A BRIEF REVIEW ON CARBON FOOTPRINT

QUANTIFICATION METHODS FOR

UNIVERSITIES
 The importance of CF assessment

 CF assessment : A pathway to global sustainability

• Carbon footprint assessment serves as an important indicator to measure how human
behavior contribute to GHG emissions
• It offers a pathway for promoting sustainable development on a global scale.

 The role of CF assessment in Higher Education Institutions

• Higher education institutions are increasingly acknowledged as a key driver for the
development of sustainable societies
• It has become a hot topic of research for many scholars
• Aligns universities with global sustainability goals
• Sets a course toward the “green” transformation of higher education through education,
innovation and leadership in sustainability practices
 Common Guidelines
 Carbon Disclosure Project(CDP)
• Broad focus ,covering economic social and environmental dimensions. Not suitable for
HEIs due to high complexity
 DEFRA-HEFCE Guidelines
• Provide comprehensive guidance on quantifying emissions, provide a wide emission
factor database, but are region-limited (particularly in UK)
 GHG Protocol-ISO 14064
• Complete and Comprehensive Guidelines
• Widely recognized and accepted
• They both use GWP to convert different Greenhouse Gas emissions into units
• Require clear definition of the organizational boundaries for which emissions are
quantified
 GHG Protocol-ISO 14064
 GHG Protocol
• Guidance on calculation methods emission factors , avoided emissions
• Ample room for adaptation
• Three Scopes of emissions : Scope 1-Direct Scope 2-Indirect Energy related Scope 3-
Indirect Emissions that occur within the value chain (both upstream and downstream
emissions)
• Calculation of Scope 3 emissions is optional
• Third party verification is optional
ISO 14064
• Procedural framework
• Six main mandatory categories of emission : Categories 1 and 2 are similar to scope 1
and 2 respectively while categories 3 to 6 describe precisely which indirect emission to
include in the quantification process.(3-transportation,4-5: product use related
emissions,6-other sources)
• Mandates third party verification
 Common Methods of CF Calculation
 Process Based Approach
• Focuses on direct emission sources and energy related emissions from specific activities within an
organization
• Highly detailed of scope 1 (and 2) analysis
• Difficult to implement across all activities of HEIs with complex supply chains and multiple facilities
• Does not effectively account for Scope 3 indirect emissions
 Life Cycle Assessment
• Cradle to grave analysis of processes or services included in a product’s entire lifecycle.
• It is affected by boundary limitations and lifecycle determination complexity
• Omission errors
• Requires detailed inventory data and a large amount of human material and time resources to
implement
 Environmental Extended Input Output Approach
• Uses economic insights to assess impacts across the entire supply chain
• Suitable for Scope 3 emission assessment
• Includes both upstream and downstream activities
 Common Methods of CF Calculation
 Hybrid LCA-EEIOA
• Combines the strengths of LCA and EEIOA
• Leverages process specific emission data from LCA for Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions
• EEIOA complements the calculation process when financial data is more readily available
than entire lifecycle data , especially for Scope 3 emissions
• Uses Single or Multi- regional Input Output Models allowing organizations to tailor the
calculation model to their specific characteristics
• Robust, comprehensive framework well suited for complex multisectoral institutions
• However, there are concerns that when EEIOA-LCA footprints are reported, double
counting may be unavoidable since many processes overlap within the institution’s
sectors and activities
 Case Studies-Key Emission Sources
• Literature reviews reveal a common approach in the categorization of institutional
activities into the three emission Scopes
• A combination of GHG Protocol and ISO 14064 guidelines tends to yield more reliable
and accurate results
• There is still a significant gap in the reporting of scope 3 GHG emissions
• Difficulties in data acquisition across diverse sectors including supply chains ,
procurement and employee commuting

