Product Carbon Footprint

A Product Carbon Footprint – PCF for short – is a greenhouse gas balance for a specific product or service. It records the greenhouse gas emissions and, where relevant according to the applied standard, quantifiable CO₂ removals within the defined system boundary.

The term "carbon footprint" is used as an abbreviation. In fact, the greenhouse gases to be included according to the applied standard are taken into account, in particular:

• carbon dioxide (CO₂),

• methane (CH₄),

• nitrous oxide (N₂O),

• hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs),

• perfluorocarbons (PFCs),

• sulphur hexafluoride (SF₆),

• nitrogen trifluoride (NF₃).

The varying climate impact of these gases is converted into CO₂ equivalents based on their global warming potential (GWP). natureOffice uses the 100-year time horizon for this.

A PCF solely considers the impact category of climate change. It is not a complete life cycle assessment and, without additional investigation, does not contain statements on water consumption, biodiversity, resource use, pollutants or social impacts, for example. Nor is it a general statement as to whether a product is sustainable, climate-friendly, climate-neutral or emission-free.

Key takeaway: A PCF is greenhouse gas information for a clearly defined product within a defined methodological boundary – not an award and not a product status.

natureOffice calculates PCFs depending on the product, the purpose of the balance sheet, and the agreed scope of services on the basis of the GHG Protocol Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting Standard or ISO 14067:2018. The specific standard applied is stated in the respective carbon footprint. A general statement of conformity for all PCF products and calculation methods is not provided.

In addition, the following may be taken into account in particular:

• the Required Greenhouse Gases in Inventories amendment to the GHG Protocol,

• ISO 14040 and ISO 14044 as the foundations of life cycle assessment,

• recognised Product Category Rules, Product Rules or industry-specific calculation rules,

• the Product Environmental Footprint Method of the European Commission or applicable PEF Category Rules,

• further statutory, contractual or programme-related specifications of the specific application.

Product Rules specify general standards for certain product groups. For example, they can specify functional units, system boundaries, use and end-of-life scenarios, allocation rules, data requirements, or forms of presentation. If such a rule is to be applied, it takes precedence for the specific matters regulated therein. Publisher, version, and validity status are documented.

The GHG Protocol Product Standard and ISO 14067 are currently being further developed together. Until a new harmonised standard is published and applicable, the current versions remain authoritative. ISO 14067:2018 continues to be the published international standard; a working draft is not yet an applicable replacement.

The GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard, Version 1.1, comes into force on 1 January 2027. It supplements corporate GHG accounting for significant agricultural activities, biogenic products, and specific CO₂ removals. It is not a general replacement for the Product Standard or ISO 14067. Its significance for a PCF is reviewed if the accounting company or its value chain falls within its scope. For forestry and forestry product chains, Version 1.1 does not yet contain a comprehensive methodology.

Visible in the specific footprint: applied standard, supplementary Product Rules, versions, data and methodology status, as well as any limitations of comparability.

The creation of a PCF follows five basic principles:

• Relevance: The subject of the balance sheet, reference unit, system boundary, data and methods fit the intended use and appropriately reflect the actual characteristics of the product.

• Completeness: All attributable processes within the defined system boundary are recorded. Data gaps, estimates and exclusions are described and justified.

• Consistency: Methods, boundaries, data principles, allocation rules and scenarios are applied as consistently as possible within the assessment and for comparisons over time. Changes are documented.

• Transparency: Data used, emission factors, assumptions, scenarios, allocations, recycling methods, exclusions and methodological decisions are documented to an extent that enables professional classification.

• Accuracy: Systematic over- and underestimations are avoided as far as practically possible and uncertainties are reduced. The presentation of results does not suggest a higher accuracy than the data basis permits.

The principles are applied together. For example, a mathematically highly accurate figure is not reliable if essential life cycle phases are missing or the reference unit does not match the product benefit.

Before starting the calculation, the intended purpose, the targeted users, and the product under investigation are defined. Possible purposes include, for example, the identification of emission hotspots, product development, the provision of supply chain data, the updating of a PCF, the fulfilment of customer or tender requirements, or the factual communication of a result.

The product is described in such a way that it is clearly recognisable what the PCF applies to. This includes – where relevant:

• Product name, article number or unique product ID,

• Product type and essential function,

• Design, formulation, material composition or performance characteristics,

• Manufacturing location or included group of locations,

• Technology and production route,

• Quality level or product specification,

• Production, sales or data period,

• Classification as a finished product, intermediate product or service.

