1、Measuring Carbon Footprints of AgriFood ProductsEight Building BlocksMeasuring Carbon Footprints of AgriFood ProductsEIGHT BUILDING BLOCKSThis document,as well as any data and map included herein,are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty overany territory,to the delimitation of internati

2、onal frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory,city or area.Please cite this publication as:OECD(2025),Measuring Carbon Footprints of Agri-Food Products:Eight Building Blocks,OECD Publishing,Paris,https:/doi.org/10.1787/8eb75706-en.ISBN 978-92-64-73270-4(print)ISBN 978-92-64-34344-3(

3、PDF)ISBN 978-92-64-68204-7(HTML)Photo credits:Cover waragon injan/S.Corrigenda to OECD publications may be found at:https:/www.oecd.org/en/publications/support/corrigenda.html.OECD 2025 Attribution 4.0 International(CC BY 4.0)This work is made available under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Int

4、ernational licence.By using this work,you accept to be bound by the terms of this licence(https:/creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).Attribution you must cite the work.Translations you must cite the original work,identify changes to the original and add the following text:In the event of any discr

5、epancy between the original work and the translation,only the text of original work should be considered valid.Adaptations you must cite the original work and add the following text:This is an adaptation of an original work by the OECD.The opinions expressed and arguments employed in this adaptation

6、 should not be reported as representing the official views of the OECD or of its Member countries.Third-party material the licence does not apply to third-party material in the work.If using such material,you are responsible for obtaining permission from the third party and for any claims of infring

7、ement.You must not use the OECD logo,visual identity or cover image without express permission or suggest the OECD endorses your use of the work.Any dispute arising under this licence shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the Permanent Court of Arbitration(PCA)Arbitration Rules 2012.The

8、 seat of arbitration shall be Paris(France).The number of arbitrators shall be one.3 MEASURING CARBON FOOTPRINTS OF AGRI-FOOD PRODUCTS OECD 2025 Preface In pursuit of their net zero objectives,countries are using,or plan to use,a widely varied set of approaches.This richness of policy experiences pr

9、ovides valuable insights on the effects of different tools,which can be adapted to unique national circumstances,but international cooperation will be needed to ensure these tools are as effective as they can be.Towards this,the Inclusive Forum on Carbon Mitigation Approaches(IFCMA)is the OECDs flag

10、ship initiative,designed to help optimise the global impact of emissions-reduction efforts around the world through better data and information sharing,evidence-based mutual learning and better mutual understanding,and inclusive multilateral dialogue.The IFCMA is taking stock of different approaches

11、,mapping policies to the emissions they cover,and modelling their impacts.Recent analytical work by the IFCMA highlights the need for sector-and product-level carbon intensity metrics to support the design and evaluation of mitigation policies and enable the development of markets for low-carbon goo

12、ds.More accurate,timely,and granular product-level carbon intensity metrics could form a foundation on which a wide range of public and private mitigation efforts could be built.The report Measuring Carbon Footprints of Agri-Food Products is part of our effort to further support this objective by ex

13、ploring essential building blocks to develop a reliable system to measure carbon footprints in agri-food supply chains.The agri-food sector accounts for one-third of human-made emissions,making it a key focus for reducing global emissions.At the same time,it supports millions of livelihoods,includin

14、g small-scale farmers and communities in low-and middle-income countries,highlighting the importance of minimising compliance costs for farmers and businesses,and avoiding the unintended creation of trade barriers.Looking ahead,governments can further enhance transparency in deploying farm-level cal

15、culation tools by using the latest scientific evidence,as well as enhancing communication of carbon footprints data along the supply chain.Further support is also needed for farmers,small and medium-sized enterprises,and producers in developing countries to overcome practical barriers in calculating

16、 carbon footprints.The OECD will continue to support globally better coordinated and more effective carbon mitigation approaches,including identifying strategies for governments to enhance the quality and availability of sector-and product-level carbon intensity metrics.Mathias Cormann Secretary-Gen

17、eral 4 MEASURING CARBON FOOTPRINTS OF AGRI-FOOD PRODUCTS OECD 2025 Foreword Food systems account for an estimated one-third of global greenhouse gas(GHG)emissions.The 2022 OECD Meeting of Agriculture Ministers therefore committed to increase climate change mitigation efforts by reducing emissions fr

18、om agriculture and food systems and by increasing carbon sequestration.In 2023,160 Heads of State and Government similarly affirmed in the COP28 UAE Declaration on Sustainable Agriculture,Resilient Food Systems,and Climate Action,that any path to achieving the goals of the Paris Agreement must inclu

19、de agriculture and food systems.OECD analysis has long supported governments efforts to improve the environmental sustainability of the agricultural sector,including GHG emissions.In recent years,OECD analysis has also taken a broader food systems lens,looking at the role of food loss and waste,cons

20、umer behaviour,and environmental impacts along food supply chains,among other topics.Reliable data is essential to support efforts to improve environmental sustainability,whether by governments,farmers,businesses,or households.Yet at the moment,it is often difficult to find reliable data on environm

21、ental impacts of food products,such as their carbon footprint.This report asks what it would take to achieve reliable and widespread measurement of carbon footprints of agri-food products,taking into account the specific characteristics of the sector.It identifies eight building blocks and shows tha

22、t many of the necessary elements are emerging,although more work is needed to further develop and align these.It calls on researchers,farmers,other supply chain actors,governments,and civil society,both at the domestic and international levels,to work together to avoid fragmentation.5 MEASURING CARB

23、ON FOOTPRINTS OF AGRI-FOOD PRODUCTS OECD 2025 Acknowledgements This report was prepared by Koen Deconinck(OECD Trade and Agriculture Directorate),Saule Burkitbayeva(Australian National University),and Hillena Thoms(European University Institute)under the supervision of Lee Ann Jackson(OECD Trade and

24、 Agriculture Directorate)and general oversight of Marion Jansen(OECD Trade and Agriculture Directorate).The work greatly benefited from exchanges with experts in the OECD Food Chain Analysis Network(FCAN),in particular during hybrid meetings in June 2023 and October 2024 based in Paris.The authors a

25、lso wish to acknowledge helpful discussions with participants at the OECD Global Forum on Agriculture 2023,the European Association of Agricultural Economics(EAAE)Congress in Rennes(August 2023),the LCA Food Conference in Barcelona(September 2024),and the AgriGHG symposium in Berlin(October 2024).Wi

26、thin the OECD,this report benefited from helpful discussions with Ali Allibhai,Roberto Astolfi,Cemre Balaban,Carla Barisone,Enrico Botta,Annelies Deuss,Olivia Du Bois,Matteo Fiorini,Clara Frezal,Grgoire Garsous,Cline Giner,Sophia Gnych,Yannick Hemmerl,Raphael Jachnik,Maki Katsube,Catriona Marshall,S

27、bastien Miroudot,Julia Nielson,Jolien Noels,Mauro Pisu,Kilian Raiser,Juan David Saenz,Jonas Teusch,and Hugo Valin,as well as participants in the inter-directorate group on carbon footprints.The authors also wish to thank Karolina Rimkute and Carlo Rotondo for administrative assistance,and Michle Pat

28、terson for editorial assistance.6 MEASURING CARBON FOOTPRINTS OF AGRI-FOOD PRODUCTS OECD 2025 Table of contents Preface 3 Foreword 4 Acknowledgements 5 Executive Summary 9 1 Introduction 11 References 16 2 Background:Four findings about GHG emissions in food systems 18 References 23 Notes 23 3 Towar

29、ds reliable and widespread carbon footprints in food systems 24 3.1.Food systems 25 3.2.Carbon footprints 25 3.3.Widespread 27 3.4.Reliable 28 3.5.Building blocks 29 References 31 Notes 32 4 Reporting standards and guidelines for carbon footprint measurement 34 4.1.Product carbon footprint standards

30、 36 4.2.PACT Pathfinder Framework 38 4.3.Sectoral guidance 40 4.4.Product category rules and related guidance 44 4.5.A first assessment 48 References 50 Notes 52 5 Science-based methods 54 5.1.Overview 55 5.2.A first assessment 56 References 58 7 MEASURING CARBON FOOTPRINTS OF AGRI-FOOD PRODUCTS OEC

31、D 2025 6 Farm level calculation tools 59 6.1.The current landscape of farm level calculation tools 60 6.2.How reliable are existing farm level tools?66 6.3.How reliable should tools be?68 6.4.A first assessment 70 References 71 Notes 72 7 Databases with secondary data 73 7.1.The landscape of LCA dat

32、abases 74 7.2.Where do the data in an LCA database come from?76 7.3.Geographic specificity of LCA databases 77 7.4.Interconnectedness and interoperability of LCA databases 78 7.5.A first assessment 79 References 80 Notes 82 8 Communicating carbon footprint data along the supply chain 83 8.1.Data exc

33、hange between two large firms 85 8.2.Data exchange between farmers and processors 87 8.3.Accessing data upstream from the farm 89 8.4.Data governance and restrictions on sharing sensitive data 91 8.5.A first assessment 92 References 93 Notes 94 9 Ensuring the integrity and quality of the data 95 9.1

34、.How assurance works 96 9.2.A first assessment 97 References 99 10 Scaling up carbon footprints while keeping costs low 100 10.1.Using default values as a starting point 101 10.2.Private sector engagement with suppliers 101 10.3.Public-private awareness campaigns 102 10.4.Embedding carbon footprint

35、calculations in existing schemes 102 10.5.Using first-party or second-party assurance where appropriate 103 10.6.Technical assistance to low-and middle-income countries 103 10.7.A first assessment 104 References 105 Notes 105 11 Updating as new scientific insights and techniques become available 106

36、 11.1.The tension between change and stability 107 11.2.A first assessment 108 References 110 Note 110 8 MEASURING CARBON FOOTPRINTS OF AGRI-FOOD PRODUCTS OECD 2025 12 Conclusion 111 References 116 FIGURES Figure 2.1.Global food systems GHG emissions by supply chain stage,2019 19 Figure 2.2.Estimate

37、d average carbon footprint for selected food products 20 Figure 2.3.Heterogeneity of carbon footprints for selected products 21 Figure 3.1.Stages of the product life cycle 26 Figure 3.2.Carbon footprints using the cradle-to-gate principle 26 Figure 4.1.The landscape of carbon footprint reporting sta

38、ndards and guidelines 35 Figure 8.1.Three interoperability challenges along the supply chain 85 Figure 8.2.Data exchange between two large firms 86 Figure 8.3.Data exchange between farmers and processors 88 Figure 8.4.Finding,combining,and sharing data relevant to the farm 90 Figure 12.1.Expert judg

