ISO-PCF, PEF and CCF: Understanding the three main methods for product carbon footprints
Product carbon footprints can differ depending on the calculation method used. This article explains the three main methods, what drives the differences between them, and when each one applies.
Why are there three methods?
Each method was developed by a different institution to serve a different purpose:
- ISO-PCF follows ISO 14067:2018, the international standard for product carbon footprints, widely used for supply chain data exchange.
- PEF (Product Environmental Footprint) was created by the European Commission for product-level environmental assessment and EU regulatory compliance.
- For the CCF (Corporate Carbon Footprint ), product-related Scope 3 emissions are calculated in accordance with the GHG Product Standard.
All three methods assess the same underlying emissions from a product's life cycle. Where they differ is in their accounting rules, particularly how they handle biogenic carbon, land use change and carbon removals. These differences can lead to different totals for the same product.
What drives the differences?
Three accounting choices explain most of the variation between methods.
Biogenic carbon & uptake refers to the CO2 that is absorbed by plants during growth (uptake) and eventually released when biological materials are processed, combusted, or decompose. Whether a methodology grants a negative emissions credit for the carbon temporarily stored within the product is the single largest driver of differences in cradle-to-gate footprints.
Land use change covers the climate impact of converting land from one use to another, for example, clearing forest for agriculture. All three methods account for it, but they categorize and report it differently.
Carbon removals refer to the long-term or permanent sequestration of CO2 from the atmosphere. Unlike the temporary storage of carbon in a physical product, true removals involve practices like enhancing soil organic carbon, afforestation, or technological Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS). Methods differ strictly on whether these permanent removals can be used to meet targets.
Secondary databases like ecoinvent often contain generic, modeled assumptions for land-based removals, which users must critically examine before accounting for them in their final results.
| Topic | ISO-PCF | PEF | CCF |
| Biogenic carbon | Uses -1/+1 accounting: biogenic CO2 absorbed during growth is recorded as -1, CO2 released as +1. Both are tracked separately and netted in the total. | Tracked as a separate sub-indicator. Applies a net-zero approach (characterization factor of 0): Biogenic CO2 is reported but does not increase or decrease the total. | Short-cycle biogenic CO2 is treated as climate-neutral and excluded from the total entirely (0/0 accounting), following the GHG Protocol convention. Conceptually aligns with PEF in not crediting carbon uptake. |
| Biogenic carbon uptake | Credited directly against the total (-1/+1 approach). If a product stores significant biogenic carbon, this lowers the reported cradle-to-gate footprint. | Not credited against the total (0/0 approach). Biogenic carbon uptake is given a characterization factor of 0, so it has no effect on the headline number. | Aligns with PEF. Temporary biogenic carbon uptake in products is excluded from the main corporate Scope 3 footprint (0/0 approach) and cannot be used to offset emissions. |
| Land use change | Considers both emissions and removals from direct land use change, reported in the category "Land use & land use change." | Reported as its own GWP sub-category (LULUC), separate from fossil and biogenic emissions. | Split into two FLAG categories: land use change (primarily deforestation) and land management non-CO2 (agricultural GHGs like N2O and CH4). Supports SBTi FLAG target-setting. |
| Carbon removals | Can only be credited to the footprint if concrete measures guarantee the long-term permanence of the carbon sink (e.g., CCU) and substantiated carbon uptakes and emissions originating from carbon stock changes caused by land use change and land use transformation. | Can only be credited for substantiated carbon uptakes and emissions originating from carbon stock changes caused by land use change and land use transformation. | Can be credited within the FLAG pathway. Removals reduce the FLAG sector total but do not offset energy & industry emissions. |
| Effect on total | Can produce the lowest cradle-to-gate total for products with significant biogenic content, as carbon uptake is credited against emissions. | Typically the highest cradle-to-gate total for bio-based products, as carbon uptake is not credited. | Similar to PEF. Biogenic uptake is not credited, resulting in a higher total compared to ISO-PCF. |
A higher total does not indicate a worse product
When PEF or CCF produce a higher number than ISO-PCF for the same product, this reflects different accounting rules for biogenic carbon, not a difference in environmental performance. PEF and CCF do not credit carbon uptake, while ISO-PCF does. The underlying emissions are the same.
Product comparisons are only meaningful when both products are assessed using the same method.
Which method to use when
| ISO-PCF | PEF | CCF |
|---|---|---|
| -> Supply chain data exchange | -> EU regulatory compliance | -> Corporate climate targets |
| ISO 14067 is the standard expected by supply chain partners requesting product-level carbon data, and the foundation for data exchange frameworks like PACT and Catena-X. It uses IPCC AR6 GWP100 characterization factors with full -1/+1 biogenic accounting, providing the most detailed view of where carbon enters and leaves the product system. | PEF is required for EU product environmental labels, Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs), and compliance with the Green Claims Directive. It uses characterization factors from the EF reference package (currently EF 3.1, which builds on IPCC AR6 GWP100 values) and mandates the split into fossil, biogenic, and LULUC sub-indicators. | CCF is the basis for corporate emissions reporting under the GHG Protocol, CDP disclosure, TCFD-aligned reporting, and SBTi target-setting including FLAG pathways. It uses IPCC AR6 GWP100 characterization factors. Emissions are split into energy & industry and FLAG categories. Custom emission factors without an IPCC breakdown are reported as non-categorized. |
The Global Changer PCF tool calculates all three totals and their full breakdowns from a single product dataset. This serves different stakeholders, supply chain partners, EU regulators, and corporate reporting frameworks, without duplicating the data collection effort.
Summary
A product carbon footprint number is always tied to the method used to calculate it. When communicating results, always specify the method and when comparing products, always use the same one.
|
|
ISO-PCF | PEF | CCF |
| Standard | ISO 14067:2018 | EU Product Environmental Footprint | GHG Protocol + SBTi FLAG |
| Characterization factors | IPCC AR6 GWP100 | EF 3.1 (IPCC AR6 GWP100) | IPCC AR6 GWP100 |
| Biogenic CO2 | -1/+1 accounting, netted in total | Separate sub-indicator, net-zero approach (CF = 0) | Excluded (climate-neutral, 0/0 accounting) |
| Carbon removals | Credited against total | Not credited (CF = 0) | Credited within FLAG pathway only |
| Land use change | Land use & land use change (emissions and removals) | Separate LULUC sub-category | FLAG categories (LUC + land mgmt non-CO2) |
| Primary use case | Supply chain data exchange, PACT, Catena-X | EU regulation, EPDs, product labels | Corporate targets, CDP, TCFD, SBTi |
| Typical total | Lowest when removals are significant | Higher for bio-based products | Similar to PEF (biogenic uptake not credited) |