Variants, formulation changes, different plants or differing production processes are not automatically combined under a single value. If, in exceptional cases, a group, average or reference value is used, this is explicitly indicated.

A finished product is generally considered over its entire life cycle. For an intermediate product, a cradle-to-gate PCF may be appropriate if the subsequent function and use are not yet known.

On the data page or in the balance sheet profile, at least the reference or data period and the date of documentation are displayed. This ensures that the product and knowledge status represented by the result remains recognisable.

Every PCF requires a unique reference basis. For final products, the unit of analysis is defined as the functional unit. It describes the performance of the product and basically comprises:

• the function or benefit,

• the quantity or performance provided,

• the intended service life or duration of performance,

• where relevant, the required level of quality or performance.

A simple piece, mass or volume specification is only sufficient for a final product if it appropriately reflects its function for the accounting purpose. Otherwise, the reference value is supplemented by the relevant performance and duration.

The reference flow is the specific quantity of product required to fulfil the functional unit. Material, energy and process quantities are mathematically related to it.

If the subsequent function of an intermediate product is unknown, the unit of analysis can be defined as the reference flow, for example as 1 kg of a material, 1 tonne of a precursor or 1,000 pieces of a component with a defined specification. Services are also assigned a functional unit that describes the type, scope and, if applicable, duration and quality level of the service provided.

Visible in the concrete balance sheet: functional unit or reference flow, product specification, if applicable, performance duration and the underlying product quantity.

The system boundary determines which phases and processes of the product life cycle are included in the calculation.

Cradle-to-grave: For a final product, a complete PCF generally covers raw material extraction and pre-processing, manufacturing, distribution and storage, use, and end-of-life.

Cradle-to-gate: For an intermediate product, the assessment may end at the point where the product leaves the production area under consideration. The result then includes the attributable processes from raw material extraction to the factory gate. This is a partial PCF and is designated as such.

Gate-to-gate or individual life cycle module: Such values can be used for internal analyses, supply chain data, or as a building block of an overarching PCF. They are clearly referred to as process or module values and are not presented as a complete PCF.

A system boundary is not chosen in such a way that emission-intensive phases are selectively omitted, creating a misleading picture. The designation of the result indicates whether the complete life cycle or only a part of it has been calculated.

For each product, the relevant processes are structured in a process map. Depending on the system boundary, the following life cycle phases can be included:

• Raw material extraction and pre-processing,

• Production,

• Distribution and storage,

• Use,

• End-of-life.

Attributable processes are material, energy and service flows that enter into the product, manufacture it or directly lead through its life cycle. These can include, among other things, raw materials and components, energy and fuels, direct process emissions, auxiliary and operating materials, transport, packaging, scrap, storage, consumables, maintenance as well as disposal and recycling processes.

General administration, research and development, marketing, commuting and mobile working, certain overheads, infrastructure and capital goods are not included by default in natureOffice-PCF. If a CCF prepared by natureOffice is available and provides a suitable database, relevant processes that are not directly attributable can be additionally taken into account after an appropriate and documented allocation. The same applies if a product rule, another methodological specification or the agreed accounting purpose requires this.

The inclusion or exclusion of such processes is documented on a balance-sheet basis, as this can affect comparability.

natureOffice distinguishes between primary data, secondary data, proxy data and estimates.

Primary data refers to a specific process of the product under investigation. Examples include measured material and energy consumption, bills of materials, formulations, production volumes, direct emission measurements, mass balances and site- or supplier-specific process data. For processes owned or controlled by the company preparing the inventory, suitable primary data is generally sought and is also used in the vast majority of cases.

Secondary data originates, for example, from LCA databases, sector and technology averages, regional energy or transport factors, scientific studies or economic-based emission factors. It is used when no suitable primary data is available and is selected to match the technology, region, time period and process as closely as possible.

In principle, the following data hierarchy is aimed for:

• product-specific primary data,

• suitable supplier- or site-specific data,

• representative technological, regional or sector-specific secondary data,

• adapted proxy data,

• traceable conservative estimates,

• economic-based data, if no more appropriate physical data is available.

Spend-based data can be used for screenings or justified data gaps. natureOffice does not currently use PCF templates whose calculation is predominantly or entirely spend-based. Where individual finance-based factors are used, they are treated as secondary data; no separate PCF product status is assigned for this.

