Abstract
Purpose
Carbon emissions commonly serve as an indicator for environmental friendliness, and so more and more carbon emission calculators (CECs) are offered that allow an estimation of the environmental footprint of freight transport operations. Unfortunately, their exact measurement is challenging due to the availability or poor quality of necessary input data and a multitude of possible calculation methods that may result in highly inaccurate to very misleading figures.
Design/methodology/approach
A structured online search was conducted to identify suitable online carbon emission calculators (OCECs) for further assessment in the form of a benchmark case that includes different modes of transport from road and rail to air and sea between China and Europe. Further comparison resulted in a ranking of OCECs along the categories of transparency (routing system, data sources and calculation method), completeness (input options) and accuracy (data output).
Findings
Different predefined inputs and calculation methods employed by the OCECs assessed inevitably result in a wide spread of more or less reliable carbon footprint measurement results.
Practical implications
All potential users of CECs, including policymakers, actors from the transport industry and other stakeholders, are well advised to question greenhouse gas (GHG) emission statements that are not backed by transparent procedures and internationally recognized calculation standards.
Originality/value
This study, including a benchmark case and a ranking, offers a guideline for potential users of CEC to avoid major pitfalls coming along with the present carbon footprint measurement of freight transport operations.
Carbon emissions commonly serve as an indicator for environmental friendliness, and so more and more carbon emission calculators (CECs) are offered that allow an estimation of the environmental footprint of freight transport operations. Unfortunately, their exact measurement is challenging due to the availability or poor quality of necessary input data and a multitude of possible calculation methods that may result in highly inaccurate to very misleading figures.
Design/methodology/approach
A structured online search was conducted to identify suitable online carbon emission calculators (OCECs) for further assessment in the form of a benchmark case that includes different modes of transport from road and rail to air and sea between China and Europe. Further comparison resulted in a ranking of OCECs along the categories of transparency (routing system, data sources and calculation method), completeness (input options) and accuracy (data output).
Findings
Different predefined inputs and calculation methods employed by the OCECs assessed inevitably result in a wide spread of more or less reliable carbon footprint measurement results.
Practical implications
All potential users of CECs, including policymakers, actors from the transport industry and other stakeholders, are well advised to question greenhouse gas (GHG) emission statements that are not backed by transparent procedures and internationally recognized calculation standards.
Originality/value
This study, including a benchmark case and a ranking, offers a guideline for potential users of CEC to avoid major pitfalls coming along with the present carbon footprint measurement of freight transport operations.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Journal | International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management |
| Volume | 54 |
| Issue number | 11 |
| Pages (from-to) | 30-43 |
| Number of pages | 14 |
| ISSN | 0960-0035 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 2024 |
Bibliographical note
Published online: 20 September 2024.Keywords
- Freight transport
- Carbon footprint
- Ghg emissions
- Carbon amission calculator
- Benchmarking study