39、ment on the eight building blocks 115 TABLES Table 4.1.Reporting agricultural GHG fluxes according to the GHG Protocol Agricultural Guidance 41 Table 4.2.Reporting GHG fluxes according to the GHG Protocol Draft Land Sector and Removals Guidance 43 Table 4.3.The treatment of CO2 emissions and removal

40、s in carbon footprint standards 44 Table 6.1.Key characteristics of selected farm level calculation tools 62 Table 6.2.System boundaries of selected farm level calculation tools 64 Table 6.3.Emission accounting metrics included in selected farm level calculation tools 65 Table 6.4.Variation in resul

41、ts of farm level calculation tools for emissions in UK agriculture 67 Table 7.1.Key characteristics of selected LCA databases relevant for food systems 75 Table 12.1.Building blocks:A first assessment 112 BOXES Box 1.1.Developments in Scope 3 reporting and target setting 14 Box 4.1.Differences betwe

42、en product carbon footprint standards 38 Box 4.2.The treatment of CO2 emissions and removals in carbon footprint standards 43 Box 5.1.Soil organic carbon 55 Box 8.1.Exchanging carbon footprint data in the chemicals industry 87 Box 8.2.HESTIA:A harmonised data format as a tool for interoperability 90

43、 Box 9.1.Proficiency testing 98 Box 12.1.The OECD Food Chain Analysis Network on carbon footprints of food systems 114 9 MEASURING CARBON FOOTPRINTS OF AGRI-FOOD PRODUCTS OECD 2025 Executive Summary What would it take to achieve reliable and widespread product carbon footprint information in agri-fo

44、od supply chains?This report argues that eight building blocks are essential:Reporting standards and guidelines for carbon footprint measurement,to create a shared understanding of what to include in carbon footprint calculations.Science-based methods for measuring or estimating emissions.Farm level

45、 calculation tools,which allow farmers to use primary data on their activities and management practices as inputs to calculate their carbon footprint.Databases with secondary data,to be used where primary data is not(yet)available.A way of communicating carbon footprint data along the supply chain,s

46、o that detailed calculations by producers at one stage of the supply chain can be used as input at the next stage.A way to ensure the integrity and quality of the data and calculations.A way to scale up carbon footprint calculations while keeping costs low,to ensure widespread adoption by actors wit

47、h limited capacity,notably farmers,small and medium-sized enterprises(SMEs),and producers in developing countries.A way to update these elements as new scientific insights and techniques become available.If these building blocks were in place,actors in the supply chain would be able to receive produ

48、ct carbon footprint information from suppliers,add their own emissions,and share the result with the next stage of the supply chain,all the way to the point where a consumer buys a food product.Such a model of“cradle-to-gate”carbon footprints,built up step by step based on primary data,would have th

49、e potential to unlock three different levers to reduce emissions in food systems.First,it would allow shifting to products with a lower average carbon footprint(e.g.from animal-based products to plant-based products).Second,within each product category,it would allow shifting to suppliers with a low

50、er carbon footprint(e.g.from higher-emitting dairy producers to lower-emitting ones).Third,it would incentivise producers everywhere to adopt techniques(e.g.farm management practices or technological solutions)to reduce their emissions.In the absence of primary data,only the first lever is available

51、,based on averages.This would leave important opportunities for emission reductions untapped,as the evidence shows that carbon footprints can vary considerably within the same product category(e.g.wheat)and are influenced by producers choices of techniques and practices.This report explains how the

52、eight building blocks are necessary to achieve a system of reliable and widespread carbon footprints in food systems.For each of the building blocks,the report explains its importance,followed by a first assessment of the current state and gaps or inconsistencies to be addressed.10 MEASURING CARBON

53、FOOTPRINTS OF AGRI-FOOD PRODUCTS OECD 2025 Across the building blocks,many of the necessary elements are already in place.Some have emerged recently,such as digital solutions to communicate carbon footprints along supply chains.Others were historically developed with different purposes in mind,such

54、as Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC)guidance on science-based methods(originally addressed to governments for National Inventory Reporting)or farm level calculation tools(originally developed to help farmers evaluate total on-farm emissions rather than product carbon footprints).Many b

55、uilding blocks also developed independently of each other.This explains why adjustments will be needed to make all building blocks work well together.The magnitude of the challenge should not be underestimated:achieving reliable and widespread measurement of carbon footprints in food systems is an a

56、mbitious goal.This report identifies many opportunities to improve existing building blocks and create greater alignment.Doing so will require collaboration among researchers,farmers,other supply chain actors,governments,and civil society,both at domestic and international levels.Working towards pro

57、duct carbon footprint measurement and communication could also help with similar efforts related to other environmental impacts.For example,digital tools for exchanging carbon footprint data could be adjusted to communicate other environmental impacts.The concept of building blocks could therefore b

58、e a useful starting point for thinking about other environmental impacts.11 MEASURING CARBON FOOTPRINTS OF AGRI-FOOD PRODUCTS OECD 2025 This chapter explains the growing demand for carbon footprint information,and what would be possible if reliable and widespread carbon footprint information were av

59、ailable.1 Introduction 12 MEASURING CARBON FOOTPRINTS OF AGRI-FOOD PRODUCTS OECD 2025 Imagine a world where reliable information on the carbon footprint of firms and products were widely available.In such a world,it would be easy for producers to find out the carbon footprint of their inputs and the

60、ir production processes,helping them identify ways to reduce their carbon footprint.It would also be easy for them to communicate the result of those efforts to customers.In turn,consumers,other businesses,or governments could compare carbon footprints of different products or different suppliers wh

61、en making their purchasing decisions.Governments could link financial incentives to carbon footprints,and carbon footprint information could guide investment and R&D decisions.There is a growing recognition that widespread,reliable carbon footprint information would form a“data infrastructure”on whi

62、ch private and public actors could build a wide range of mitigation strategies but achieving this data infrastructure will require more accurate,timely,and granular product-level carbon footprint data(OECD,20241).Important initiatives are underway in the private sector to improve the use of primary

63、data,to ensure greater reliability,and to facilitate digital exchange along supply chains(OECD/BIAC/WEF,20232).These include cross-sectoral work(PACT,20233),as well as sectoral initiatives such as Catena-X in the automotive industry or Together for Sustainability in the chemicals sector.Building on

64、insights from those initiatives,this report asks what it would take to achieve reliable and widespread carbon footprint information in food systems.Until recently,the idea would have seemed like science fiction.However,the last few years have seen the“fast and furious”rise of environmental impact re

65、porting in food systems,including for carbon footprints(Deconinck,Jansen and Barisone,20234).There is a growing demand for information from consumers,civil society,investors,and governments.One example is the rise of so-called“Scope 3”reporting,discussed in Box 1.1.The recently revised OECD Guidelin

66、es for Multinational Enterprises on Responsible Business Conduct also call on enterprises to provide relevant and accurate information on their environmental impacts,for example in terms of greenhouse gas(GHG)emissions(OECD,20235).In parallel with this growing demand for carbon footprint information

67、,it has also become easier to provide,thanks to the emergence of reporting standards,calculation tools,databases,and platforms for data sharing.As a result,at least some of the necessary building blocks for reliable and widespread carbon footprints in food systems are falling into place.Of course,so

68、me building blocks may not yet be available,while others may not yet be sufficiently mature or developed.In other cases,existing elements may need to be modified to be compatible with others.The aim of this report is to identify the necessary elements,provide a first assessment of what is available

69、and what is not,and identify priority actions for policy makers,stakeholders,and the research community.This report identifies eight main building blocks for reliable and widespread carbon footprints in food systems.A first assessment shows that many elements are indeed already in place,even if prog

70、ress is uneven:Reporting standards and guidelines create a shared understanding of which emissions sources should be included in a carbon footprint calculation,how emissions should be allocated across products in a production process which generates multiple outputs,etc.Reporting standards and guide

71、lines(such as the Greenhouse Gas Protocol reporting standards)are quite well developed in general,although there is a need to ensure greater alignment between standards and guidelines developed by different actors and for different purposes.Science-based methods for measuring or estimating emissions

72、 are essential.Fortunately,guidance developed by the IPCC provides a useful overview of available methods,as well as default options to use when more sophisticated approaches are not feasible.However,there are several areas where investments in better methods are needed,including for measuring soil

73、organic carbon and for measuring emissions in developing countries.In addition,a practical 13 MEASURING CARBON FOOTPRINTS OF AGRI-FOOD PRODUCTS OECD 2025 challenge is that scientific insights continue to evolve,but international guidance is updated only occasionally.Another challenge is that improve

74、d scientific insights do not automatically result in improved practical tools for calculating emissions.Farm level calculation tools allow the use of primary data on farm activities and management practices as inputs to calculate carbon footprints.There is a particular need for primary data at the f

75、arm level given the large heterogeneity in carbon footprints even among producers in the same region.Several farm level carbon footprint calculation tools exist already,but further efforts are needed to ensure these tools are aligned with reporting standards and guidelines.These tools also need to p

76、rovide greater transparency so that users can assess whether their calculation methods are appropriate and based on the latest scientific evidence.In addition,benchmarking exercises may be needed to compare the estimates provided by different tools.In turn,such benchmarking can help determine the mo

77、st appropriate tool for a given context and identify areas for improvement.Databases with secondary data,to be used where primary data is not(yet)available.Life Cycle Assessment(LCA)databases are well established and cover a large number of products and geographies.Most are consistent with key stand

78、ards and updated regularly.However,there is room for improvement.Databases can differ in their methodological choices(which influences the results).There are also data gaps,notably for the developing world.The cost and complexity of LCA databases may also make it hard for smaller supply chain actors

79、 to access and use them.A way of communicating carbon footprint data along the supply chain,so that detailed calculations by producers at one stage of the supply chain can be used as input at the next stage.Several initiatives have emerged to facilitate data exchange,whether between large firms,betw

80、een farmers and processors,or between farmers and data sources upstream from the farm(such as suppliers or government databases).Many of these initiatives are at an early stage but they suggest that at a purely technical level the challenge of communicating carbon footprint data along the food suppl

81、y chain is largely solved.Yet data exchange depends not only on solving technical questions but also regulatory and governance questions.Many of these are not specific to food systems and will require clarity from policymakers.A way to ensure the integrity and quality of the data and calculations,fo

82、r example through third-party verification.Third party verification of product carbon footprints is widespread,but it does not evaluate the methodology itself,merely that whatever methodology was chosen has been followed.The quality of the databases and farm level tools would be considered part of t

83、he methodology,and hence outside the scope of third-party verification of product carbon footprints.This leaves important gaps.New approaches may be needed to verify that farm level calculation tools and secondary databases are compliant with widely used reporting standards and use science-based met

84、hods that are reliable and relevant to the specific case in which they are applied.A way to scale up carbon footprint calculations while keeping costs low.Food supply chains involve many smaller producers,who generally lack the capacity to engage in complex carbon footprint calculations.Scaling up c

85、arbon footprints in food systems will thus require finding ways to make the collection of primary data at farm level as easy and cost effective as possible.Several options exist,such as private sector engagement with suppliers,public-private awareness campaigns,embedding carbon footprint calculation

86、s in existing schemes,and providing technical assistance to low-and middle-income countries.A way to update these elements as new scientific insights and techniques become available.Reporting standards,calculation tools and databases need to reflect the latest scientific insights.A process is also n

87、eeded to properly evaluate the impact of new mitigation techniques(e.g.new practices or new technological solutions)and update calculation tools to reflect these new options.Other elements of the“data infrastructure”may also require frequent review to incorporate new insights or techniques.For examp

88、le,reporting standards may evolve over time to require a greater 14 MEASURING CARBON FOOTPRINTS OF AGRI-FOOD PRODUCTS OECD 2025 degree of primary data.At the moment,there is no deliberate approach to updating the various building blocks.In fact,many initiatives do not have a pre-defined process or t

89、imeline for updates.Actors should align on realistic timelines to ensure continuous improvement of the overall system.More generally,embracing the principle of continuous improvement might well prove to be the most impactful action stakeholders can take in the short run.Taking such an iterative appr

90、oach would acknowledge that initial estimates might come with considerable measurement error,but that stakeholders should work together to reduce this measurement error over time.It would also reassure stakeholders that suggestions for improvement can be discussed and incorporated at regular interva

91、ls.Food systems also contribute to other environmental problems such as eutrophication,acidification,or biodiversity loss,and many initiatives seek to quantify these impacts(Deconinck,Jansen and Barisone,20234).The concept of building blocks as identified in this report could be useful for these oth

92、er environmental impacts as well.The question of measuring and communicating environmental impacts such as carbon footprints is especially important in an international trade context,as inconsistent approaches could create unnecessary trade barriers(WTO,20226)(Deconinck,Jansen and Barisone,20234).A

93、detailed discussion of trade implications and potential policy options is beyond the scope of this report although the discussion will touch on some of these aspects.Box 1.1.Developments in Scope 3 reporting and target setting An important source of demand for more precise carbon footprint informati

94、on is the growing expectation for firms to report and reduce their so-called“Scope 3”emissions(Deconinck,Jansen and Barisone,20234).Whereas Scope 1 emissions are the emissions of a firms own activities,and Scope 2 are the emissions of a firms purchased energy,Scope 3 refers to emissions in the firms

95、 supply chains,both upstream and downstream,as well as other emissions indirectly related to the firm,such as those linked to its investments(GHG Protocol,20117)(OECD/BIAC/WEF,20232).As an illustration,emissions from the production of wheat are part of the Scope 3 emissions of the industrial bakery

96、purchasing the wheat,as well as of the Scope 3 emissions of the retailer selling the bread.The growing trend towards reporting and reducing Scope 3 emissions thus indirectly affects agricultural producers,as downstream firms may ask more detailed carbon footprint information from farmers to use in t

97、heir Scope 3 reporting.In the European Union,the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive(CSRD)makes Scope 3 reporting mandatory for many firms.Eventually,the requirement will cover not just large firms listed on EU financial markets,but also other large firms based in the EU and small and mediu

98、m-sized enterprises listed on EU financial markets,including EU subsidiaries of foreign firms(European Commission,20248).The International Financial Reporting Standards(IFRS)Foundation,which develops widely-used financial accounting standards,has recently developed sustainability reporting standards

99、(known as the International Sustainability Standards Board(ISSB)standards).The climate reporting standard,released in 2023,requires Scope 3 reporting.These standards are voluntary,but are expected to be highly influential.In the United Kingdom,for example,discussions are underway on the creation of

100、a UK Sustainability Disclosure Standard,which will be based on the ISSB standards(UK Department for Business and Trade,20239).Similarly,Japan has established the Sustainability Standards Board of Japan which is expected to develop sustainability disclosure rules by 2025 based on the ISSB standards(E

101、Y,202310).15 MEASURING CARBON FOOTPRINTS OF AGRI-FOOD PRODUCTS OECD 2025 Other jurisdictions have been considering Scope 3 reporting requirements.In the United States,the Securities and Exchange Commission(SEC)had initially proposed a climate disclosure rule which would include Scope 3 reporting req

102、uirements,although this requirement was dropped in the final proposed rule(SEC,202411).However,in California the Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act of 2023,which applies to large firms doing business in the state,does include mandatory Scope 3 reporting(Engler,202312).Moreover,even before rec

103、ent mandatory reporting rules,Scope 3 reporting was on the rise globally.Among all publicly listed firms worldwide,about 37%of firms disclosed at least some of their Scope 3 emissions as of May 2023,a doubling in three years time(MSCI,202313).Among the 500 largest firms listed in US stock exchanges,

104、77%disclosed their Scope 3 emissions in 2023,up from 62%in 2021;among the 3000 largest listed firms,43%now disclose Scope 3 emissions,up from 16%in 2021(The Conference Board,202414).Similarly,a growing number of firms is setting emission reduction targets which include their Scope 3 emissions.The Sc

105、ience Based Targets initiative reported that 4 204 firms had signed up to science-based emission reduction targets at the end of 2023,a doubling compared with one year earlier(SBTi,202415).For nearly all firms,targets cover Scope 3 emissions(SBTi,202316).This includes major retailers across OECD cou

106、ntries,such as Aeon(Japan),Ahold Delhaize(Belgium,Netherlands,United States),Aldi(Europe,United States),Carrefour(Europe,Latin America,Middle East and North Africa),ICA(Sweden,Norway,the Baltics),Kesko(Scandinavia,the Baltics),Migros(Switzerland),Tesco(United Kingdom,Europe),Walmart(United States,Ca

107、nada,Latin America,Asia),and Woolworths(Australia).Food-related emissions tend to be a significant portion of retailers Scope 3 emissions,which suggests a growing demand for precise quantification of these emissions.This report is organised as follows.The next chapter provides some background on GHG

108、 emissions in food systems,highlighting four important findings from the literature which should inform the design of carbon footprint measurement in food systems.Chapter 3 clarifies the concept of a system of reliable and widespread carbon footprints in food systems as used in this report and prese

109、nts the eight building blocks.The following chapters introduce each of the building blocks.Each chapter starts by explaining the importance of the element,followed by a first assessment of the current state,and gaps or inconsistencies to be addressed.The final chapter concludes by bringing together

110、the priority actions for policymakers,stakeholders,and the research community.16 MEASURING CARBON FOOTPRINTS OF AGRI-FOOD PRODUCTS OECD 2025 References Deconinck,K.,M.Jansen and C.Barisone(2023),“Fast and furious:the rise of environmental impact reporting in food systems”,European Review of Agricult

111、ural Economics,Vol.50/4,pp.1310-1337,https:/doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbad018.4 Engler,H.(2023),Companies need to integrate climate reporting across functions to comply with Californias new law,Thomson Reuters,https:/ European Commission(2024),Corporate sustainability reporting,https:/finance.ec.europa.e

112、u/capital-markets-union-and-financial-markets/company-reporting-and-auditing/company-reporting/corporate-sustainability-reporting_en.8 EY(2023),Whats next for Japanese sustainability disclosure standards,https:/ GHG Protocol(2011),Corporate Value Chain(Scope 3)Accounting and Reporting Standard,https

113、:/ghgprotocol.org/sites/default/files/standards/Corporate-Value-Chain-Accounting-Reporing-Standard_041613_2.pdf.7 MSCI(2023),The MSCI Net-Zero Tracker,July 2023 update,https:/ OECD(2024),“Towards more accurate,timely,and granular product-level carbon intensity metrics:A scoping note”,Inclusive Forum

114、 on Carbon Mitigation Approaches Papers,No.1,OECD Publishing,Paris,https:/doi.org/10.1787/4de3422f-en.1 OECD(2023),OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on Responsible Business Conduct,OECD Publishing,Paris,https:/doi.org/10.1787/81f92357-en.5 OECD/BIAC/WEF(2023),Emissions Measurement in Sup

115、ply Chains:Business Realities and Challenges,World Economic Forum,https:/www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Emissions_Measurement_in_Supply_Chains_2023.pdf.2 PACT(2023),PACT Pathfinder Framework:Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions,Version 2.0,https:/www.carbon- SBTi(2024)

116、,SBTi doubles corporate climate validations in one year as scale up gathers pace,https:/sciencebasedtargets.org/news/sbti-scale-up-gathers-pace.15 SBTi(2023),Scope 3:Stepping up science-based action,https:/sciencebasedtargets.org/blog/scope-3-stepping-up-science-based-action.16 SEC(2024),SEC adopts

117、rules to enhance and standardize climate-related disclosures for investors,https:/www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2024-31.11 The Conference Board(2024),Time to Step Up Efforts on Scope 3,https:/www.conference-board.org/publications/time-to-step-up-efforts-on-scope-3.14 17 MEASURING CARBON FOOTPRINTS

118、OF AGRI-FOOD PRODUCTS OECD 2025 UK Department for Business and Trade(2023),UK Sustainability Disclosure Standards,https:/www.gov.uk/guidance/uk-sustainability-disclosure-standards.9 WTO(2022),What yardstick for net zero?Trade and Climate Change Information Brief n 6,World Trade Organization,https:/w

119、ww.wto.org/english/news_e/news21_e/clim_03nov21-6_e.pdf.6 18 MEASURING CARBON FOOTPRINTS OF AGRI-FOOD PRODUCTS OECD 2025 This chapter highlights four main findings about GHG emissions in food systems.First,agricultural production and land use change account for a significant share of the GHG emissio

120、ns in food systems.Second,food products differ strongly in terms of their carbon footprint.Third,there is large heterogeneity among producers of the same product.Finally,a fourth finding is that many options exist to reduce GHG emissions from food production.The chapter discusses implications for ca

121、rbon footprint measurement of agri-food products.2 Background:Four findings about GHG emissions in food systems 19 MEASURING CARBON FOOTPRINTS OF AGRI-FOOD PRODUCTS OECD 2025 Four findings from the scientific literature to date provide important background for carbon footprint measurement in food sy

122、stems.First,agricultural production and land use change account for a significant share of the GHG emissions in food systems.Figure 2.1,using data from Tubiello et al.(20211),shows that at the global level these two stages account for most of the GHG emissions.1 For high-income countries,the role of

123、 other stages of the supply chains becomes more important:in Europe and North America,other stages of the supply chain accounted for more than half of domestic food systems emissions in 2019.However,even in these regions,GHG emissions from agricultural production are a significant source of emission

124、s(41%in Europe,38%in North America).2 One implication of these findings is that the carbon footprint of a food product as found in a supermarket or restaurant depends heavily on emissions which occurred upstream in the supply chain.In other words,a life-cycle view is essential.Another implication is

125、 that any methodology for calculating carbon footprints should take into account the potential impact of emissions from land use change,at least for those commodities where that impact is likely to be significant.Figure 2.1.Global food systems GHG emissions by supply chain stage,2019 Gt CO2eq Note:L

126、and includes emissions from net forest conversion,drained organic soils,and fires.“Ag inputs”here refers to emissions related to the production of agricultural inputs;emissions related to their use are included in“Ag production”.Source:Based on Tubiello et al.(2021).Land use change:4.5 GtAg inputs:0

127、.4 GtAg production:6.7 GtPost-farm supply chain:2.3 GtPost-retail:2.6 Gt024681012141618Gt CO2eq20 MEASURING CARBON FOOTPRINTS OF AGRI-FOOD PRODUCTS OECD 2025 A second finding in the literature is that food products differ strongly in terms of their carbon footprint.Synthesizing 570 studies covering

128、40 products,nearly 40 000 farms,and 119 countries,Poore and Nemecek(20182)showed large differences between food products in terms of carbon footprints(as well as other environmental impacts).On average,the carbon footprint of food products is higher for animal-based foods than for plant-based foods;

129、within the animal-based foods,carbon footprints are on average higher for ruminant products(beef,lamb,cheese)(Figure 2.2).3 Figure 2.2.Estimated average carbon footprint for selected food products Kg CO2eq per kg of product Note:Data shows global average GHG emissions(kg CO2eq)per kg of product(excl

130、uding waste).Showing selected food products only.Source:Poore and Nemecek(20182).However,the same study also shows that there is large heterogeneity among producers of the same product,the third key finding regarding food systems emissions.Figure 2.3 shows this heterogeneity at the global level for

131、selected protein-rich products.The grey bar in the chart shows the range between the 10%best and 10%worst producers globally in terms of carbon footprint,indicating large variation around 21 MEASURING CARBON FOOTPRINTS OF AGRI-FOOD PRODUCTS OECD 2025 the median values.Poore and Nemecek(20182)note th

132、at their data also shows a large range for wheat,maize,and rice,even within major growing areas(the Australian wheat belt,the US corn belt,and the Yangtze river basin).These differences may be due to different farm management practices and techniques,variations in local climate and soil conditions,a

133、nd interactions between these.Figure 2.3.Heterogeneity of carbon footprints for selected products Note:Figure shows the median and 10th to 90th percentile range of carbon footprints of selected protein-rich products expressed in kg CO2eq per 100g of protein.Source:Poore and Nemecek(20182)Finally,a f

134、ourth finding is that many options exist to reduce GHG emissions from food production,especially when the full supply chain is considered.For example,the production of nitrogen fertiliser currently relies on the use of natural gas,making it an emissions-intensive production process.It is possible to

135、 replace this with a production process based on renewable energy,which would allow for a significant reduction in the carbon footprint of nitrogen fertiliser production.On the farm,a wide range of farm management techniques and existing and future technological options can help reduce emissions.The

136、se include for example inputs such as feed additives to reduce methane emissions from enteric fermentation,or enhanced efficiency fertiliser to reduce nitrous oxide emissions;as well as changes in production practices(e.g.to increase soil carbon sequestration).Downstream supply chain actors similarl

137、y have many 22 MEASURING CARBON FOOTPRINTS OF AGRI-FOOD PRODUCTS OECD 2025 options to reduce emissions,from lower-emission vehicles for road transport to reducing the leakage of refrigerants.Across the food supply chain,reducing food loss and waste would similarly reduce emissions per unit of produc

138、t delivered to the final consumer.Taken together,these findings suggest that three levers can be used to reduce emissions of food systems(Deconinck,Jansen and Barisone,20233):Shifting to products with a lower average carbon footprint,e.g.from animal-based products to plant-based products.This requir

139、es information on the average carbon footprint of a product category.Within each product category,shifting to suppliers with a lower carbon footprint.At the farm stage,this could mean,for example,shifting from higher-emitting dairy producers to lower-emitting ones;but the same logic applies to other

140、 stages of the supply chain(e.g.shifting to fertiliser producers with a lower carbon footprint).Such shifts require information on supplier-specific carbon footprints.Incentivising producers everywhere to adopt techniques(e.g.farm management practices or technological solutions)which reduce their em

141、issions.This requires that producers can access information on which techniques can reduce carbon footprints,not just in general but in their specific business.It also means that when producers are purchasing inputs with lower emissions(e.g.nitrogen fertiliser produced using renewable energy),this s

142、hould be reflected in the estimated carbon footprint of their products.Again,this applies to the farm stage as well as to other stages of the food supply chain.Carbon footprints in food systems should ideally be reliable enough to enable all three of these levers.The importance of agriculture in tot

143、al GHG emissions,as well as the heterogeneity of emission intensities among farmers,argues for using primary data.Calculation methods should also be able to take into account emission reductions through changing techniques(such as farm management practices or new technological solutions)and carbon f

144、ootprint estimates should be updated regularly to capture such changes over time.There is a potential tension here between ensuring that methods are able to capture context-specific factors and avoiding trade barriers arising from divergent approaches in different countries.23 MEASURING CARBON FOOTP

145、RINTS OF AGRI-FOOD PRODUCTS OECD 2025 References Crippa,M.et al.(2021),“Food systems are responsible for a third of global anthropogenic GHG emissions”,Nature Food,Vol.2/3,pp.198-209,https:/doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00225-9.4 Deconinck,K.,M.Jansen and C.Barisone(2023),“Fast and furious:the rise of

146、environmental impact reporting in food systems”,European Review of Agricultural Economics,Vol.50/4,pp.1310-1337,https:/doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbad018.3 Deconinck,K.and L.Toyama(2022),“Environmental impacts along food supply chains:Methods,findings,and evidence gaps”,OECD Food,Agriculture and Fisheries

147、 Papers,No.185,OECD Publishing,Paris,https:/doi.org/10.1787/48232173-en.6 Garsous,G.(2021),“Developing consumption-based emissions indicators from Agriculture,Forestry and Land-use(AFOLU)activities”,OECD Food,Agriculture and Fisheries Papers,No.171,OECD Publishing,Paris,https:/doi.org/10.1787/b2b243

148、07-en.5 Poore,J.and T.Nemecek(2018),“Reducing foods environmental impacts through producers and consumers”,Science,Vol.360/6392,pp.987-992,https:/doi.org/10.1126/science.aaq0216.2 Tubiello,F.et al.(2021),Pre-and post-production processes along supply chains increasingly dominate GHG emissions from a

149、gri-food systems globally and in most countries,Copernicus GmbH,https:/doi.org/10.5194/essd-2021-389.1 Notes 1 See also Crippa et al.(20214)for a similar analysis.2 Moreover,these estimates look only at emissions which take place within national boundaries.Given international trade in agri-food comm

150、odities,it is possible that the share of agricultural production and land use change in consumption-based emissions would be larger in these regions once trade is taken into account.Better product carbon footprint data could help improve estimates of consumption-based emissions.On consumption-based

151、emission estimates,see Garsous(20215)and Deconinck and Toyama(20226).3 The analysis of Poore and Nemecek(20182)results in a greater share of total emissions accounted for by land use change and agricultural production,at around 81%versus 70%in the Tubiello et al.(20211)data.This is partly explained

152、by the use of a different method(“bottom-up”extrapolation from detailed life cycle assessments in the case of Poore and Nemecek;“downscaling”from global cross-sectoral estimates in the case of Tubiello et al)and partly by a different time period,as the data in Tubiello et al.(20211)refers to 2019 wh

153、ile the estimates of Poore and Nemecek(20182)are a synthesis of numerous studies which took place prior to 2018.(The relative contribution of land use change has been falling over time).24 MEASURING CARBON FOOTPRINTS OF AGRI-FOOD PRODUCTS OECD 2025 This chapter clarifies the concept of reliable and

154、widespread carbon footprints as used in this report.It discusses the cradle-to-gate logic around which the report is organised,and the challenges of reliability.From these concepts,it is possible to derive the eight building blocks necessary to achieve the ambitious goal of reliable and widespread c

155、arbon footprints in food systems.3 Towards reliable and widespread carbon footprints in food systems 25 MEASURING CARBON FOOTPRINTS OF AGRI-FOOD PRODUCTS OECD 2025 This report asks what it would take to achieve reliable and widespread carbon footprints in food systems.To clarify this concept,it is u

156、seful to go over each of the terms separately,before deriving the necessary building blocks to achieve this outcome.3.1.Food systems The focus in this report is mainly on carbon footprints as they occur along the food supply chain up to the point of purchase by consumers(e.g.in shops,restaurants),ta

157、king into account the full life cycle of the product up to that point including land use change and the production of inputs.However,as the term food supply chain might be interpreted by some to mean only food processing,distribution,and retail,or starting at the farm rather than taking into account

158、 land use change and the production of inputs,the broader term food systems will be used here.Most of the discussion will focus on land-based production,although many of the ideas apply to fisheries and aquaculture and novel foods such as meat protein alternatives as well.1 3.2.Carbon footprints As

159、is common in the literature,carbon footprints here refer not just to carbon dioxide(CO2)emissions but to all GHG emissions(which will typically be expressed in CO2-equivalents).This is particularly important in the case of food systems as a large share of emissions consist of methane(CH4)and nitrous

160、 oxide(N2O).The term carbon footprint can refer to different reporting levels,such as countries,sectors,entities(firms,organisations),or products(Deconinck,Jansen and Barisone,20231).In this report,the focus is on product carbon footprints.Measuring product carbon footprints requires defining a deno

161、minator(e.g.emissions per kg of product).The choice of unit will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 4.One reason for the focus on product carbon footprints is that quantifying product carbon footprints would also indirectly provide information about carbon footprints at other levels of analysis.

162、Quantifying product carbon footprints requires clarity on how to quantify farm level or firm-level emissions as well,as these are inputs in the calculation.In turn,product carbon footprint information from suppliers can be used to quantify upstream supply chain emissions(which is part of a firms Sco

163、pe 3 emissions).Product carbon footprints can be defined on a cradle to grave basis,covering all stages of the product life cycle including use and waste disposal(Figure 3.1).Other approaches are possible too,such as cradle to farm gate or cradle to purchase.2 However,the emphasis here is on a cradl

164、e to gate approach,where each actor in the supply chain focuses on calculating product carbon footprints of the product life cycle up to the point where the product leaves its premises.26 MEASURING CARBON FOOTPRINTS OF AGRI-FOOD PRODUCTS OECD 2025 Figure 3.1.Stages of the product life cycle Note:Sim

165、plified representation of the stages of a typical product life cycle for food products.(Transport is not explicitly shown here as it occurs in between each stage but is also in scope).Source:Adapted from IDF(20222).A cradle-to-gate approach makes it easier to achieve widespread carbon footprints by“

166、decentralising”the task of calculating carbon footprints.As pointed out by the Partnership for Carbon Transparency(PACT,20233),if product carbon footprint information on a cradle-to-gate basis is widely available from suppliers,then each actor in the supply chain can focus on calculating its own emi

167、ssions,adding the carbon footprints of its inputs(provided by suppliers),and allocating the total across its outputs.The resulting product carbon footprint can then be shared with customers.In this way,the carbon footprint of a product can be built up step by step throughout a supply chain,allowing

168、the use of primary data to the maximum extent possible(Figure 3.2).Figure 3.2.Carbon footprints using the cradle-to-gate principle Note:Simplified representation of product carbon footprints using a cradle-to-gate principle.A firm receives information from its suppliers on the carbon footprint of it

169、s purchased inputs,using a cradle-to-gate principle(i.e.including all upstream emissions).The firm adds its own emissions and shares the resulting cradle-to-gate product carbon footprint with its customers.Source:OECD analysis.Agricultural productionLand useAgricultural inputsProcessingRetailUseWast

170、eCradle to farm gateCradle to factory gateCradle to purchaseCradle to graveReceived from suppliers(cradle-to-gate)Own emissionsShared with next stage in supply chain 27 MEASURING CARBON FOOTPRINTS OF AGRI-FOOD PRODUCTS OECD 2025 How would such an approach look like in food supply chains?Starting at

171、the input stage,suppliers of agricultural inputs(such as fertilisers)calculate the carbon footprint of their products using primary data.They in turn provide this information to farmers,either by sharing data directly with the farmer or by making their data publicly available.Farmers then use farm l

172、evel calculation tools to estimate their on-farm emissions and add this to the emissions embedded in their purchased inputs.They allocate the total emissions across their different outputs(for example,a dairy farmer would need to allocate emissions across milk and meat).The resulting product carbon

173、footprint information is then shared with processors.Processors add their own emissions calculated using primary data(e.g.on energy use,transport),allocate the result across their different outputs(e.g.a dairy processor would need to allocate emissions across cheese,milk powder,fluid milk)and share

174、the resulting product carbon footprint with the next stage in the supply chain(e.g.food manufacturers,traders/wholesalers,retailers).Each subsequent stage in the supply chain thus takes the cradle to gate information received from its suppliers,adds their own emissions,allocates the result across th

175、eir different products,and shares it with the next stage.A similar“modular”approach to emissions accounting in supply chains has been proposed by White et al.(20214)and Reeve and Aisbett(20225).Where information is not available for a supplier,firms may need to rely on secondary data,as is currently

176、 often the case.The availability of product carbon footprint information would also help emissions reporting at other scales.For example,as noted in Box 1.1(Chapter 1)firms are increasingly asked to report not just the total emissions from their own operations(Scope 1 emissions)and from the energy t

177、hey purchase(Scope 2),but also Scope 3 emissions,which include upstream and downstream supply chain emissions.If product carbon footprint information is widely available on a cradle-to-gate basis,then calculating the upstream supply chain emissions becomes straightforward.This is another motivation

178、for this reports focus on product carbon footprints using a cradle-to-gate basis.3 3.3.Widespread Widespread carbon footprint information ideally means that information is available for all food products,for all producers,at all stages of the supply chain,so that stakeholders can easily take the inf

179、ormation into account in their decision making.Carbon footprints are an application of the life-cycle assessment(LCA)methodology to the specific issue of climate change.Historically,LCAs were conducted as highly customised one-time projects.An expert in LCA would work with a client to map the life c

180、ycle of a product and would use a variety of research methods to quantify the various flows.The resulting assessment would be used to identify hotspots(priority areas to be tackled)or to help re-design products and would often remain proprietary information of the client and/or the expert.Thus,origi

181、nally,an LCA was best thought of as an individual study.Over time,as more life-cycle assessments were conducted,results were increasingly brought together in databases.These made it possible to draw comparisons between different products and processes(as in the synthesis by Poore and Nemecek(20186)m

182、entioned earlier),and to use the data to fill in gaps in LCAs where primary data is unavailable.However,not all products and geographies have been equally well studied(Deconinck and Toyama,20227).The concept of reliable and widespread carbon footprints studied in this report can be seen as the logic

183、al next step.Databases provide valuable information,and further refinements can make them even more useful.But average data as found in a database can hide a considerable degree of heterogeneity and is static.For example,the database might contain information on the average carbon footprint of milk

184、in Switzerland,at farm gate.But the database cannot reflect the efforts an individual farmer has made to reduce emissions,or the changing sourcing decisions made by a processor or retailer in its supply chain.In terms of the“three levers”identified in Chapter 2,databases can help shift purchasing de

185、cisions from product categories with higher average carbon footprints to product categories with lower average carbon 28 MEASURING CARBON FOOTPRINTS OF AGRI-FOOD PRODUCTS OECD 2025 footprints(the first lever),but they cannot capture individual heterogeneity(the second lever)and cannot identify and i

186、ncentivise the different actions a producer could take to reduce their footprint(the third lever).Individual studies can do so,but are time consuming and costly,and where practitioners use different methodological choices,results may be hard to compare.What is needed,therefore,is an approach which c

187、aptures individual heterogeneity and mitigation efforts as in an individual study,while making data comparable and as easily available as in a database.This is the reasoning behind the proposal by the Partnership for Carbon Transparency(PACT,20233),as described earlier.However,this logic only works

188、if the available product carbon footprint information is reliable.3.4.Reliable The reliability of an estimate or measurement has two components.The first is that it should not be systematically over or under the true value a concept known as“unbiasedness”in statistics,or“trueness”in the ISO 5725-1 t

189、erminology.The second is that the non-systematic(random)error should be small.4 For example,if firms do not include some sources of emissions in their estimates,this would lead to a systematic understatement of the carbon footprint.By contrast,if firms use industry averages for the carbon footprint

190、of an input rather than supplier-specific information,the result will be random error,as the true carbon footprint of its suppliers might be higher or lower than the industry average unless its suppliers strategically chose not to disclose their carbon footprint because it is above average,in which

191、case the result would be a systematic understatement of emissions.There is a strong case for using primary data as much as possible in calculating product carbon footprints,rather than secondary data.5 One reason is the large heterogeneity of carbon footprints even among producers in the same region

192、,which means that averages could lead to significant random error,even if there is no systematic over-or underestimation.A second reason is that if a producer adopts mitigation techniques to reduce emissions,this should ideally be reflected in carbon footprint calculations,to provide proper incentiv

193、es to the producer and other supply chain actors.These arguments apply not just to food systems,but to other sectors as well(PACT,20233).To be reliable,carbon footprints should therefore be timely and granular(OECD,20248).However,estimates based on primary data may come with their own measurement er

194、rors.If primary data from suppliers is used as an input in calculating carbon footprints downstream,any upstream measurement error will affect downstream results.Systematic errors upstream will lead to systematic errors throughout the supply chain.Random errors,by contrast,might end up being average

195、d out:for example,if a dairy processor has thousands of farmers supplying milk,a random error leading to an understatement in the carbon footprint estimate of an individual supplier would probably be offset by a random error leading to an overstatement for another supplier.However,reducing random er

196、ror is still important for several reasons.First,even if random errors of individual suppliers may be averaged out in a supply chain,they still lead to uncertainty if the number of suppliers is small.For example,if a processor has only three suppliers,it is possible that all three random errors happ

197、en to be positive(leading to an overstatement of the carbon footprints)or negative(leading to an understatement).The smaller the number of suppliers,the higher the chance of such situations occurring,creating uncertainty.6 Second,if the goal is comparability of carbon footprint information(across pr

198、oducts,producers,countries,etc.),even random error needs to be avoided or minimised as much as possible,as comparisons might otherwise lead to wrong conclusions.For example,if the dairy processor is selecting its suppliers based on their estimated carbon footprint,random error could mean that farmer

199、s are unfairly excluded.29 MEASURING CARBON FOOTPRINTS OF AGRI-FOOD PRODUCTS OECD 2025 Third,random error,like systematic error,would send the wrong signals to individual actors about where to focus their mitigation efforts.If a farmers carbon footprint estimate contains measurement error(whether ra

200、ndom or systematic),it becomes harder for the farmer to choose cost-effective mitigation measures.Both systematic and random error can be reduced by insisting on completeness(all relevant emissions sources and sinks should be included)and consistency(assumptions,methods,and data should always be use

201、d in the same way),as well as on using the most up-to-date science-based methods.As science progresses,it seems likely that calculation methods will become more precise,reducing measurement error.In addition,a form of quality assurance such as third-party verification can also help improve reliabili

202、ty.Where supplier-specific information is used,data sharing tools can help avoid human error and can provide an audit trail for quality assurance.The requirements that product carbon footprints should be reliable and widespread are closely connected.Since generic averages could be misleading,there i

203、s a strong case for incorporating supplier-specific primary data in other words,widespread product carbon footprints could help with reliability.In turn,achieving widespread carbon footprints is useless if data is of poor quality.However,there may also be trade-offs:increasing the reliability of car

204、bon footprint estimates can increase the cost of calculations,which would make it harder to scale up carbon footprint calculations.3.5.Building blocks As the preceding discussion shows,the concept of reliable and widespread carbon footprints in food systems is ambitious and demanding.But it also cre

205、ates clarity about the necessary building blocks and can create a common vision for how these building blocks should be further developed or adjusted.It seems likely that these efforts would in turn have positive effects in creating a better data infrastructure even if they do not achieve a near-uni

206、versal system of carbon footprints.Based on the key findings about food systems emissions and the conceptual discussion above,at least eight distinct building blocks can be distinguished for reliable and widespread carbon footprint measurement in food systems.7 They are:Reporting standards and guide

207、lines for carbon footprint measurement,to create a shared understanding of what to include in carbon footprint calculations.Science-based methods for measuring or estimating emissions.Farm level calculation tools,which allow different actors along the supply chain to use primary data on their activi

208、ties and management practices as inputs to calculate their carbon footprint,in line with up-to-date science-based methods.Databases with secondary data,to be used where primary data is not(yet)available.A way of communicating carbon footprint data along the supply chain,so that detailed calculations