When selecting data, technological, geographical and temporal representativeness, completeness and reliability are taken into account. However, natureOffice does not currently use a mandatory, uniform scoring system and does not assign a standardised data quality score for each PCF.

Emission factors connect activity data with the associated greenhouse gas emissions. When selecting them, particular consideration is given to technical suitability, technological, geographical and temporal representativeness, process and system boundaries, reference unit, included upstream chains, GWP basis and version status.

natureOffice primarily uses datasets from ecoinvent and Climatiq as well as – depending on the product and use case – other technically suitable sources. Databases are not selected solely based on the most favourable numerical value. The dataset must fit the actual process and the rest of the footprint.

Databases used and relevant version statuses are documented for the respective footprint. As far as the source allows, the specific dataset is kept traceable using its name or dataset ID. A factor updated at a later date does not change an already published result unnoticed; a recalculation receives a new footprint status.

For the conversion of individual greenhouse gases, 100-year GWPs are used. For directly characterised gases, the latest IPCC version applicable to the footprint is preferred. For database factors that have already been characterised, the GWP basis included in the database version remains decisive. Different GWP versions are not mixed within a footprint as far as practically possible; unavoidable deviations are documented.

Electricity is accounted for on the basis of the consumption allocated to the product and a suitable emission factor. Consumption is measured as directly as possible or allocated via an appropriate physical relationship – for example, machine time, process quantity or energy demand.

Customer-specific information on electricity procurement, including suitable guarantees of origin, can be taken into account if their allocation to the consumption under consideration, their temporal and geographical reference, and their methodological suitability are verifiably documented. A mere designation as "green electricity" or "renewable" does not automatically result in an emission factor of zero.

If no suitable customer-specific evidence is available for electricity consumption in Germany, natureOffice uses a current German electricity mix or a technically appropriate German grid electricity data set as standard. For processes outside of Germany, a suitable regional or country-specific mix is used.

The electricity volume, allocation method, factor source, geographical reference and – where relevant – the treatment of contractual instruments are documented in the carbon footprint. The location-based and market-based dual reporting from the GHG Protocol Scope 2 Guidance is not automatically transferred unchanged to every PCF.

Activity data × emission factor = greenhouse gas emissions

Depending on the process, direct measurements, mass balances, stoichiometric calculations, energy and material flow models, or other technically suitable methods are also used.

The process values are:

• assigned to the relevant life cycle stage,

• allocated between multiple products or functions if applicable,

• converted to the reference flow,

• converted into CO₂ equivalents using 100-year GWP,

• related to the functional unit or unit of analysis,

• consolidated into the result within the defined system boundary.

Calculations can be carried out in ecozoom using standardised or individually configured templates. A template combines documented formulas, factors, selection rules, and model assumptions with the entered activity data. An automated result replaces neither correct input data nor the agreed professional and technical checks.

External reductions, certificates, or voluntary commitment to climate protection projects are not included in the PCF and are not deducted from it. Emissions and CO₂ removals within the product system boundary that are accounted for in compliance with regulations remain unaffected by this.

If a shared process yields multiple products, co-products or functions, energy, material and emission flows must be allocated appropriately.

Allocation is avoided as far as possible, for example by subdividing the process, measuring product-specific consumption more precisely or through an appropriate system expansion. If allocation is unavoidable, an appropriate physical relationship is first examined, such as mass, energy content, substance content, machine time, area, volume or another technically justified causal relationship.

If no suitable physical relationship can be established, allocation can be carried out economically or based on another verifiable relationship. In the case of economic allocation, the price basis, time period and data source are documented. A sensitivity analysis is not a general natureOffice standard; it is carried out if it is required by a Product Rule, an inspection or certification programme or the agreed order.

The chosen allocation method is justified and applied consistently for comparable inputs and outputs. An output is not classified as waste or co-product solely to shift emissions out of the balance sheet.

Recycling connects different product life cycles. Therefore, it is determined to which product the environmental burdens and potential benefits of recycling are allocated.

Depending on the product, the purpose of the balance sheet, and the applicable rules, natureOffice specifically uses the following allocation logics:

100:0 or Recycled Content or Cut-off Method: The product under investigation carries the burdens of the primary and secondary materials used, including the necessary processing of the secondary input. Potential subsequent recyclability does not automatically lead to a credit.

