For a company like PepsiCo, which oversees more than 20 brands and hundreds of different products around the world, calculating the carbon footprint of just one of its products can take weeks, and at a significant cost to the company. To save time and money, PepsiCo teamed up with researchers from Columbia University’s Earth Institute to create a tool that can measure the carbon footprint of thousands of products all at once.
The calculator, which lacks an official name, can calculate the carbon emissions of different materials and activities in a company’s supply chain and operations, and within minutes pinpoint which of these carries the largest carbon footprint.
“The objective was to give companies several capabilities at once with only a single effort,” said Christoph Meinrenken, the tool’s lead researcher and associate research scientist at the Earth Institute.
The calculator was developed to follow publicly known carbon footprinting standards such as the GHG Protocol Product Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) standard and PAS20:2011. The methodology and software helps businesses identify which materials or activities in their supply chain and operations have the biggest effect on the total carbon footprint of one of their products, product lines, brands or regions. The calculator also reveals the accuracy of this information and how this accuracy can be improved so a company can make better business decisions.
“We saw the opportunity to use our carbon/greenhouse gas analysis as a base for building a broader decision-making tool that could help us identify other efficiency opportunities throughout our supply chain, drive innovation and improve our overall operations,” said Robert terKuile, PepsiCo’s senior director of environmental sustainability.
The tool also provides certifiable product footprints to be used in ecolabeling and for environmental measuring groups such as The Sustainability Consortium and GoodGuide. This certification requires an intensive, bottom-up assessment of each product’s entire life cycle in order to provide the required microscopic level of detail and to be auditable outside the company, said Meinrenken.
The tool is not the first of its kind. Earlier this year, Danone announced it had developed a system, in partnership with SAP, that can calculate the carbon emissions of individual products. Meinrenken said the inner workings of the Danone tool hadn’t been made public, so it was hard to adequately compare the two. He said PepsiCo’s tool was developed before Danone unveiled its calculator.
In the past, companies relied on teams of experts to manually measure emissions. These experts used sophisticated LCA software, but the method had its drawbacks. LCA is time-consuming and costly -- it still requires manual data collection such as phone calls and emails, and manual entry of the collected data into the system.
The new tool "dramatically reduces the time and effort as well as required LCA expertise that company employees or outside consultants have to spend on the tool and its associated databases before it can spit out any meaningful carbon results," said Pepsi's TerKuile.
It's too early to tell the total cost savings from using the calculator, he said, but he anticipates the savings will be significant. Prior to the launch of the calculator, measuring the carbon footprint of a single product -- known in the industry as a stock-keeping unit (SKU) -- at PepsiCo took more than 100 person-hours, and even that was a “somewhat optimistic benchmark,” Meinrenken said.
“You can imagine what this means if you have tens of thousands of SKUs,” he said.
The Earth Institute and PepsiCo initially aimed to standardize footprinting and measure individual SKUs, such as Tropicana orange juice, said Meinrenken. But in 2009, the focus shifted to entire product portfolios to minimize a company’s costs as much as possible.
Although Meinrenken said he couldn’t go into specifics, his team hopes to make the tool available to other companies to use in their carbon analysis. They also plan to test the methodology in other environmental areas, such as calculating water savings.
Image of discussion with laptop by Wave Break Media available via Shutterstock.












Carbon emission limitations
Carbon emission limitations have gone too far. Carbon is not a pollutant, and is necessary for all forms of life to survive. The billions and even likely trillions being thrown into evaluating or making everything created and used with dramatically less of a 'carbon footprint' will ultimately make no significant difference in our weather. Man made carbon only accounts for about 2% of the carbon in our atmosphere, so even if we eliminated it all...what affect would removing 2% of the carbon actually make. This is not about saving our planet-it is about creating another 'currency' if you will, and 'spreading the wealth around', and giving regulators more power over manufacturers, and ultimately over people, as in the case of individual smart meters. The smart meters will be used to restrict and ration energy...at first it will be voluntary...but as regulators decide the change is not drastic enough on a voluntary basis-mandates will follow! Just watch...or if you want to resist, come read about how on our website mentioned as our homepage. (ban texas smart meters dot com)
yikes....you worry to much.
yikes....you worry to much. Don't you worry about the meters on the gas pumps reading your license plate and deciding if you used to much gas too :) Fundemental to your global conspriacy theory...is that many gov'ts and regulators are all in secret meetings, and those thousands of people keep a common value and mission for decades, and never say what they are doing. Ha ! you couldn't get 10 policy makers to have the same values and mission for 1 year, and within 2 years they would be running blog sites and writing books on the conspiracy :)
The issue with carbon emission has nothing with being a "pollutant", or it's elemetal status. I would be interested in where the 2 % of atmosphere CO2 comes from though, doesn't sound right to me. You can look up the trend for the last 50 years and the increase is much higher than that. One might argue it's all the dairy and meat produduction (like that is not a man made source). It's us guys, geologic carbon results in geo political battles, price volatility, loss to companies with spills (as in your pension and 401k), and national energy security issues. All good reasons to reduce (no one said eliminate)
my rant is over :)
I'm curious how the
I'm curious how the data-mining process works for this tool? I would be surprised if the database was just plugged into the tool and didn't require significant modifications.
Very cool