209、 by producers at one stage of the supply chain can be used as input at the next stage.A way to ensure the integrity and quality of the data and calculations,for example through third-party verification.A way to scale up carbon footprint calculations while keeping costs low,to ensure widespread adopt

210、ion by actors with relatively limited administrative capacity,notably farmers,small and medium-sized enterprises(SMEs),and producers in developing countries.A way to update these elements as new scientific insights and techniques become available.Again,a detailed discussion of international trade im

211、plications is beyond the scope of this report,but it is worth noting some connections between the building blocks identified here and rules designed to avoid trade barriers.The World Trade Organizations Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade(the TBT 30 MEASURING CARBON FOOTPRINTS OF AGRI-FOOD PROD

212、UCTS OECD 2025 Agreement)incentivises WTO members to align standards and regulations on common international standards and encourages members to accept the results of conformity assessments(verification)performed by other members.The TBT Agreement also recognises the special needs of producers in de

213、veloping countries and the potential role of technical assistance in helping them meet standards.These principles(on coherence in measurement and standards,on robust verification,and on inclusiveness)are highly relevant to the question of quantifying carbon footprints in an international context(WTO

214、,20229).Communicating carbon footprint data along supply chains also connects to issues such as trade facilitation(OECD,201810;Sorescu and Bollig,202211)and data localisation measures(Del Giovane,Ferencz and Lpez Gonzlez,202312).The following chapters cover each of these building blocks in more deta

215、il,assessing what is already in place and which further actions would be needed.31 MEASURING CARBON FOOTPRINTS OF AGRI-FOOD PRODUCTS OECD 2025 References Bjrn,A.and M.Hauschild(2017),“Cradle to Cradle and LCA”,in Life Cycle Assessment,Springer International Publishing,Cham,https:/doi.org/10.1007/978

216、-3-319-56475-3_25.14 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/jbad018.1 Deconinck,K.and L.Toyama(2022),“Environmental impacts al

217、ong food supply chains:Methods,findings,and evidence gaps”,OECD Food,Agriculture and Fisheries Papers,No.185,OECD Publishing,Paris,https:/doi.org/10.1787/48232173-en.7 Del Giovane,C.,J.Ferencz and J.Lpez Gonzlez(2023),“The Nature,Evolution and Potential Implications of Data Localisation Measures”,OE

218、CD Trade Policy Papers,No.278,OECD Publishing,Paris,https:/doi.org/10.1787/179f718a-en.12 Frezal,C.,C.Nenert and H.Gay(2022),“Meat protein alternatives:Opportunities and challenges for food systems transformation”,OECD Food,Agriculture and Fisheries Papers,No.182,OECD Publishing,Paris,https:/doi.org

219、/10.1787/387d30cf-en.13 IDF(2022),The IDF Global Carbon Footprint Standard for the Dairy Sector,International Dairy Federation,https:/shop.fil-idf.org/products/the-idf-global-carbon-footprint-standard-for-the-dairy-sector.2 OECD(2024),“Towards more accurate,timely,and granular product-level carbon i

220、ntensity metrics:A scoping note”,Inclusive Forum on Carbon Mitigation Approaches Papers,No.1,OECD Publishing,Paris,https:/doi.org/10.1787/4de3422f-en.8 OECD(2018),Trade Facilitation and the Global Economy,OECD Publishing,Paris,https:/doi.org/10.1787/9789264277571-en.10 PACT(2023),PACT Pathfinder Fra

221、mework:Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions,Version 2.0,https:/www.carbon- Poore,J.and T.Nemecek(2018),“Reducing foods environmental impacts through producers and consumers”,Science,Vol.360/6392,pp.987-992,https:/doi.org/10.1126/science.aaq0216.6 Reeve,A.and E.Ais

222、bett(2022),“National accounting systems as a foundation for embedded emissions accounting in trade-related climate policies”,Journal of Cleaner Production,Vol.371,p.133678,https:/doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.133678.5 Sorescu,S.and C.Bollig(2022),“Trade facilitation reforms worldwide:State of play

223、in 2022”,OECD Trade Policy Papers,No.263,OECD Publishing,Paris,https:/doi.org/10.1787/ce7af2ce-en.11 White,L.et al.(2021),“Towards emissions certification systems for international trade in hydrogen:The policy challenge of defining boundaries for emissions accounting”,Energy,Vol.215,p.119139,https:/

224、doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.119139.4 32 MEASURING CARBON FOOTPRINTS OF AGRI-FOOD PRODUCTS OECD 2025 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.9 Notes 1 On meat protei

225、n alternatives,see Frezal et al.(202213).2 Yet another possibility,not shown in the figure,is a“cradle-to-cradle”approach.This approach replaces the final step of waste disposal by a reusing or recycling step,so that the waste product effectively becomes the input in another production process,creat

226、ing a more circular model.See Bjorn and Hauschild(201714)for a discussion.3 One shortcoming of a cradle-to-gate approach is that it focuses on activities taking place within companies.This leaves out the activities by households(e.g.emissions from cooking)and waste disposal.In principle,it might be

227、possible to add an estimate for these emissions to the carbon footprint calculation at the retail stage.However,this would necessarily need to involve average data rather than primary data.4 The terms“accuracy”and“precision”are often used in this context,but the terms can be confusing.For example,in

228、 metrology,the term“accuracy”refers to the systematic error,while“precision”refers to the random error;however,in the ISO 5725-1 standard,“accuracy”describes a combination of low systematic error(high trueness)and low random error(high precision).5 Intuitively,the difference between primary and seco

229、ndary data is that secondary data was collected in other contexts or for different purposes and is used as an approximation instead of collecting primary data on the specific product,firm,or farm being studied.In reality,the distinction is more of a continuum.For example,on a farm,direct measurement

230、 of emissions(e.g.using sensors)is often difficult and costly.In practice,primary activity data(e.g.on the number of animals,manure management practices,feed rations,use of cover crops)is fed into a model to estimate emissions.While this is one step removed from direct observation of emissions,it st

231、ill leads to a more specific estimate than using average data(e.g.based on estimates obtained on other farms).In what follows,estimates based on primary activity data will therefore also be referred to as primary data.6 This can be seen more formally from the formula for the standard deviation of a

232、sample mean,which is/where is the standard deviation in the population(which in this context can be thought of as the standard deviation of the random measurement error)and is the number of observations(in this context,the number of suppliers).For large numbers of suppliers(high),this expression bec

233、omes small,as random errors are more likely to cancel out.For a small number of suppliers,this is not the case,making it more important to reduce the random error(i.e.a lower)to reduce the overall uncertainty.7 Recent work by OECD and the International Trade Centre has developed a typology of sustai

234、nability initiatives(OECD report)to help establish a common understanding of the characteristics of different sustainability initiatives,and their similarities and differences.The typology looks at features related to an initiatives objective,scope,operations,and governance,each broken down into dif

235、ferentiators,for which potential attributes are defined.The typology is sufficiently flexible that it can be used to organise the 33 MEASURING CARBON FOOTPRINTS OF AGRI-FOOD PRODUCTS OECD 2025 various building blocks covered here.For example,a carbon footprint standard and a farm level calculation t

236、ool would both fall under“Scope sustainability environmental”and“Scope performance outcomes”,but would differ on the objective:where the standard would have“Objective facilitation guidance/framework”,the farm level calculation tool would have“Objective facilitation tool”.Other building blocks can si

237、milarly be classified.34 MEASURING CARBON FOOTPRINTS OF AGRI-FOOD PRODUCTS OECD 2025 Reporting standards and guidelines are the first building block for carbon footprints.This chapter introduces the landscape of such standards,including product carbon footprint standards,sectoral guidance,as well as

238、 product category rules.The chapter also discusses the PACT Pathfinder approach which seeks to integrate these different strands into a coherent whole.4 Reporting standards and guidelines for carbon footprint measurement 35 MEASURING CARBON FOOTPRINTS OF AGRI-FOOD PRODUCTS OECD 2025 Clear reporting

239、standards and guidelines are essential to coordinate carbon footprint calculations across firms,sectors,and supply chain stages.Standards and guidelines can answer questions such as which activities to include,which methodologies to use,and which numbers to report and at what level of granularity.Wi

240、thout shared answers on these and other questions,each carbon footprint calculation may end up using different definitions or methodological choices,making the resulting numbers difficult to compare.Over the last two decades,a landscape of standards and guidelines has emerged for measuring carbon fo

241、otprints,including standards addressing food systems-specific issues.It is easiest to think of this landscape as a pyramid,as shown in Figure 4.1.Figure 4.1.The landscape of carbon footprint reporting standards and guidelines Source:OECD analysis.In this figure,standards and guidelines shown on the

242、left focus mainly on firm-level(or farm level)carbon footprints,while those on the right focus on product-level carbon footprints.Standards and guidelines at the bottom of the pyramid are more general(sector-agnostic)in scope,while those higher in the pyramid are increasingly specific e.g.focusing o

243、n agriculture,or focusing on a specific sub-sector(dairy,beef,horticulture).The ultimate goal of these standards and guidelines is to support consistency in emission measurement and communication,including by ensuring consistency of calculation tools and emission factor databases,as indicated at the

244、 top of the pyramid.In the middle of Figure 4.1.is the PACT Pathfinder initiative which explicitly aims to bridge across the different standards and guidelines,both by connecting product-level carbon footprints to firm-level reporting(for Scope 3 purposes)and by harmonising guidance across different

245、 sectors(PACT,20231).As is clear from Figure 4.1,the two main standard setters are the Greenhouse Gas Protocol(GHG Protocol)and ISO.Both organisations have standards for firm-level(organization-level)reporting as well as product-level reporting.These standards are fairly similar.In practice,firm-lev

246、el reporting commonly uses the GHG Protocol Corporate standard(which was the first of its kind when it was published in 2001)while product-level carbon footprints often use the ISO 14067 standard.An older product-level carbon footprint standard,PAS 2050,is also sometimes used.GeneralFirm-levelProduc

247、t-levelISO 14040/14044 Life cycle assessmentCorporate&Scope 3 ISO 14064-1 GHG emissions at organization levelISO 14067Product Carbon FootprintProduct Life Cycle PACT Pathfinder Scope 3 and Product Carbon Footprint guidanceAgriculture GuidanceLand Sector&RemovalsFAO LEAPguidelinesIDF,GRSBCarbon footp

248、rintguidanceUS dairyguidance(Scope 1,2,3)AcrosssectorsAgriculture/FoodGoal:Consistencyof carbonfootprint measurementand communicationSpecific36 MEASURING CARBON FOOTPRINTS OF AGRI-FOOD PRODUCTS OECD 2025 This chapter asks to what extent existing standards provide sufficient guidance to allow a syste