0:100 or End-of-Life-oriented Method: Recycling impacts are allocated to the end of life or the provision of secondary material for a subsequent product life cycle. The specific formula, system boundary, substitution assumption, losses, and changes in quality are documented, as designations and design can vary depending on the ruleset.

Requirements of an applicable Product Category Rule or a binding programme take precedence. Credits or avoided burdens from the End-of-Life are reported separately and not offset against the main value in a non-transparent manner.

Basically, the following applies:

• Recyclability alone does not mean avoided emissions.

• Secondary material is not set at zero emissions as a flat rate.

• Collection, sorting, processing, losses, and changes in quality are taken into account.

• The method is not switched between balance sheet levels to obtain the more favourable result in each case.

• For product comparisons, the recycling method and system boundary must match.

Downstream lifecycle phases are often based on assumptions because the actual lifecycle has not yet been completed at the time of the assessment. These assumptions are documented as scenarios.

For distribution and storage, factors such as transport distances, modes of transport, capacity utilisation, empty runs, transshipment, storage energy, cooling, packaging, and losses can be taken into account. If delivery routes are not fully known, representative or weighted scenarios are used.

For the use of an end product, the lifespan, frequency of use, energy and fuel requirements, consumables, maintenance, repair, spare parts, direct emissions, and regional operating conditions are specified, where relevant.

The end-of-life scenario can include collection, transport, reuse, recycling, incineration, landfilling, and other treatment routes. The proportions are selected to match the product type, region, and reference period. Technically possible recovery routes are not automatically assumed to be actually realised routes.

Sources used include, in particular, the databases applied, applicable Product Rules, technical specifications, customer or market data, and other verifiable specialist sources. The underlying main scenario is documented. Alternative scenarios or sensitivity analyses are not a mandatory standard for every natureOffice PCF; they are carried out in particular in the case of corresponding certification, audit, or program specifications, or by separate agreement.

Biogenic materials are not treated as climate-neutral or emission-free as a matter of course. Methane and nitrous oxide from biogenic sources are taken into account with their respective GWP values. Land-use changes, biogenic CO₂ flows, carbon storage, and CO₂ removals are treated according to the standard applied in the specific PCF, an applicable Product Rule, and the methodological characteristics of the datasets used.

A separate disclosure of biogenic CO₂ emissions and removals is currently not a uniform standard field in all natureOffice PCFs and is not carried out routinely for every product. It takes place if the applied set of rules, a Product Rule, a programme, or the relevance of the specific product requires it. In this case, the database, system boundary, land-use changes, storage duration, release scenario, and key assumptions are also documented.

The GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard Version 1.1 applies from 2027 for companies with significant agricultural activities in their operations or value chain, as well as for specific cases of reporting on CO₂ removals. It is applied alongside the Corporate Standard and the Scope 3 Standard and is not a general PCF rule. For affected companies, natureOffice examines which requirements must be considered for the corporate and supply chain data used in the PCF. Version 1.1 does not yet comprehensively cover forestry and forestry product chains.

A negative or very low PCF due to carbon storage or CO₂ removals is only reported if the relevant framework permits this and associated emissions, removals, storage conditions, time periods, risks of reversal, and double-counting issues are fully addressed. A mere amount of carbon in the product is not sufficient for this.

In principle, all attributable processes within the defined system boundary are taken into account. natureOffice does not currently apply a general quantitative cut-off limit that applies to all PCFs.

Inventory-specific cut-off criteria or significance thresholds are defined with the customer as required and in compliance with the applied standard or product rule. Known processes are not omitted solely because their contribution is assumed to be small.

Missing data are not equated with zero emissions. First, it is checked whether another primary source, a suitable secondary data set, an adapted proxy or a conservative estimate can be used. Exclusion is only considered if no appropriate data basis is available and its anticipated significance has been assessed as non-material based on the agreed rule.

Any relevant exclusion is documented with the process, reason, estimation or screening method and, if applicable, the threshold used. Several small exclusions are considered together so that their cumulative effect is not obscured.

The cradle-to-gate boundary of an intermediate product is not a standard data gap, but a defined partial system boundary and is reported accordingly.

PCFs contain uncertainties due to input data, emission factors, model choices and assumptions about the future life cycle. These include, in particular:

• Parameter uncertainty, for example in quantities, material proportions, distances or factors,

• Scenario uncertainty, for example in usage, sales region or end-of-life,

• Model uncertainty, for example due to simplified process mapping or methodological choices.

natureOffice makes significant data gaps, proxy data, estimates and crucial assumptions transparent. A mandatory uniform scoring or a quantitative uncertainty calculation is currently not applied to every PCF. Likewise, no flat-rate safety margin of five or ten percent is added to the result.

