(s) they use and what services they can offer

• Ask their processor or industry organisation for advice.

Industry associations also supported farmers in calculating emissions. For example, the farmer levy body Beef+LambNZ published user guides, easy-access open-source GHG calculators, Q&A documents, and links to GHG calculators and Excel sheets where farmers can collect their emission data. These efforts helped scale up calculations of on-farm emissions. A remaining challenge is the use of different calculation tools by farmers, which could limit the comparability of results. To address this, the New Zealand government is currently working to align the methods used by calculation tools on those used in the national inventory.

10.4. Embedding carbon footprint calculations in existing schemes

Another option for scaling up carbon footprints is to embed them into existing schemes. The Irish Origin Green initiative has in this way been able to achieve widespread carbon footprint calculations for Irish agriculture, covering more than 90% of beef farms and 95% of dairy farms.3 At the time of writing, some 367 000 carbon footprints had been calculated since 2013.

Origin Green is a voluntary programme created by Bord Bia, the Irish government agency for trade, development, and food. A key component of Origin Green is on-farm assessments conducted through Bord Bia’s Sustainable Assurance Schemes. Independent auditors visit farms to assess practices and record data on a wide range of sustainability issues. Bord Bia then uses this data to assess the farm’s environmental performance, including its carbon footprint. The collected data is stored in Bord Bia’s database, which is also connected to LCA databases to fill any gaps with secondary data. Bord Bia generates a feedback report for farmers, illustrating how their farm inputs and activities contribute to emissions and suggesting ways to mitigate these emissions and improve production efficiencies. 

The rollout of carbon footprint calculations was accelerated by Bord Bia’s pre-existing Quality Assurance infrastructure, which has been in place for over 20 years. The necessary information for carbon footprint calculations is collected as part of regular audits, and the calculations themselves are done by Bord Bia, which reduces the burden for farmers. Audits are free for farmers, as the programme is funded by the government.

Several other assurance schemes require producers to estimate GHG emissions. This includes Rainforest Alliance, the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil, and Bonsucro.4 Working with existing assurance schemes to scale up carbon footprint calculations holds significant potential, since farmers already know the scheme and an infrastructure for audits and quality assurance is already in place.5

10.5. Using first-party or second-party assurance where appropriate

As noted in Chapter 9, cheaper alternatives to third-party assurance are first-party assurance (i.e. a self-declared claim) or second-party assurance (where, for example, a buyer verifies whether a product meets requirements). Although these are generally seen as providing less confidence, these approaches are also easier and cheaper. Where the use of these alternatives is considered appropriate, they could thus help scale up carbon footprints by lowering barriers for producers.

An example of using first-party assurance to allow faster scale-up is the “visualisation” initiative in Japan, which is part of the Japanese government’s MIDORI Strategy for Sustainable Food Systems. Under the initiative, farmers’ efforts to reduce environmental burdens (including GHG emissions) are displayed on a product label. The scheme is self-declared. Farmers evaluate their GHG emissions reduction efforts by themselves, by entering their primary data in a calculation tool developed by the Japanese Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF). The approach is self-declared to lower barriers for producers to join the initiative. However, the government requires farmers to submit their calculation result to MAFF, which allows checking for suspicious data.6

10.6. Technical assistance to low- and middle-income countries

Small producers and SMEs in low- and middle-income countries are likely to face even greater barriers in calculating and sharing carbon footprints than their counterparts in high-income countries. Various forms of technical assistance can help reduce the burden of cost and complexity.

One form of technical assistance, that provided by private actors to their suppliers, was noted earlier. In a context of global supply chains, it can be an important channel for transferring know-how and technology from high-income countries to low- and middle-income countries (Swinnen and Kuijpers, 2019[5]).

Other forms could include technical assistance provided by development banks, development co-operation agencies or initiatives such as the International Trade Centre. This could be aimed at improving the capabilities of specific firms in low- and middle-income countries. But assistance could also aim to improve a country’s capabilities in terms of the various building blocks, e.g. developing science-based methods, farm level tools, and LCA databases which take into account a country’s climate and production conditions, or helping the country develop its system of standards, accreditation, assurance, etc., known as its “national quality infrastructure” (WTO, 2022[3]). This could take the form of technology transfer, for example by sharing know-how and source code for farm-level tools.

10.7. A first assessment

Many barriers could hamper or slow down the calculation and exchange of carbon footprints in food systems. This chapter discussed some likely barriers faced by farmers, SMEs, and producers in the developing world as well as possible solutions, without aiming to be exhaustive. Private actors, assurance schemes, and public-private collaborations could play important roles, as could the provision of technical assistance. While the practical challenges should not be downplayed, the examples in this chapter do show how existing approaches could be expanded or adapted to scale up carbon footprints in food systems.

References

[4] Clark, M. et al. (2022), “Estimating the environmental impacts of 57,000 food products”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 119/33, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2120584119.

[6] Deconinck, K. and M. Hobeika (2023), “Understanding the impact of consumer-oriented assurance schemes: A review of voluntary standards and labels for the environmental sustainability of agri-food products”, OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers, No. 200, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/af917674-en.

[2] Deconinck, K., M. Jansen and C. Barisone (2023), “Fast and furious: the rise of environmental impact reporting in food systems”, European Review of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 50/4, pp. 1310-1337, https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbad018.

[5] Swinnen, J. and R. Kuijpers (2019), “Value chain innovations for technology transfer in developing and emerging economies: Conceptual issues, typology, and policy implications”, Food Policy, Vol. 83, pp. 298-309, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2017.07.013.

[1] WEF, OECD and BIAC (2023), Emissions Measurement in Supply Chains: Business Realities and Challenges, World Economic Forum, https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Emissions_Measurement_in_Supply_Chains_2023.pdf.

[3] WTO (2022), What yardstick for net zero? Trade and Climate Change Information Brief n° 6, World Trade Organization, https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news21_e/clim_03nov21-6_e.pdf.

Notes

← 1.  The discussion in this chapter is based on an interview with Giulia Saladino and Katy Armstrong of Unilever.

← 2.  See https://www.agmatters.nz/goals/know-your-number/ (accessed 26 June 2024).

← 3.  See Origin Green, Progress Update Report 2023 (https://www.origingreen.ie/globalassets/bb-progress-report-2023-002.pdf) (accessed 26 June 2024) and https://www.origingreen.ie/who-is-involved/producers/carbon-footprint-assessments/ (accessed 26 June 2024).

← 4.  See Cool Farm Alliance, “Certification Standards and the Cool Farm Tool”, 8 December 2022, available at https://coolfarm.org/certification-standards-and-the-cool-farm-tool/ (accessed 16 October 2024).

← 5.  For an introduction to consumer-oriented assurance schemes in agriculture and food, see Deconinck and Hobeika (2023[6]).

← 6.  Information provided by Japan’s Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF).