R E S E A R C H A N D A N A LY S I S

Corporate and Product Carbon Footprint

under Compound Hybrid Analysis
Application to a Spanish Timber Company
Sergio Alvarez,1 Maria-Angeles Tobarra,2 and Jorge-Enrique Zafrilla 2

1
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Department of Land Morphology and Engineering, Madrid, Spain
2
Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, Department of Economic Analysis and Finance, Albacete, Spain

Keywords:
carbon emissions
corporate environmental reporting
environmental input-output analysis
hybrid life-cycle assessment
input-output life cycle assessment
(IO-LCA)
timber company
Supporting information is linked
to this article on the JIE website
Summary
The European Union (EU) is advancing steadily toward the stabilization of atmospheric
greenhouse gas concentrations. Various sectors are now obliged to make reductions, and
new policies based on the carbon footprint are being encouraged. However, voluntary
reporting of so-called scope 3 emissions is hindering successful implementation of these
policies. In this study, we present a tiered hybrid analysis to report emissions according
to the ISO/TR 14069 standards and to obtain complete measures of scope 3 emissions.
A process analysis for scope 1 and scope 2 emissions is complemented with a multire-
gional input-output analysis for upstream scope 3 emissions. This novel approach is applied
to the case study of a Spanish timber company. Its total carbon footprint in 2011 was
783,660 kilograms of carbon-dioxide equivalent, of which 88% correspond to scope
3 emissions. These emissions are globally distributed; 71% are from European countries,
followed by 8% from emerging economies (Brazil, Russia, India, Indonesia, Australia, and
Turkey), 5% from China, and, finally, 16% from the rest of the world. We identify and discuss
the advantages and disadvantages of this novel approach, the European implementation of
which could be highly effective in reducing global carbon emissions.

Introduction international trade have not been considered (Hertwich and

Peters 2009). This frame allows developed countries to re-
The recent Paris Agreement has encouraged international
duce their production-based emissions while net global emis-
commitments to reduce national greenhouse gas (GHG) emis-
sions continue to grow due to increases in developing coun-
sions. As many as 148 of the 197 countries represented at the
tries (Kander et al. 2015). The challenge of climate change
2015 Paris Climate Convention have ratified the common cause
requires the implementation of all available strategies. There-
of fighting climate change (United Nations 2015). However,
fore, consumption-based or carbon footprinting schemes are
the Paris Agreement establishes the same emissions respon-
needed to counteract the international rise of global emissions,
sibility allocation criteria as did the former Kyoto Protocol,
and it is crucial to identify as many responsible agents as possible
and the inventories are based on production-based guidelines
(Hoekstra and Wiedmann 2014).
outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
The European Union (EU) is advancing steadily toward
(IPCC) (IPCC 2006). Once again, the emissions embedded in
the stabilization of atmospheric GHG concentrations. The

Conflict of interest statement: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Address correspondence to: Jorge-Enrique Zafrilla, Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, Plaza de la Universidad, 1, Castilla-La Mancha, Albacete, 02071, Spain. Email:
Jorge.Zafrilla@uclm.es; Web: http://blog.uclm.es/grupogear/jorgezafrilla/

© 2018 by Yale University

DOI: 10.1111/jiec.12759 Editor managing review: Richard Wood

Volume 00, Number 0

www.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jie Journal of Industrial Ecology 1