Bandwidths, alternative scenarios, sensitivity analyses or quantitative uncertainty calculations are carried out if this is required by the applied rules, for a certification or audit, due to the importance of a parameter or based on the agreed contract.

The number of decimal places shown depends on the informative value of the data and is not used as a substitute for an uncertainty assessment.

natureOffice-PCFs generally refer to clearly defined individual products or product variants. Product groups, average values, or reference products are only used if this is appropriate for the application and the allocation can be comprehensibly documented.

For a group value, comparable function and reference unit, system boundary, material or formulation structure, production route, sites, as well as use and end-of-life profiles are examined in particular. Depending on the defined rule, the value can be a quantity- or sales-weighted average, a representative model value, or a conservative upper value.

On the data side, it is clearly indicated whether the result applies to an individual product, a product group, an average, or a reference product. A group value is not presented as an individually calculated item PCF. Significant changes in formulation, plant, technology, function, or dispersion of results may require a new group formation or individual calculation.

A PCF represents a specific product, data and methodological status. A recalculation is not required solely due to the passage of a fixed period of time. The result can continue to be used as long as the product, processes, data and methods remain sufficiently representative for the specified reference period and intended use.

An update is particularly reviewed in the event of:

• a new production or sales period,

• changed formulations, materials or bills of materials,

• new suppliers or regions of origin,

• changed locations, technologies or energy supplies,

• new use or end-of-life assumptions,

• significantly updated emission factors or databases,

• a new template or methodology version,

• identified errors.

If an existing PCF is professionally reviewed again and, if necessary, updated, natureOffice objectively refers to this service as an update and professional review. This does not claim to be an independent verification or certification.

Significant changes are assigned a new version status. In particular, the balance sheet, template and methodological framework version, factor and database status, data period, documentation or review date and changes compared to the previous version are documented.

For older PCFs, whether an update is required is reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Until then, they remain clearly marked with their historical data, methodological and version status and are not presented as having been retroactively adapted to the current methodology.

A lower PCF is not automatically a real reduction in emissions. For a reliable statement, the compared balance sheets must be sufficiently comparable methodologically and factually.

natureOffice distinguishes between:

• real product or process changes, such as lower material or energy use, more efficient production, material substitution, altered supply chains, longer service life or a different end-of-life,

• volume, mix or structural effects, for example due to capacity utilisation, product mix or location weighting,

• methodological or data effects, for example due to new factors, databases, allocation rules, scenarios, system boundaries or error corrections.

A methodological or data effect is not described as a real product reduction without further analysis. For temporal comparisons, the function, functional unit, reference flow, system boundary, life cycle stages, key allocation and recycling methods, as well as use and end-of-life scenarios in particular remain consistent. In the event of a significant methodological change, the baseline assessment is recalculated where possible, or comparability is explicitly restricted.

Avoided emissions outside the system boundary and a voluntary commitment to climate protection projects are not reported as a reduction in the PCF.

Two PCF figures are not comparable solely because they are both expressed in kg CO₂e. A reliable comparison requires, in particular:

• the same function and a truly comparable functional unit,

• a comparable level of quality and performance,

• the same system boundary and consistent life cycle stages,

• comparable data quality and time periods,

• consistent allocation and recycling methods,

• consistent use and end-of-life scenarios,

• the same GWP and impact assessment method,

• where applicable, a common, recognised Product Category Rule.

A cradle-to-gate value must not be compared directly with a cradle-to-grave value. A mass-based intermediate product value is not automatically comparable with the function-based value of an end product. Differing lifespans or quality levels can also render a seemingly straightforward comparison useless.

Public comparative assertions between products require a separate methodological review and, if applicable, the critical review prescribed by the applied standard. The data sheet points out the limitations of potential comparisons.

The main result is expressed in grams, kilograms, or tonnes of CO₂ equivalents per functional unit or reference flow. The presentation must indicate at least:

• which product or product group was considered,

• which functional unit or reference flow applies,

• whether it is a cradle-to-grave, cradle-to-gate, or a module value,

• which reference or data period the value represents,

• when the carbon footprint was documented,

• which standard and which Product Rules were applied,

• which footprint and version status applies,

• which key life cycle stages, assumptions, and exclusions shape the value.