249、m of reliable and widespread product carbon footprints.The focus is therefore on product carbon footprint standards,although some of the other standards in Figure 4.1 will be discussed as well,when they provide relevant guidance.For example,sectoral guidance which has been developed originally for f

250、irm-level(corporate and Scope 3)emissions can be useful for product-level carbon footprints as well.4.1.Product carbon footprint standards Product carbon footprints can be seen as a specialised form of life cycle assessment(LCA)(Hauschild,Rosenbaum and Olsen,20182)(Cucurachi et al.,20193).The basic

251、principles of LCA are defined in the widely used ISO 14040 and 14044 standards.The ISO 14067 standard for product carbon footprints builds on these standards and is designed to be used in conjunction with them.In addition to the ISO 14067 standard(originally introduced in 2013,last updated in 2018,a

252、nd currently undergoing revision),other product carbon footprint standards exist,notably the GHG Protocol Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting standard(introduced in 2011)and the PAS 2050 standard(which was the first standard on product carbon footprints,developed by the British Standards Ins

253、titute in 2008 and last updated in 2011).The standards have many similarities.Whatever differences exist have limited practical relevance nowadays,as the ISO 14067 standard is now the most widely used(see Box 4.1 for a discussion of some differences).The discussion here touches on the main methodolo

254、gical choices and underlying principles in product carbon footprint standards,focusing mostly on the ISO 14067 standard.A first important distinction is between an attributional and consequential approach to life cycle assessment(and hence product carbon footprints).Attributional LCA is essentially

255、a“snapshot”at a point in time of the flows that can be ascribed to a given product or system,whereas consequential LCA asks how these would change if for example output was increased by one unit.In the context of land use change,an attributional LCA would ask whether any land use change occurred in

256、the life cycle of the product(a concept known as direct land use change),whereas a consequential LCA would ask whether an expansion of output would,through economic and behavioral feedback and substitution effects,lead to land use change(a concept known as indirect land use change).The ISO 14067 sta

257、ndard can accommodate both attributional or consequential approaches,but firm-level and product-level carbon footprints typically take an attributional lens(GHG Protocol,20224);the GHG Protocol Product Standard even requires it(GHG Protocol,20115).1 A second important choice regards the functional o

258、r declared unit i.e.the“denominator”of the LCA or carbon footprint.Environmental impacts could be expressed in terms of physical units of output,e.g.per liter of milk at the farm gate;this is referred to as a“declared unit”approach.But impacts could also be expressed in terms of the functions those

259、products or systems fulfill,such as the nutrient content of food,e.g.environmental impacts per 100g of protein.LCAs and carbon footprints are often expressed in terms of such functional units,an approach generally favoured by the ISO 14067 standard to ensure meaningful comparisons.However,such an ap

260、proach is not ideal if the goal is to transmit carbon footprint data along the supply chain.Since the supply chain involves a transfer of physical products,these should be the relevant denominator.Expressing emissions in terms of declared units also reduces the scope for confusion or incompatibility

261、 when the relevant functions of a product can be defined in different ways.2 The definition of the product system and system boundaries determines which activities(and hence impacts)are in scope of the assessment and which ones are out of scope.For example,in assessing the environmental impacts of m

262、ilk,this would include a decision on whether the production of fertilisers used in growing animal feed is part of the scope or not.As the term“life cycle assessment”implies,a full LCA(and hence a full product carbon footprint)should include all relevant stages of the life cycle,from raw material ext

263、raction to the end-of-life stage(e.g.waste management,landfill);this is also known as a cradle-to-grave approach.But as noted earlier,to scale up the measurement and communication of carbon 37 MEASURING CARBON FOOTPRINTS OF AGRI-FOOD PRODUCTS OECD 2025 footprints in supply chains it is often more pr

264、actical to focus on cradle-to-gate approaches,where each actor accounts for life-cycle emissions up to the point where the product leaves its premises.Existing standards foresee this possibility.Another aspect of defining the system boundaries is the use of cut-off criteria for excluding certain pro

265、cesses,inputs,or outputs.For example,the ISO 14067 standard notes that emissions related to the production of capital goods(such as the emissions involved in the production of a tractor)can be excluded if this would not significantly change conclusions.3 The treatment of carbon offsets is another as

266、pect of the definition of system boundaries.A carbon offset or carbon credit is a certificate purchased by an organisation through,for example,an emissions trading scheme or through funding an emissions reduction project unrelated to the life cycle of the product.The ISO 14067 carbon footprint stand

267、ard(as well as the Greenhouse Gas Protocols Product Standard and PAS 2050)prohibit the inclusion of carbon offsets in the system boundary:the product carbon footprint should therefore represent actual emissions and removals which occurred during the life cycle of the product.Production processes oft

268、en involve multiple outputs,and conducting an LCA or product carbon footprint calculation thus requires allocation rules.In the context of dairy farming,for example,an allocation rule answers the question of how the total environmental impacts of the farm should be allocated between milk and beef ou

269、tputs;in dairy processing,allocation rules are needed to allocate impacts between different types of dairy products(butter,skim milk powder,etc.).The ISO standards indicate a preference for avoiding allocation rules whenever possible.For example,an arable farmer with several crops might be able to i

270、dentify which inputs were used for which crops,avoiding the need to use an allocation rule.Where this is not possible,the ISO 14067 standard stipulates that allocation should be done“in a way that reflects the underlying physical relationships”;and where this is not possible either,allocation should

271、 be done“in a way that reflects other relationships,”for example in proportion to economic value.4 The ISO 14067 carbon footprint standard also defines some overarching principles which should guide practitioners seeking to conduct a carbon footprint assessment using the standard.These include:Relev

272、ance:The selection of data and methods is appropriate to the assessment of the GHG emissions and removals arising from the system under study.Completeness:All GHG emissions and removals that provide a significant contribution to the product carbon footprint are included.Consistency:Assumptions,metho

273、ds and data are applied in the same way throughout the carbon footprint calculation.Coherence:Methodologies,standards and guidance documents that are already recognised internationally and adopted for product categories are applied,to enhance comparability between product carbon footprints within an

274、y specific product category.Accuracy:Quantification of the carbon footprint should be accurate,verifiable,relevant and not misleading,and bias and uncertainties are reduced as far as is practical.Transparency:All relevant issues are addressed and documented in an open,comprehensive and understandabl

275、e presentation of information.Any relevant assumptions are disclosed and methodologies and data sources used are appropriately referenced.Any estimates are clearly explained and bias is avoided.The GHG Protocols Product Standard specifies accounting principles similar to these,as does PAS 2050.In al

276、l three standards,the principles as well as the more detailed requirements are designed to ensure the reliability of carbon footprint estimates,by reducing the room for both systematic and non-systematic error.However,by construction the main product carbon footprint standards cannot cover all metho

277、dological questions which may arise in calculating product carbon footprints.Further guidance is therefore necessary 38 MEASURING CARBON FOOTPRINTS OF AGRI-FOOD PRODUCTS OECD 2025 to avoid methodological inconsistencies.Relevant sources are the PACT Pathfinder Framework,sectoral guidance,and product

278、 category rules,which are discussed below.Box 4.1.Differences between product carbon footprint standards As noted earlier,the three existing product carbon footprint standards(ISO 14067:2018,the GHG Protocol Product Standard,and PAS 2050:2011)are quite similar.This is partly by construction:for exam

279、ple,GHG Protocol built on the existing PAS 2050 standard when developing its Product Standard,and this standard was in turn taken into account during the revision of the PAS 2050 standard(GHG Protocol,n.d.6;BSI,20117).ISO and GHG Protocol also collaborate to reduce the divergence between their stand

280、ards.Nevertheless,some differences remain.Interviews with practitioners reveal that the ISO 14067:2018 standard is currently the most widely used.Its popularity is partly explained by its membership of a broader family of standards such as the ISO 14040/14044 standards for LCA as well as ISO standar

281、ds explaining how GHG statements can be verified and validated(ISO 14064-3),and standards detailing the competences required for teams which do the verification and validation(ISO 14066).Hence,the differences between ISO 14067 and the GHG Protocol and PAS 2050 standards may often not matter much in

282、practice.However,as will be shown later,some calculation tools are still aligned with the older PAS 2050 standard rather than with the more recent ISO 14067 standard.One area where standards differ is in the hierarchy of allocation rules proposed.All standards agree that allocation should be avoided

283、 where possible,by subdivision or system expansion.But beyond that,the standards diverge.While ISO 14067:2018 and GHG Protocol prioritise physical relationships over economic or other allocation methods,PAS 2050:2011 prioritises supplementary sectoral guidance followed by economic allocation.Physica

284、l allocation in PAS 2050:2011 thus is only possible if sectoral guidance for it exists.Another area where standards differ is in their exclusion criteria.ISO 14067:2018 is not very prescriptive in this regard:activities or life cycle stages can be excluded if this is not expected to“significantly”al

285、ter the conclusions.The GHG Protocol standard is similarly flexible:exclusion is allowed if there is a data gap and if an estimation determines that the data would be“insignificant”.PAS 2050:2011,by contrast,provides more concrete guidance:exclusions are allowed for emission sources that would const

286、itute less than 1%of total life cycle emissions as long as at least 95%of total emissions are accounted for.Some other textual differences between the standards are unlikely to cause differences in the assessment results.As an example,ISO 14067:2018 states that offsets are“not allowed”while PAS 2050

287、 and the GHG Protocol standard states that offsets are“not included”.The latter means that offsets cannot be counted as part of the product carbon footprint but can be reported separately as additional information.4.2.PACT Pathfinder Framework Firms are increasingly expected to report and reduce the

288、ir Scope 3 emissions,but quantifying these emissions is currently challenging partly due to a lack of harmonisation of methodologies and partly due to difficulties in sharing data across complex supply chains(OECD/BIAC/WEF,20238;OECD,20249).The Partnership for Carbon Transparency(PACT)Pathfinder ini

289、tiative aims to tackle both obstacles.PACT is hosted by the World Business Council for Sustainable Development(WBCSD)and works with stakeholders from different industries,as well as standard-setting bodies,reporting organisations,and 39 MEASURING CARBON FOOTPRINTS OF AGRI-FOOD PRODUCTS OECD 2025 ind

290、ustry initiatives.The vision of PACT was outlined earlier:if firms can receive accurate data from suppliers regarding the carbon footprint of purchased inputs on a cradle-to-gate basis,and if firms can add their own emissions,they can in turn provide accurate cradle-to-gate product carbon footprint

291、data to their customers.However,realising this vision requires greater harmonisation of methodologies as well as interoperable technological solutions to transmit data along the supply chain.To achieve greater harmonisation of methodologies for product-level carbon footprints,PACT has developed the