 R E S E A R C H A N D A N A LY S I S
most recent commitments based on the effort-sharing directive
(406/2009/EC) assume reductions in both regulated sectors and
diffuse sectors. Diffuse sectors correspond to all economic activi-
ties that do not fall under the emissions trading scheme. Despite
these efforts, relevant countries such as Spain are heading for
a breach of their commitments. According to forecasts by the
Spanish Office of Climate Change, Spanish emissions in diffuse
sectors will exceed the 2020 target by 54 million tonnes (Mt)1
of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2 -eq.) (MAGRAMA 2014).
Individual corporations have an important role to play if this
breach is to be avoided. To this end, various national and in-
ternational institutions have proposed standards or guidelines2
(Huang et al. 2009; Downie and Stubbs 2013). The Spanish
Government has also encouraged new agreements based on
the carbon footprint (CF) indicator. The Royal Decree 163
(2014) stands out among them, which created a Public National
Register for CF projects.
The CF is a consumption-based indicator capable of measur-
ing both the direct and indirect GHG emissions produced by a
specific activity (Hoesly et al. 2012; Wiedmann and Minx 2007;
Peters 2010). It is an active research topic with a large number
of methodologies currently underway in several countries (Liu
et al. 2015; Peters 2010; Wiedmann et al. 2011). Tradition-
ally, inventories were built with bottom-up methods such as
process analysis, which defines and describes flows in physical
and energy units (Majeau-Bettez et al. 2011). However, recent
advances use environmentally extended input-output (EEIO)
analysis (Lenzen et al. 2014). This method comprises a top-
down approach that applies economic environmental account-
ing frameworks to define and describe flows in monetary units
(Minx et al. 2009). Among its latest advances, EEIO analysis
can capture the whole life cycle impact of products and ser-
vices across national and international supply chains (Suh and
Huppes 2005). However, both approaches have significant pos-
itive and negative aspects (Alvarez and Rubio 2015a). For in-
stance, process analysis is considered appropriate when model-
ing specific systems (Finkbeiner 2009), but it runs the risk of
system boundary incompleteness due to the exclusion of impor-
tant elementary product and waste flows (Alvarez and Rubio
2015a; Crawford 2005; Murray et al. 2011). In contrast, EEIO
analysis is primarily used to overcome data availability issues,
but it has to address a high level of aggregation (Majeau-Bettez
et al. 2011) and problems such as data age, price uncertainty,
and lack of information on waste management (Kjaer et al.
2015; Navarro et al. 2017).
Other methodological issues in the CF indicator should be
highlighted. First, the debate analyzing and considering scope
3 emissions is extensive.3 It is important to take into ac-
count voluntary emissions for two main reasons: (1) In most
industries, scope 3 emissions constitute the largest portion
of total emissions (approximately 75%) (Busch 2010, 2011;
Murray et al. 2011; Huang et al. 2009; Kjaer et al. 2015), and
(2) if companies only focus on reducing scope 1 and 2 emis-
sions, we may face the “pollution haven” problem that occurs in
country analysis (López et al. 2013). Second, the international
guidelines and communication programs such those promoted
2 Journal of Industrial Ecology
by the (formerly “Climate Disclosure Project” [CDP]) (CDP
2016) particularly target large multinational corporations that
control most of the required operations and can presumably
enforce disclosure on their suppliers’ data. Small-medium en-
terprises need new methods that allow the fast estimation of
scope 3 emissions based on their own data and country-related
statistics (Alvarez and Rubio 2015b; Teh et al. 2017). Finally,
the methodological divergence between product CF and corpo-
rate CF prevents consumer confidence in footprint information
(Alvarez and Rubio 2015a; Wiedmann et al. 2011; Navarro
et al. 2017). This divergence is clear in the agreements reached
by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO),
such as ISO/TS 14067 and ISO/TR 14069 (ISO 2013a, 2013b).
Under these circumstances, some authors have called for the
inclusion of an integrated approach valid for both the product
and corporate domains (Schaltegger and Csutora 2012; Scipioni
et al. 2012). Moreover, recent studies offer specific guidelines for
an integrated approach that is consistent with ISO/TS 14067
and ISO/TR 14069 (Alvarez et al. 2016).
Hybrid analyses may offer a solution that captures the advan-
tages of both process and EEIO analyses for completeness and
consistency in CF quantification (Suh and Nakamura 2007).
Hybrid methods (also known as hybrid input-output [I-O]/life
cycle assessment [LCA]) cover a full spectrum of possible com-
binations, from pure process analysis to pure EEIO analysis (Suh
et al. 2004). Overall, possible hybrid analyses can be classified
as follows: (1) tiered hybrid analysis (Suh et al. 2004), (2) I-O–
based hybrid analysis (Suh and Huppes 2005), (3) integrated
hybrid analysis (Wiedmann et al. 2011), and (4) structural path
analysis (Lenzen and Crawford 2009; Lenzen and Murray 2009).
Other proposals that use tables in physical units are also con-
sidered hybrid analysis; however, they differ from the previous
approaches in that they do not use process data and therefore in-
clude no bottom-up method (Wiedmann et al. 2011). Although
these advances are considered “state of the art” (Goldhammer
et al. 2017), hybrid methods have not yet become standard prac-
tice for CF (Majeau-Bettez et al. 2011; Wolfram et al. 2016).
In this situation, new methods are needed for CF quan-
tification that (1) comprehensively include scope 3 emissions,
(2) are feasible and affordable for small-medium enterprises, and
(3) are valid for both product CF (ISO/TS 14067) and corporate
CF (ISO/TR 14069). To this end, the present study develops a
compound hybrid approach combining detailed process analysis
for scope 1 and 2 emissions and EEIO analysis for scope 3 emis-
sions in a tiered hybrid analysis. To an extent, our approach is
similar to that of previous studies (Kjaer et al. 2015; Teh et al.
2017), but it is extended with a structural path analysis (Lenzen
and Crawford 2009) in a multiregional input-output (MRIO)
context that fulfills ISO requirements for product footprint-
ing. Both extensions allow us to improve the determination
of the environmental importance of global supply chains. This
method unravels the Leontief inverse matrix by decomposing
all supply chains (Lenzen and Crawford 2009) by country or
region of origin of the inputs required in the production pro-
cess. These extensions constitute the central contribution of our
methodology, which accounts for world trade and can pinpoint

where the CF emissions for a company and product are actually
produced. To date, such measures have only been applied to the
country or industry emissions (Wiedmann et al. 2011; Lenzen
et al. 2004; Wiebe et al. 2012; Wiedmann 2009; Skelton 2013;
Liang et al. 2016). Moreover, the method is applied to data
from a Spanish timber company and its products to serve as a
guide for effective future implementations.
Materials and Methods
Method Description
The compound hybrid analysis is a combination of a tiered
hybrid analysis and structural path analysis. First, the tiered
hybrid analysis calculates an in-depth corporate CF according
to ISO/TR 14069. (See the Supporting Information available
on the Journal’s website.) The structural path analysis then
distributes it among the processes of products dispatched to the
market to estimate the partial product CF according to ISO/TS
14067.
The tiered hybrid analysis is based on a three-tiered ma-
trix, where the conventional I-O table in monetary units is
extended with databases derived from both process analysis and
EEIO analysis. Thus, three areas are clearly defined without a
correlation between them, as shown in equation (1):
⎡ p ⎤⎡ ⎤
C 0 0 yp
⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥ Following the tiered hybrid analysis, the process of prod-
E = [ e p e p→io e io ] ⎣ 0 C p→io 0 ⎦ ⎣ y p→io ⎦ (1)
0 0 L y io
Equation (1) depicts three sets of variables that come to-
gether to build final total emissions (E). The variables are,
from right to left, activity data, coefficient matrices, and emis-
sions factors. Starting with activity data, the y p vector involves
all activities owned or controlled by an organization that are
responsible for direct emissions (scope 1) or for indirect emis-
sions from the generation of purchased electricity, heat or steam
(scope 2). These data must be introduced in physical and energy
units. The y p→io vector denotes the economic value associated
with the previously described activities (scope 1 and 2), which
must be introduced in monetary units. Finally, the y io vector
describes all other activities owned or controlled by the or-
ganization in monetary units: that is, all operational expenses
and investments that are not captured in the y p→io vector.
To fulfill ISO/TR 14069 requirements, this vector should be
specific for each ISO category, from category 9 to category 16
and finally category 23, as defined by the ISO.4 We must note
that, by including the y io vector, we capture the upstream scope
3 emissions (all emissions generated, direct and indirectly, by
producing all inputs required by the firm). We do not consider
downstream scope 3 emissions (e.g., emissions from use and
end-of-life (EoL) phases of products dispatched to the market).
Coefficient matrices express total supply-chain requirements to
add the indirect activity related to the direct activity previously
described. In the compound hybrid method, the C p matrix
is an identity matrix that only adds direct physical or energy
R E S E A R C H A N D A N A LY S I S
inputs. Thus, this C p matrix does not influence the conven-
tional process analysis; we account for only for direct emissions.
The C p→io matrix responds to the need to include indirect
emissions that have not been previously considered in conven-
tional process analysis. This matrix is built from the L matrix
(Leontief inverse matrix5 ), including columns (economic sec-
tors) that are related to the processes described in the y p vector
(e.g., the electricity, gas, and water supply sector). To prevent
double counting (i.e., adding previously included, direct emis-
sions in the conventional process analysis), the coefficient as-
sociated with the intrinsic demand of processes included in y p
is changed to zero. Finally, this L matrix is used to include all
other indirect activity. The emissions factors (e p , e p→io and e io )
correspond to the direct emissions for each type of activity data.
Therefore, no indirect emissions are included in these factors
because indirect emissions are already considered in the coeffi-
cient matrices. The results yield a comprehensive corporate CF
estimate that follows ISO/TR 14069 requirements. Equation
(2) shows the classification of total emissions according to the
23 categories described in ISO/TR 14069:
⎡ ⎤
Scope 1 a nd 2(ca t. 1 to 7) 0 0
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
E =⎢ 0 Scope 3(cat. 8) 0 ⎥
⎣ ⎦
0 0 Scope 3(cat. 9 to 16 and 23)
(2)
uct CF quantification begins. First, a functional unit—or func-
tional units in cases of multifunctionality—must be defined.
The total quantity of partial product CF (i.e., from cradle
to gate) can then be estimated by dividing the total corpo-
rate CF by the total amount of functional units dispatched
to the market in the time span under study. Second, a struc-
tural path analysis is used to fulfill the ISO/TS 14067 require-
ments related to process mapping and system boundaries. This
method applies a power series expansion of the inverse follow-
ing (Waugh 1950), as previously used by Baboulet and Lenzen
(2010), Strømman and collegaues (2009), and Zafrilla and col-
leagues (2014). As equation (3) shows, scope 3, those related
to categories 9 to 16 and 23, emissions are distributed among
individual components that add up to both the value chain and,
consequently, the supply chain of products dispatched to the
market:
E scope3(cat. 9 to 16 and 23) = e io L y io = e io (I − A)−1 y io
∞