In public tracking, the emissions data and the key information required for its classification are presented. Detailed activity data, formulations, supplier information, supporting documents, and calculation details are provided in a GDPR-compliant manner and, where appropriate, under password or access control. Where confidentiality is agreed or under a non-disclosure agreement, only authorised persons are granted access.

Insofar as relevant to the product and according to the applied ruleset, additional result shares by life cycle stages, separate biogenic information, land-use changes, end-of-life credits, significant scenarios, or uncertainty indications may also be presented.

Presentation example:

Product Carbon Footprint: 3.42 kg CO₂e per item
System boundary: cradle-to-gate
Reference period: 2025
Documentation date: 14 August 2026
Footprint version: 2.1

ecozoom calculates a PCF based on a documented and versioned template, as well as the data entered or provided by the customer. Within the intended scope, the software checks technical rules, mandatory fields, formats, units, and calculation logics. In addition, a check is carried out by an employee in accordance with the quality process defined for the product.

natureOffice cannot in every case independently verify the actual accuracy and completeness of input data provided by the customer. Responsibility for correct, complete, and product-assigned inputs, as well as for disclosing relevant changes, therefore lies with the customer. A technically plausible value is not proof that every input completely reflects the actual conditions.

The specific scope of services determines which data and supporting documents are additionally subjected to a professional review. natureOffice does not use a flat-rate technical status sequence for ecozoom results from which a specific depth of review could be derived without further documentation. The decisive factors are the declared calculation method, the documented scope of review, and the respective balance sheet version.

An independent external audit is not part of the standard ecozoom output. It is only mentioned if it has actually taken place in a specific individual case and has been separately documented.

For manually created PCFs, a sample- and risk-oriented four-eye principle applies. In particular, the methodological scoping, hotspots, conspicuous values, significant assumptions and deviations compared to previous balance sheets are checked. For ecozoom carbon footprints, automated system checks are combined with a review by an employee. Methodological approval is granted by the technical supervisor.

Depending on the calculation method and assignment, the controls may include, in particular:

• clear product definition and reference unit,

• completeness of the relevant life cycle stages,

• plausibility of bills of materials, recipes, quantities and units,

• technological, geographical and temporal data alignment,

• mass, energy and sum balances,

• allocation and recycling rules,

• use and end-of-life scenarios,

• factor, GWP, database and template versions,

• formulas and automated calculation rules,

• documented queries, corrections and approvals.

Input data, calculation statuses, factors used and relevant template versions are fundamentally archived permanently. The aim is to be able to reproduce published PCFs based on their historical data and methodology. For older carbon footprints, complete technical reproducibility depends in individual cases on whether all source data, database accesses and software versions from that time are still available. Any such limitation is transparently stated and not masked by a reconstruction using current factors.

Voluntary engagement in climate protection projects is not part of the PCF calculation. It is optional, is documented separately from the greenhouse gas balance sheet, and is not deducted from the calculated emissions.

This means:

• The PCF is always reported as a result prior to voluntary project engagement.

• The engagement does not change the PCF.

• It does not make a product emission-free or climate-neutral.

• It is not a reduction measure within the product life cycle.

• A "PCF after engagement" or a calculated residual value of zero is not calculated.

Participation in climate protection projects can be documented in a separate proof, such as a Climate Engagement Record. This proof describes the engagement and the associated project information. It is not presented as a mathematical offset or as part of the PCF. The concrete design depends on the currently applicable communication and verification concept of natureOffice.

The methodological framework is versioned and regularly reviewed. An adjustment may be necessary in particular due to:

• new or revised GHG Protocol or ISO standards,

• new legal requirements,

• new or revised Product Rules,

• changes to the databases and factors used,

• new requirements for supply chain data and data exchange,

• insights from practical application,

• identified technical or editorial errors.

Each published version contains a version number, publication date, effective date, responsible body, a summary of changes and, where applicable, transitional rules for existing balances.

An amendment to the general methodological framework does not automatically change PCFs that have already been published. Whether a balance needs to be updated depends on the type and materiality of the change, the intended use, the applied Product Rule and the representativeness of the existing balance status.

Existing PCFs are clearly marked with their historical methodological and version basis until a potential update. This makes it recognisable that they were not automatically calculated according to version 0.2 or a later version.

New standards and drafts are monitored, but are not presented as an already binding rule prior to their applicable status.