• Universities such as Imperial College of London provide a detailed list of how they
divide their activities into the three emission scopes.
• Other universities such as Bologna university, Clemson University, and Jaume I
University , even expanded the range of scope 1 to also include leaks of refrigerants
and fertilizer application. They also broadened scope 3 to cover emissions related to
paper usage.
• University of Oulu also introduced IT equipment related emissions to scope 3
• In the study of George Serafeim et al (Harvard University) highlights the use of
machine learning models to predict scope 3 emissions by utilizing easily accessible
data such as financial statements and emissions from scope 1 and 2
 Case Studies-Key Emission Sources
• Most case studies adopt similar
approaches when considering scope
3 emissions, though the extent and
depth of the calculations vary
significantly between institutions.
• Table 1 summarizes all key emission
sources providing a foundation for
future calculations
• International standards also advocate
for the integration of avoided
emissions in the carbon footprint
assessment process.
• In the case of the University of
Bologna, the energy generated from
solar panels is considered as a source
of avoided emissions.
• Similarly, other case studies (i.e.
Jaume I) also evaluate the emissions
offset by trees located on campus.
 Case studies-Methodologies
 University of Oulu
• University of Oulu employed a hybrid LCA-EEIOA methodology in accordance with both the GHG
Protocol and ISO 14064 standards to assess its carbon footprint effectively . Its methodology is
clearly outlined in the paper providing a strong foundation for future assessments for other
universities
 Norwegian University of Science and Technology
• In the Case of NTNU a sectoral based EEIOA model was implemented to calculate the CF of the
institution. In total 120 EEIO sectors in combination with individual GHG emission intensities were
available in the model covering all types of purchases and activities avoiding tradeoffs and
rebound effects. The main source of data was the financial account of the university
 De Montfort University
• De Montfort University used a hybrid top down/bottom-up approach in that, activity and
consumption (spend) data were derived from bottom-up primary data for all emissions sources and
life cycle (LCA) and supply chain (EE-IO) emissions data originate from top-down (national
average) data. They also conducted an uncertainty assessment to examine the inaccuracy of input
data on the overall carbon footprint according to error propagation equations from “Good Practice
Guidance and Uncertainty Management in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories”
 Case studies-Methodologies
 Measuring a university's environmental performance: A standardized proposal for
carbon footprint assessment
• In the study of Garcia-Alaminos et al. a hybrid approach was proposed, using both process-based and input-
output methodologies to assess the CF of universities. The method integrates an MRIO model with university
specific data as well as a tiered hybrid LCA. This method ensures that emissions are allocated accurately across
different scopes by only accounting for each emission once, based on its most accurate representation in either
the process-based data or the I-O model. This integration allowed for accurate capture of Scope 3 emissions,
but also reduced the double counting risks between different processes
 University Jaume I
• Karen Valls-Val et al. [17] developed a fully customizable carbon footprint assessment tool for universities,
CO2UNV. The tool integrates various data sources and calculation methodologies in line with the GHG Protocol
and ISO 14064 standards, providing a streamlined approach for HEIs to assess their carbon emissions. Apart
from its modular design, CO2UNV includes a detailed analysis of Scope 3 emissions which are often the largest
and most difficult to measure accurately in universities
 University of Bologna
• University of Bologna proposed a combination of process-based data collection and MRIO and incorporated both
direct data collection and survey based indirect data collection. This methodology is particularly notable for its
ability to provide accurate results for large institutions with multiple campuses while also adhering to
international standards and adapting them to the complexities of university operations. It is also worth
mentioning that compared to other case studies it delivered a more precise assessment of Scope 3 emissions.
 Challenges-Recommendations
 Need for complex MRIO models
• Despite being a multiregional institution, which often leads to invalid or inaccurate data or
false assumptions, NTUA has already made significant strides on improving data accuracy.
For instance, NTUA has successfully installed an electricity consumption data acquisition
system which provides reliable data for tracking emissions related to energy use.
• Additionally, the university has already begun to establish measurement methods for
activities related to Scope 3 emissions, such as those related to procurement, business
travel, waste, paper usage and food services.
• The university is also addressing gaps in data collection that hinder the assessment
process, such as tracking vehicles and refrigerant use, by exploring solutions like real time
vehicle tracking systems and gathering extensive information about buildings specifications
.
 Energy Mix
• While the daily fluctuations in Greece’s energy production mix Introduce some uncertainty
in emission factors related to the purchase of electricity and further challenge the
quantification process, NTUA is actively working to resolve the issue
 Third party entities
• The presence of third-party companies responsible for the maintenance and installation of
equipment and buildings increases complexity, as these entities often do not provide
detailed emissions data, but NTUA is in the process of enhancing collaboration to obtain
more detailed emission data.
 Challenges-Recommendations
 Key emission Sources identification
• Given the variability in the literature regarding Scope 3 emissions, it is crucial to systematically
identify the primary sources of emissions present throughout the campus. This identification process
allows for a more focused allocation of time and resources as well as for an effective targeting of
emission reduction efforts. Table 1 can provide a solid foundation for clustering and prioritizing
campus activities.
 Adoption of Hybrid Methods and MRIO models
• The adoption of a hybrid LCA-EEIOA approach integrated with an MRIO model allows for a
comprehensive assessment of both direct and indirect emissions.
 Survey Based Data Collection for Indirect Emissions
• Conducting targeted surveys can provide valuable data on emissions from transportation, business
travel, food services and procurement.
 Using Local Resources for Emission factor estimation
• Considering the dynamic nature of the energy mix, updates of emission factors values are needed on
a regular basis. Leveraging local sources or national databases (i.e., NIR-2024) rather than
generalized global factors may enhance the reliability of the assessment process.
 Software tool implementation
• The implementation of software tools that can automate the calculation and updating of emission
factors based on real time data inputs will enhance accuracy and efficiency.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR
ATTENTION