= e io (I + A + A2 + · · · + An ) y io = e io An y io (3)
n=0
Importantly, the A matrix is defined not to include the
effects of emissions generation both within a firm directly
(scope 1), from the use of electricity (scope 2) and from in-
direct energy requirements (scope 3 category 8). Thus, the cor-
responding layers we calculate only refer to the remaining scope
3 emissions, unlike other studies that use structural path analysis
(Lenzen and Murray 2009; Wiedmann et al. 2009).
Alvarez et al., Corporate and Product Carbon Footprint 3
 R E S E A R C H A N D A N A LY S I S
Method Implementation
The present study’s method requires the use of country-
related databases for the selection of emissions factors and co-
efficient matrices. Activity data commonly correspond to cor-
porate inventories on an annual basis, but data on a specific
project, event, service, or territory may also be related to a
specific time span. These data are divided into scope 1: fossil
fuel consumption─physical data─; scope 2: electricity, heat or
steam consumption─energy data─; and scope 3: operational ex-
penses and investments─monetary data─. Coefficient matrices
are built using MRIO databases. In this study, the multiregional
World Input-Output Database (WIOD) is used (Timmer et al.
2015). This database presents information for 40 regions and
one Rest of World (RoW) region. The sectoral aggregation is 35
industries (goods and services). The C p→io matrix is built by se-
lecting from the same database those sectors related to fossil fuel
and electricity data. In this study, three sectors were considered:
(1) “Internal transport” for mobile combustion; (2) “Machin-
ery, not elsewhere classified” for stationary combustion; and
(3) “Electricity, gas and water” for electricity consumption.
Finally, emissions factors should come from well-established
databases, such as those reported for national GHG inventories
(IPCC 2006). In this study, the direct emissions for electricity,
heat, and steam consumption were obtained from the Spanish
Office of Climate Change (OECC 2015).
Case Sudy and Functional Unit
The case study in this paper is a Spanish timber corporation
specializing in wooden parquets. The corporation is located in
the Guadalajara Province (Spain) and employs approximately
30 workers. It is a family-owned business that has become one
of the leading companies in the sector. The temporal and op-
erational boundaries are determined by all the activities the
company controlled in the year 2011. During this period, op-
erational expenses and investments reached 2.2 million euros.
The studied activity comprises the manufacturing stage of the
final product, covering all processes from sawn timber acquisi-
tion to final transportation. Detailed data were obtained from
the various responsible units (commercial, transport, operation,
and human). In many cases, it was necessary to interpret specific
invoices to obtain physical data and to assign them correctly to
the different accounting and consumption categories. Table 1
shows the activity data and CF results according to consumption
categories and scopes.
Following the compound hybrid method, a cradle-to-gate
life cycle model is developed from the corporate CF. The final
product consists of a multilayer parquet with three layers of
wood that are glued together. The top layer is made of hardwood
and usually has a surface protector of gloss or matt lacquer. The
middle and backing layers are made of softwood and properly
overlapped for dimensional stability. The multilayer parquet is
lacquered and shipped to site, ready to be installed immediately
after purchase. A functional unit of 1 square meter (m2 ) of
wood floor covering, 14 millimeters thick, is considered in the
4 Journal of Industrial Ecology
following stages: (1) forest harvest, (2) transport to sawmill,
(3) sawmill, (4) transport to manufacturing, (5) manufacture,
and (6) transport to the consumer. Figure 1 shows the flowchart
describing the phases and relevant processes. Note that some
data from figure 1 will be explained in the Results section.
Results
Corporate Carbon Footprint
In this section, we present the results in terms of emissions
for our case study, in total numbers, by scopes, consumption
categories, and geographical origin. According to our hybrid
analysis, the total cumulative corporate CF is 783,660 kg CO2 -
eq. Table 1 illustrates the relevance of the different scopes
and consumption categories. Direct GHG emissions (scope 1)
account for 50,578 kg CO2 -eq, or 6.45% of total CF, and en-
ergy/electricity indirect GHG emissions (scope 2) amount to
39,275 kg CO2 -eq, representing 5.01% of total CF. The rest
of the emissions, totaling 693,806 kg CO2 -eq, are indirectly
generated in production processes spanning the whole, global
production chain. This result implies that scope 3 emissions
represent more than 88% of total CF, which is compatible with
findings by Huang and colleagues (2009) that reported more
than 70% for the global sector of forest products and printing.
Previous literature has shown that the share of total CF repre-
sented by scope 3 emissions can vary widely across industries
and depends on the disaggregation considered (Huang et al.
2009; Downie and Stubbs 2013). In our case study, the use of
compound hybrid analysis helps us to understand not only the
direct domestic emissions generated under the corporation’s re-
sponsibility, but also the total dragging effect generated globally
in the intermediate goods and services the corporation acquires
to produce its final goods.
It is also possible to analyze the information about total CF
by consumption categories, regardless of the scope (figure 2).
Because of the corporation’s activity, the main sector responsi-
ble for total CF is Wood Products, accounting for 38% of total
emissions. This result is consistent with the structure of in-
puts required in the production process because more than 30%
of the total intermediate inputs come from the Timber sector
(table 1). Machinery is the second most polluting sector with
more than 29% of total CF; it represents the highest expendi-
ture in inputs, comprising more than 38% of total expenditures
(table 1). The third main polluting sector is Chemicals and
Chemicals Products, which accounts for 9%. These three top
categories together account for almost 76% of total CF, and
all of them correspond to scope 3 emissions. That is, they are
not directly related to scope 1 and 2 emissions. This finding
again reinforces our previous conclusion that the estimation of
indirect effects in the production process allows us to provide
a more detailed emissions inventory for the corporation under
study. Meanwhile, scope 1 and 2 consumption categories move
to a fourth and fifth place, respectively: Diesel in mobile com-
bustion (7%) and Electricity generation (6%). The remaining
consumption categories, all belonging to scope 3, account for
 R E S E A R C H A N D A N A LY S I S

Table 1 Activity data (L, kWh, €) and carbon footprint (kg CO2 -eq) by consumption categories and scopes

Scope Category (units) Inputs kg CO2 -eq

1. Direct emissions (L)

1.1. Diesel in mobile combustion 20,467.9 50,578.2
2. Indirect emissions (kWh)
2.1. Electricity 119,017.0 39,275.6
3. Other indirect emissions (€)
3.1. Agriculture, Hunting, Forestry and Fishing — —
3.2. Mining and Quarrying — —
3.3. Food, Beverages and Tobacco 3,038.9 1,481.3
3.4. Textiles and Textile Products 192.0 72.4
3.5. Leather and Footwear 1,451.8 422.0
3.6. Wood and Products of Wood and Cork 673,490.0 296,943.8
3.7. Pulp; Paper; Paper Printing and Publishing 7,023.2 2,360.2
3.8. cat. 8 Coke, Refined Petroleum and Nuclear Fuel 25,932.8 5,055.1
3.9. Chemicals and Chemical Products 136,065.7 69,669.8
3.10. Rubber and Plastics 5,521.7 1,910.1
3.11. Other Non-Metallic Mineral — —
3.12. Basic Metals and Fabricated Metal 1,490.2 664.8
3.13. Machinery, Nec 836,112.2 228,588.2
3.14. Electrical and Optical Equipment — —
3.15. Transport Equipment — —
3.16. Manufacturing, Nec; Recycling 47,003.3 13,538.7
3.17. cat. 8 Electricity, Gas and Water Supply 19,518.8 4,740.3
3.18. Construction 8,847.4 2,159.9
3.19. Sale, Maint. and Repair of Motor Vehicles; Retail Sale of Fuel — —
3.20. Wholesale Trade and Commission Trade 49,521.5 8,283.8
3.21. Retail Trade, Except of Motor Vehicles; Repair of Household Goods 145.2 18.4
3.22. Hotels and Restaurants — —
3.23. Inland Transport 18,247.4 9,674.7
3.24. Water Transport 6,247.2 2,725.9
3.25. Air Transport 4,969.3 5,399.0
3.26. Other Supporting and Auxiliary Transport Activities — —
3.27. Post and Telecommunications 9,960.0 1,541.7
3.28. Financial Intermediation 52,965.0 2,779.9
3.29. Real Estate Activities 35,712.4 3,565.8
3.30. Renting of M&Eq and Other Business Activities 65,536.8 7,454.5
3.31. Public Admin and Defence; Compulsory Social Security 208,671.0 24,435.3
3.32. Education 6,400.0 321.0
3.33. Health and Social Work — —
3.34. Other Community, Social and Personal Services — —
3.35. Private Households with Employed Persons — —

Total 783,660.4

Note: 3.8 and 3.17 sectors are those corresponding to scope 3 category 8 indirect emissions not included as scope 1 and 2 direct emissions. In relation to
equations (1), (2), and (3) above, numbers provided in this table for inputs (first column) in sectors 1.1 and 2.1 are y p , in sectors 3.8 and 3.17 are y p→i o
and the rest of the column is y i o . Cells that contain no data are sectors included in the accounting method but without input data for the specific case
study.
L = liters; kWh = kilowatt-hours; kg CO2 -eq = kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent.

the remaining 11% of total CF, and they are mainly concen-
trated in Public Administration, Inland Transport, and Other
Industrial sectors.
While all scope 1 and 2 emissions are domestically produced,
the environmentally extended MRIO model used in this paper
allows us to track the geographical distribution of scope 3 emis-
sions (685,375 kg CO2 -eq). Our results (figure 3) show that
although 100% of direct inputs for the corporation is acquired
within EU borders, only 71% (486,368 kg CO2 -eq) of total
scope 3 emissions are generated within those borders: 40% is
produced inside Spain (271,189kg CO2 -eq) and 31% in the rest
of EU countries (215,178 kg CO2 -eq). The remaining scope 3
emissions (29%) are generated in non-EU regions (199,006 kg
CO2 -eq), which can be divided into BRIIAT6 countries (8%),
China (5%), NAFTA (3%), and East Asia (1%). The remain-
ing footprint originates in the RoW region (12%), an assorted

Alvarez et al., Corporate and Product Carbon Footprint 5

 R E S E A R C H A N D A N A LY S I S

Transport to Transport to Transport to

Forest harvest Sawmill Manufacturer
Sawmill manufacturer consumer

Parquet at Scope 1 + Parquet at

Direct Roundwood Sandwood
plant Scope 3 consumer
1.08 kg 1.65 kg 4.50 kg
10.70 kg transport 11.20 kg
Scope 1 + 0.50 kg
Fuel (direct
Indirect Transport Scope 3 Machinery
emissions)
0.57 kg 0.24 kg transport 3.26 Kg
0.48 kg
0.33 kg
Glues /
Electricity
Adhesives
0.92 kg
0.97 kg
Other Scope 1 +
suppliers Scope 3
1.21 kg electricity
0.56 kg
Other
suppliers
1.08 kg

Figure 1 Flowchart including all relevant processes. Units: kg CO2 -eq per functional unit. kg CO2 -eq = kilograms of carbon dioxide
equivalent.

Inland transport Renng of M&Eq and Other Acvies Public admin, defence and social security
1% 1% 3%

Wholesale trade and retail sale of fuel

Rest of service sectors
1%
2% Wood products

Rest of industrial sectors Machinery

1% Chemicals and chemical products
Electricity
6%
Manufacturing, Nec; Recycling Wood products Diesel in mobile combuson
2% 38%
Diesel in mobile combuson Electricity
7%
Manufacturing, Nec; Recycling

Rest of industrial sectors

Chemicals and chemical products
9% Wholesale trade and retail sale of fuel

Inland transport

Renng of M&Eq and Other Acvies

Public admin, defence and social security

Rest of service sectors

Machinery
29%

Figure 2 Consumption categories for scope 3 emissions in the corporate carbon footprint.

group of countries provided by WIOD. These results show how
globally intertwined our production systems are and how their
leakages can be conveniently captured by the MRIO model.
China’s role is logically due to its trade in manufactured prod-
ucts, while the role of BRIIAT (Russia in particular) and RoW
is based on energy inputs and raw materials.
Product Carbon Footprint
In this section, we provide results for the functional unit as
defined above in the Case Study and Functional Unit section,
rather than for the corporation as a whole. According to the
compound hybrid analysis, the total cumulative product CF for
the defined functional unit is 11.20 kgCO2 - eq/m2 . This figure
is the result of dividing the corresponding corporate CF by the
total production of functional units. It can be unraveled using
the proposed structural path analysis and the MRIO model to
differentiate (1) layers of production, (2) consumption cate-
gories, and (3) geographic location.
The differentiation between layers of production is the re-
sult of a raw application of the power series expansion of the
Leontief matrix. The results show the interdependence between
the levels of suppliers (figure 4). The direct emissions from the
first layer of production (i.e., direct emissions from suppliers
of the organization or results from equation e i o I y i o ) repre-
sent 12% of the total scope 3 emissions. The remaining pro-
duction layers amount to 88% of the total scope 3 emissions.
Within these emissions, the direct emissions from the second
layer of production (i.e., direct emissions from the suppliers’
suppliers or results from equation e i o Ay i o ) account for 32%
of the total scope 3 emissions. Finally, the third (e i o A2 y i o ),
fourth (e i o A3 y i o ), and remaining layers ( ∞ io n io
n=4 e A y ) rep-
resent 22%, 14%, and 20%, respectively, of total scope 3 emis-
sions. As we can see, emissions do not decline quickly as we

6 Journal of Industrial Ecology

 R E S E A R C H A N D A N A LY S I S

RoW
12%

BRIIAT
8%
East Asia Spain Europe
1%
Spain
40% China NAFTA
NAFTA
3%

East Asia BRIIAT

China
5%
RoW

Europe
31%

Figure 3 Geographical location of scope 3 emissions in corporate carbon footprint. BRIIAT = Brazil, Russia, India, Indonesia, Australia, and
Turkey; NAFTA = USA, Canada, and Mexico; East Asia = Japan, North Korea, and Taiwan; RoW = Rest of World.

Rest of suppliers Suppliers 1st layer

20% 12%

Suppliers 1st layer

Suppliers 2nd layer

Suppliers 4th layer
14%
Suppliers 2nd layer Suppliers 3rd layer
32%
Suppliers 4th layer

Rest of suppliers
Suppliers 3rd layer
22%

Figure 4 Layers of production in the product carbon footprint.

move up the value chain; most of them are related to energy-
and emission-intensive activities. These results are relevant
because they allow us to estimate that a significant portion of
total CF is indirectly generated by the provision of intermediate
goods and services along the production chain. This hypothesis
was also confirmed by earlier works (Lenzen and Murray 2009;
Wiedmann et al. 2009). When we break down the production
process, we identify new emissions-intensive layers that con-
tribute to the final product. The IOA allows us to capture and
track the dragging effect generated in each production layer
and to isolate the emissions generated in different stages of the
global production chain.
Thereafter, each production layer can be assessed accord-
ing to involved consumption categories (see figure 5), which
allow us to disentangle important interdependences in the sup-
ply value chain. For example, significant emissions occur in the
first layer of production due to Wood and Products of Wood and
Cork. These emissions come directly from the sawmill, which
is the main supplier from the parquet manufacturer. Similarly,
important emissions occur in the second layer of production as
a result of Agriculture, Hunting, Forestry, and Fishing. These
emissions derive directly from forest harvesting, which is the
main supplier of the sawmill. As we move upstream, the main
consumption categories are those related to energy and ba-
sic materials such as (1) Electricity, Gas and Water Supply,
(2) Mining and Quarrying, and (3) Basic and Fabricated
Metals.
Building on our analysis of production layers, we can iden-
tify the geographical locations of emissions for each layer
(figure 6). Although the corporation in the case study acquires
all its inputs in the EU, the emissions leakages from other world
regions make a considerable contribution to total scope 3 emis-
sions. The CF generated in the first layer of production occurs
mainly in Spain (54% of total emissions) and France, which is

Alvarez et al., Corporate and Product Carbon Footprint 7

 R E S E A R C H A N D A N A LY S I S

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
1st layer 2nd layer 3rd layer 4th layer Rest of layers

Agriculture, hunng, forestry and fishing Mining and quarrying

Wood and Products of Wood and Cork Chemicals and chemical products
Basic metals and fabricated metal Machinery
Electricity, gas and water supply Inland transport
Air transport Rest of categories

Figure 5 Weights for consumption categories over the total product carbon footprint by layers of production.

Figure 6 Geographic location of emissions according to production layer and country of origin in the product carbon footprint
(kg CO2 -eq).

the main supplier country in our case study (17%). Other EU
countries, such as Italy (5%), Poland (3%), and Germany and
Finland (2%), follow in emissions contributions. The weight
of non-EU countries in this first layer is residual; RoW is the
only noteworthy figure, accounting for 6% of total scope 3 emis-
sions. The second layer of production, where suppliers’ suppliers
enter the analysis, shows interesting results. The Spanish and
French share of emissions is notably reduced (38% and 11%,
respectively), and other countries rise on the list. Among these
countries are Germany, which increases its role in emissions to
4%, Russia (4%), China (3%), and the USA (2%). The RoW
region, which accounts for 12% of total scope 3 emissions in this
second layer, also has an increased emissions weight compared
to the previous layer. The third layer of production presents
similar patterns. The emissions generated in Spain and the EU
are lower (30% in the case of Spain), and greater figures are ob-
served for non-EU countries, such as Russia (8%), China (6%),
and the USA (3%). RoW’s role further increases (17%) as the
analysis includes more remote stages of the value chain. Thus,
as we break down the production process, it becomes clear that
emerging economies are emissions-intensive suppliers. How-
ever, the EU’s and other developed countries’ extensive links
with emerging economies via international trade masks these
findings on CF leakages. For the rest of the layers (fourth and

