Activities per year
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.
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 |
---|---|
Article number | IJPDLM-12-2023-0460 |
Journal | International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management (IJPDLM) |
DOIs | |
Publication status | E-pub ahead of print - 20 Sept 2024 |
Keywords
- Freight transport
- Carbon footprint
- GHG emissions
- carbon emissions calculator
- benchmarking study
Activities
- 1 Science to science
-
A Benchmarking Study of Online Carbon Emission Calculators for Freight Transport
Schramm, H.-J. (Speaker) & Lehner, M. (Contributor)
15 Jun 2023 → 16 Jun 2023Activity: Talk or presentation › Science to science