292、PACT Pathfinder Framework(PACT,20231).The PACT Pathfinder Framework first sets out a hierarchy of approaches:When product-specific guidelines(so-called product category rules,see below)already exist,firms should prioritise these,as long as they meet certain quality criteria.In particular,product cat

293、egory rules should only be used if they are developed in accordance with ISO standards;if they were developed using a multistakeholder process and independent peer review;if they are applicable to the geography where the product is produced or sold;and if the product category rules are reviewed at l

294、east every five years to ensure they are up to date.If product-specific guidelines do not exist,firms should use sector-specific rules built on recognised standards,in conjunction with the guidance in the Pathfinder Framework.If sector-specific rules do not exist,firms should fall back on cross-sect

295、oral standards such as the ISO 14067 carbon footprint standard,in conjunction with the guidance in the Pathfinder Framework.Next,the Pathfinder Framework provides guidance on the scope and boundaries of calculations.This guidance explains,for example,the use of a cradle-to-gate approach based on a d

296、eclared unit rather than a functional unit,as discussed above.The Pathfinder Framework then provides more detailed guidance on how to calculate product carbon footprints.Firms should include all“attributable processes”,i.e.all processes associated with services,materials,or energy flows that become,

297、make,or carry a product throughout its life cycle.Firms can exclude a process if this would likely represent less than 1%of the total,and if the sum of excluded processes is less than 5%of the total.For each process,firms should calculate emissions as:Activity data(amount of activity)x Emission fact

298、or(kg GHG per unit of activity)x Global Warming Potential(kg CO2-equivalent per kg of GHG).Activity data can include a firms material inputs(e.g.purchased fertiliser or feed)expressed in physical quantities;energy inputs(e.g.purchased electricity);or its own production processes.To the maximum exten

299、t possible,firms should use primary activity data.For emission factors,the Pathfinder Framework similarly prioritises primary data.For purchased inputs,primary data would be obtained from suppliers;if this is not available,firms can use emission factors from secondary databases.For a firms own activ

300、ities primary data would mean,for example,direct on-site measurement.In many contexts this is currently not feasible at scale;in that case,secondary emission factors can be used,as long as these come from high-quality databases(listed in the guidance).The Pathfinder Framework specifies that where em

301、issions are calculated using a model that takes primary data as input(as will often be the case in agriculture),the resulting emissions estimate would also be considered primary data.For Global Warming Potentials,the Pathfinder Framework aligns with other standards in referring to the latest informa

302、tion provided by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC).The Pathfinder Framework provides a decision tree on how to allocate emissions in multi-output processes:Try to avoid allocation.What looks like a multi-output process may in fact consist of single-output processes;if such“process

303、subdivision”is possible,it should be applied.If this is not possible,use the allocation rules outlined in product category rules or sector-specific guidance,if these meet the requirements of the Pathfinder Framework.40 MEASURING CARBON FOOTPRINTS OF AGRI-FOOD PRODUCTS OECD 2025 If such guidance is n

304、ot available,but if there is a dominant,identifiable substitute product,apply“system expansion”.This is a procedure where the carbon footprint of the product being studied is calculated by taking the total carbon footprint of the multi-output process and subtracting the carbon footprint of substitut

305、es for the co-products(i.e.the other outputs).5 When the above is not possible,the Pathfinder Framework asks what the ratio is of the economic value of the co-products.6 If this ratio is greater than five,then one co-product can be considered the main driver of the process,and economic allocation ca

306、n be used that is,the emissions are allocated proportionally to the economic value(e.g.revenues)associated with the different products.If the ratio is equal to or lower than five,the Pathfinder Framework asks whether there exists an underlying physical relationship between the co-products.If so,a ph

307、ysical allocation method should be used.If no physical relationship exists,allocation can be done using economic allocation or alternative approaches.The Pathfinder Framework also contains specific guidance on how to account for emissions from land use change and emissions and removals from“land man

308、agement”(i.e.agriculture and forestry).However,the Pathfinder Framework notes that this guidance will be updated to reflect the final GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Guidance,discussed below.Finally,the Pathfinder Framework also contains guidance on preferred data sources,as well as requiremen

309、ts regarding assurance and verification and on minimum required data elements to be exchanged alongside product-level carbon footprints.This will be discussed below in the context of facilitating data flows across the supply chain.4.3.Sectoral guidance As noted above,the Pathfinder Framework gives p

310、riority to product category rules and sectoral guidance,as long as these meet certain quality safeguards.Product category rules are discussed in more detail below;this section discusses sectoral guidance.The Pathfinder Framework prioritises sectoral guidance which is built on cross-sectoral standard

311、s such as ISO or the GHG Protocol.For food systems,the relevant guidance here includes the GHG Protocols Agriculture Guidance and its forthcoming Land Sector and Removals Guidance.7 These are developed to facilitate implementation of the core GHG Protocol standards for Corporate and Scope 3 reportin

312、g.4.3.1.GHG Protocols Agricultural Guidance The Agricultural Guidance(GHG Protocol,201410)provides guidance on questions which may arise when trying to report GHG fluxes(emissions and removals)from agricultural activities.For example,when a farms livestock is grazing on land owned by a third party,t

313、he Agricultural Guidance clarifies how emissions should be allocated between the owner of the livestock and the owner of the land.The Guidance also discusses common challenges and solutions for the collection of activity data.The Agricultural Guidance may be subject to change given the forthcoming L

314、and Sector and Removals Guidance(discussed below),and may even be replaced by it.At the time of writing,however,the Land Sector and Removals Guidance was not yet officially published,and hence the Agricultural Guidance remains relevant.An important element of the Agricultural Guidance is its descrip

315、tion of how changes in carbon stocks(in biomass,dead organic matter,soil organic matter,and harvested products)should be accounted for,and how firms should report their GHG fluxes(i.e.emissions and removals).These are summarised in 41 MEASURING CARBON FOOTPRINTS OF AGRI-FOOD PRODUCTS OECD 2025 Table

316、 4.1.The table takes the perspective of an agricultural producer,i.e.Scope 1 here refers to on-farm emissions.The Agricultural Guidance states that fluxes should be reported for each subcategory in Table 4.1.Importantly,regarding CO2 fluxes,the Guidance requires that only CO2 emissions from land use

317、 change are reported under Scope 1 emissions,while other CO2 fluxes(emissions or removals)due to land use management,as well as CO2 sequestration due to land use change,and CO2 emissions from biofuel combustion,should be reported under a separate category for“Biogenic carbon”.The Guidance does not r

318、equire firms to report separately on different non-mechanical sources(e.g.enteric fermentation,manure management).Table 4.1.Reporting agricultural GHG fluxes according to the GHG Protocol Agricultural Guidance Category of source or sink Subcategory Examples Scope 1 Mechanical sources Mobile equipmen

319、t,stationary combustion,refrigeration and air-conditioning systems CO2 emissions from land use change CO2 emissions from the conversion of forests into ranchland or the conversion of wetlands into croplands Non-mechanical sources Enteric fermentation,soil N2O emissions,manure management Scope 2 Purc

320、hased energy Purchased electricity Scope 3(optional)All other indirect sources Production of agrochemicals and purchased feed Biogenic carbon CO2 fluxes during land use management CO2 fluxes to/from C stocks in soils,above-and below-ground woody biomass,and dead organic matter stocks,and the combust

321、ion of crop residues for non-energy purposes C sequestration due to land use change CO2 removals by soils and biomass following afforestation or reforestation Biofuel combustion Combustion of biofuels in farm machinery Additional information A reference or link to the calculation methodologies used

322、Description of whether the methodologies are IPCC Tier 1,2,or 3 Description of the methodology used to amortise CO2 fluxes Assumptions regarding the use of proxy data in calculating the impacts of historical land use change on C stocks Note:This table illustrates the requirements and minimum,best pr

323、actice recommendations for disaggregating agricultural GHG flux data in inventories.Please note that the proposed Land Sector and Removals Guidance would include important changes to these requirements,as discussed below.Source:GHG Protocol(201410).4.3.2.GHG Protocols Land Sector and Removals Guidan

324、ce GHG Protocol is currently also preparing a Land Sector and Removals Guidance.A Draft for Pilot Testing and Review was published in September 2022(GHG Protocol,20224)and,following feedback from pilot testers and stakeholders,is currently being refined.The Guidance would apply to all firms which ha

325、ve“land sector”activities(e.g.agriculture,forestry)in its operations or in its value chain,and would make Scope 3 reporting a requirement for these firms.In addition,the Guidance would also apply to firms reporting removals(including technology-based removals),and to firms that buy or sell carbon cr

326、edits from land sector or removal activities.The Guidance would notably introduce clear guidelines on when and how removals can be reported(including removals through,for example,soil carbon sequestration).The Draft Guidance proposes three new principles in addition to the principles of relevance,ac

327、curacy,completeness,consistency,and transparency listed in the core GHG Protocol standards.These are:Conservativeness:Use conservative assumptions,values,and procedures when uncertainty is high.Conservative values and assumptions are those that are more likely to overestimate GHG emissions and under

328、estimate removals.42 MEASURING CARBON FOOTPRINTS OF AGRI-FOOD PRODUCTS OECD 2025 Permanence:Ensure mechanisms are in place to monitor the continued storage of reported removals,account for reversals,and report emissions from associated carbon pools.Comparability:Where relevant,firms should apply com

329、mon methodologies,data sources,assumptions,and reporting formats such that the reported GHG inventories from multiple firms can be compared.The discussion here focuses on those aspects of the Land Sector and Removals Guidance most relevant to food systems.8 As in the Agricultural Guidance,the Draft

330、Guidance requires that CO2 emissions from land use change should be reported,but it expands this requirement to also cover methane and nitrous oxide emissions due to land use change(e.g.from burning vegetation or peatland drainage,or from the mineralisation of nitrogen in soil due to losses of soil

331、carbon).Moreover,the Draft Guidance goes beyond the Agricultural Guidance in requiring that net biogenic CO2 emissions from land management(e.g.loss of soil carbon due to farm management practices)need to be reported in the relevant scope,rather than in a separate“Biogenic carbon”category as is the

332、case in the Agricultural Guidance.Net biogenic CO2 removals from land management(e.g.soil carbon sequestration due to the use of cover crops)as well as from land use change(e.g.reforestation)could optionally be reported under the relevant scope,but only if a range of additional criteria are met:The

333、calculation of net land carbon stock changes includes at a minimum any changes in carbon stock due to biomass,dead organic matter,and soil carbon.There is ongoing storage monitoring documented in a land management plan or monitoring plan so that carbon remains stored and any losses can be detected.There is traceability:when net removals occur in the firms supply chain,these can only be reported as