8 Journal of Industrial Ecology


above), the weight of Spain is reduced to 17% of total emis-
sions, and countries such as China (16%), Russia (12%), the
USA (4%), RoW (20%), and other non-EU countries account
for more than 62% of the total scope 3 emissions. These re-
sults can be attributed to the energy and emissions embodied in
intermediate goods that are produced along global production
chains that run mostly through nondeveloped countries.
Discussion
In this section, we present some discussion on the main key
elements of our methodology, comparing its advantages and
disadvantages related to previous literature. The first of these
points relates to the difference between product and corporate
CF. In the compound hybrid analysis, the accumulated prod-
uct of CF is equal to its corporate CF. This point is crucial in
addressing the lack of convergence between product and corpo-
rate CF (Alvarez et al. 2016). In addition, the compound hybrid
analysis may prevent the risk of system boundary incomplete-
ness since corporate CF includes all upstream, scope 3 emissions
that typically elude the subjectivity thresholds established by
analysts’ criteria (Matthews et al. 2008). It should be noted
that top-down corporate inventories are easier to compile than
bottom-up product inventories, as the latter may include dif-
ferent entities in the supply or value chain. This statement is
reinforced by McKinnon (2010, 42), who states that product-
level carbon auditing and labeling is a “wasteful distraction.”
Other authors suggest that it is not practical for most firms to
calculate scope 3 emissions using process analysis because data
collection is time-consuming and may involve a large num-
ber of entities that are not necessarily committed to the same
accounting-and-reporting framework (Huang et al. 2009; Busch
2010; Downie and Stubbs 2013). In the search for a unique ap-
proach to product and corporate CF, a top-down perspective
should be recommended to assess the corporate CF that per-
mits product CF to develop. Under this approach, the weakness
of process analysis is solved by the strengths of conventional
EEIO. In addition, the proposed approach does not depend on
LCA databases or software, making it feasible and affordable for
small-medium enterprises.
Another advantage of our method compared to previous lit-
erature is the clarification regarding data. Traditionally, hybrid
analysis can use double-entry accounting: that is, data can be
entered and processed in physical, economic, or both units. This
circumstance allows the analyst to include performance-based
criteria and therefore to choose the lowest figure. Examples of
this approach are Suh and Lippiatt (2012) and Lee and Ma
(2013). The compound hybrid analysis does not allow for this
possibility; data related to scope 1 and scope 2 emissions must be
entered in physical units, and those related to scope 3 emissions
must be entered in monetary units. This specification promotes
consistency in method and permits comparability between
studies.
A third positive element stems from the use of MRIO
data, including trade. Compound hybrid analysis can traverse
the global value chain to estimate a corporation’s direct and
R E S E A R C H A N D A N A LY S I S
indirect emissions responsibility and identify where emissions
are ultimately generated. This possibility is particularly inter-
esting for corporations that, like that in our case study, acquire
their inputs within the Euro-zone and mainly in Spain, but that
have indirect effects through their globally traded inputs. Pro-
cess analyses can only trace specific providers and potentially
leave out significant sources of emissions (Lenzen and Murray
2009; Murray et al. 2011). In contrast, we can generate in-
formation about countries that are indirectly involved in the
production/pollution chain. Moreover, our method can pro-
vide acceptable and useful emissions estimations for such coun-
tries because the MRIO model computes emissions according
to each country’s or region’s economic structure and emissions
coefficients.
Despite these outstanding outcomes, three relevant draw-
backs should be highlighted. First, the proposed method does
not account for downstream emissions: that is, emissions re-
lated to ISO categories 17 to 22, which occur in maintenance
and EoL stages. Likewise, it only considers emissions from cra-
dle to gate. The relevance of this drawback varies with the
object of analysis. In the case under study, which features a
sector close to household final demand, the downstream scope
3 emissions are likely to be very low compared to the total
CF calculated. In fact, as illustrated by Minne and Crittenden
(2015), manufacturing accounts for 99% of the environmen-
tal impact of hardwood flooring in its full life cycle. Second,
the present study does not assess some inventories related to
biogenic carbon emissions and removals. For example, ISO/TS
14067 requires the measurement of change emissions related
to shifts in direct land use. This stipulation might influence
the final results of the present study because our product is
made of wood. Its biogenic carbon removal could reach as high
as 17.97 kg CO2 -eq/m2 .7 However, this lack of information
could be solved with a new inventory related to these emis-
sions. Thus, future implementations of compound hybrid anal-
ysis must clearly define the inventories to be quantified to fulfill
all ISO requirements.
Finally, we should note that this method provides less ac-
curate estimates compared to a hypothetical complete process-
oriented bottom-up method. This stems from the uncertainties
related to the use of macroeconomic data (both in terms of
technological and emissions coefficients and in terms of prices)
for a specific firm and to the choice of database. While foot-
print estimates can vary when using different MRIO databases,
due to their data sources, construction, and aggregation (Rutger
et al. 2014), a number of studies have found WIOD (despite
its reduced sector disaggregation) to provide halfway results
between other databases such as Eora, EXIOPOL, or GTAP
(Owen et al. 2014; Wiedmann and Barrett 2013; Moran and
Wood 2014). Furthermore, results for CF for Spain are very sim-
ilar between WIOD, EXIOPOL, and GTAP (Moran and Wood
2014). The continuous effort to revise and compare these dif-
ferent databases by their developers and users is helping their
improvement and it will facilitate the estimation of uncertain-
ties, making MRIO an increasingly useful tool for policy making
(Wiedmann and Barrett 2013). Further research should also be
Alvarez et al., Corporate and Product Carbon Footprint 9
 R E S E A R C H A N D A N A LY S I S
done to assess the suitability of new inventories in physical units
without increasing implementation time.
A final question to discuss is the policy implications that can
be derived from the potential successful development of new
methods for CF quantification like the one presented in this
paper. In the context of the EU, this method may reinforce new
initiatives such as the Single Market for Green Products and
the Green Public Procurement (European Commission 2013,
2016). More specifically, this method could be implemented
by means of new requirements or granting criteria in public
procurement contracts. Following the method presented here,
companies can overcome the challenge to communicate their
product and corporate environmental performance while, at the
same time, policy makers are able to benchmark their perfor-
mances with the country- and sector-related data. Moreover,
policy makers should encourage companies’ willingness to offer
sustainable products in order to increase corporate competitive-
ness in public tenders.
Conclusions
The compound hybrid analysis presented here generates an
in-depth corporate CF and cradle-to-gate product CF. This
method takes into account the weaknesses of current CF im-
plementations and strengths of recent technical and social ad-
vances, such as new hybrid analyses and the ISO/TR 14069
and ISO/TS 14067 standards. This approach drastically re-
duces calculation time and costs and combines process and
EEIO analyses, making it applicable to all types of businesses.
It therefore stands to improve CF analysis in both product and
corporate approaches, stimulating innovation and increasing
support for sustainable consumption decisions. In addition to
these advantages, researchers using compound hybrid analy-
sis should consider other areas for improvement. In particu-
lar, we recommend further developments based on downstream
quantification to obtain a full product CF and the inclusion of
new process-related inventories to increase accuracy without
increasing implementation time.
The present study’s results demonstrate the importance of
using this type of hybrid models to compute corporate CF as
all cradle-to-gate emissions are tracked. Our findings show the
relevance of indirect scope 3 emissions, which account for more
than 88% of total CF. By estimating scope 3 emissions in an en-
vironmentally extended MRIO model, we can track emissions
generation along the global production chain and identify the
countries involved in pollution. Although the corporation un-
der study acquires its inputs within the EU, significant emission
leakages (29%) can be tracked by the origin country. These pat-
terns can be attributed to the strong trade relationships between
the EU’s developed economies and emerging economies.
Funding Information
We thank the Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness
of Spain for funding the research project “Global sustainability
10 Journal of Industrial Ecology
of production and consumption decisions by means of carbon
footprints” (ECO2016-78939-R) which led to this paper.
Notes
1. One megatonne (Mt) = 1 million metric tonnes = 1 teragram (Tg).
2. Some of these include: (1) the Greenhouse Gas Protocol (World
Resources Institute and World Business Council for Sustainable
Development 2004); (2) General Reporting Protocol (The Cli-
mate Registry 2016); (3) ISO 14064 (ISO 2013b); (4) PAS 2050
(British Standards Institute); (5) International Local Government
GHG Emissions Analysis Protocol (International Council on Lo-
cal Government for Sustainability 2009); (6) (Australian) National
Greenhouse and Energy Reporting (Australian Government. Clean
Energy Regulator 2017); and (7) DEFRA (based on the GHG
protocol) (DEFRA 2013).
3. The ISO 14064 classifies emission sources around three scopes: Scope
1 is direct emissions that occur from sources that are owned or
controlled by the organization; scope 2 accounts for indirect emis-
sions from the generation of purchased electricity, heat, or steam
consumed by the organization; scope 3 encompasses all other in-
direct emissions which are a consequence of the activities of the
company, but occur from sources not owned or controlled by the
organization.
4. The ISO 14069 classifies GHG emissions and removals into 23 cate-
gories listed below: (1) direct emissions from stationary combustion;
(2) direct emissions from mobile combustion; (3) direct process
related emissions; (4) direct fugitive emissions; (5) direct emis-
sions and removals from Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry;
(6) indirect emissions from imported electricity consumed; (7) in-
direct emissions from consumed energy imported through a physi-
cal network (steam, heating, cooling, and compressed air) exclud-
ing electricity; (8) energy-related activities not included in direct
emissions and energy indirect emissions; (9) purchased products;
(10) capital equipment; (11) waste generated from organizational
activities; (12) upstream transport and distribution; (13) business
travel; (14) upstream leased assets; (15) investments; (16) client
and visitor transport; (17) downstream transport and distribution;
(18) use stage of the product; (19) EoL of the product; (20) down-
stream franchises; (21) downstream leased assets; (22) employee
commuting; and (23) other indirect emissions or removals not in-
cluded in the other 22 categories.
5. Leontief inverse matrix, also written as (I-A)-1 : key stone matrix in
the input-output analysis (IOA). It contains the multipliers for the
direct and indirect interindustry inputs required to provide one unit
of output to final demand.
6. BRIIAT = Brazil, Russia, India, Indonesia, Australia, and Turkey;
NAFTA = USA, Canada, and Mexico; East Asia = Japan, North
Korea, and Taiwan; RoW = Rest of World.
7. This removal is estimated by multiplying the wood per functional
unit (0.014 cubic meters [m3 ]) by density (0.7 tonnes [t]/m3 ) by
carbon content (0.5 t/t) and, finally, by the stoichiometric ratio
(3.78 CO2 /C).
References
Alvarez, S. and A. Rubio. 2015a. Compound method based on fi-
nancial accounts versus process-based analysis in product carbon
footprint: A comparison using wood pallets. Ecological Indicators
49: 88–94.

Alvarez, S. and A. Rubio. 2015b. Carbon footprint in Green Public
Procurement: A case study in the services sector. Journal of Cleaner
Production 93: 159–166.
Alvarez, S., A. Carballo-Penela, I. Mateo-Mantecón, and A. Rubio.
2016. Strengths-Weaknesses-Opportunities-Threats analysis of
carbon footprint indicator and derived recommendations. Journal
of Cleaner Production 121: 238–247.
Australian Government. Clean Energy Regulator. 2017. National
Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007. Canberra: Federal
Register of Legislation.
Baboulet, O. and M. Lenzen. 2010. Evaluating the environmental per-
formance of a university. Journal of Cleaner Production 18(12):
1134–1141.
Busch, T. 2010. Corporate carbon performance indicators revisited.
Journal of Industrial Ecology 14(3): 374–377.
Busch, T. 2011. Which emissions do we need to account for in corporate
carbon performance? Response to Murray and colleagues. Journal
of Industrial Ecology 15(1): 160–163.
CDP. 2016. Out of the starting blocks. Tracking progress on corporate
climate action. London: CDP Worldwide.
Crawford, R. H. 2005. Validation of the use of input-output data for
embodied energy analysis of the Australian construction industry.
Journal of Construction Research 6(1): 71–90.
DEFRA. 2013. Environmental Reporting Guidelines: Including mandatory
greenhouse gas emissions reporting guidance. London: DEFRA.
Downie, J. and W. Stubbs. 2013. Evaluation of Australian companies’
scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions assessments. Journal of Cleaner
Production 56: 156–163.
European Commission. 2013. Communication from the Commission
to the European Parliament and the Council. Building the Single
Market for Green Products Facilitating better information on
the environmental performance of products and organisations. In
COM/2013/0196 final. Brussels: European Commission.
European Commission. 2016. Buying green! A handbook on green pub-
lic procurement, 3rd ed., edited by Directorate-General for En-
vironment. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European
Union.
Finkbeiner, M. 2009. Carbon footprinting—Opportunities and threats.
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 14(2): 91–94.
Goldhammer, B., C. Busse, and T. Busch. 2017. Estimating corpo-
rate carbon footprints with externally available data. Journal of
Industrial Ecology 21(5): 1165–1179.
Hertwich, E. G. and G. P. Peters. 2009. Carbon footprint of nations: A
global, trade-linked analysis. Environmental Science & Technology
43(16): 6414–6420.
Hoekstra, A. Y. and T. O. Wiedmann. 2014. Humanity’s unsustainable
environmental footprint. Science 344(6188): 1114–1117.
Hoesly, R., M. Blackhurst, H. S. Matthews, J. F. Miller, A. Maples,
M. Pettit, C. Izard, and P. Fischbeck. 2012. Historical carbon
footprinting and implications for sustainability planning: A case
study of the Pittsburgh region. Environmental Science & Technology
46(8): 4283–4290.
Huang, Y. A., C. L. Weber, and H. S. Matthews. 2009. Categorization of
scope 3 emissions for streamlined enterprise carbon footprinting.
Environmental Science & Technology 43(22): 8509–8515.
International Council on Local Government for Sustainability. 2009.
International Local Government GHG Emissions Analysis Protocol
(IEAP, version 1.0, October). Bonn: ICLEI.
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2006. Guidelines
for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. IPCC Publications. Paris:
IPCC.
R E S E A R C H A N D A N A LY S I S
ISO (International Organization for Standardization). 2013a. ISO/TS
14067:2013. Greenhouse gases—Carbon footprint of products—
Requirements and guidelines for quantification and communication.
Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standard-
ization (ISO).
ISO (International Organization for Standardization). 2013b. ISO/TR
14069:2013. Greenhouse gases—Quantification and reporting of
greenhouse gas emissions for organizations—Guidance for the applica-
tion of ISO 14064-1. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organi-
zation for Standardization (ISO).
Kander, A., M. Jibron, D. D. Moran, and T. O. Wiedmann. 2015.
National greenhouse-gas accounting for effective climate policy
on international trade. Nature Climate Change 5(5): 431–435.
Kjaer, L. L., K. N. Høst-Madsen, H. J. Schmidt, and C. T. McAloone.
2015. Application of environmental input-output analysis for cor-
porate and product environmental footprints—Learnings from
three cases. Sustainability 7(9): 11438–11461.
Lee, C.-H. and H.-W. Ma. 2013. Improving the integrated hybrid
LCA in the upstream scope 3 emissions inventory analysis. The
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 18(1): 17–23.
Lenzen, M. and R. Crawford. 2009. The path exchange method for
hybrid LCA. Environmental Science & Technology 43(21): 8251–
8256.
Lenzen, M. and J. Murray. 2009. Pain-free scope 3. Sydney, Australia:
Centre for Integrated Sustainability Analysis, School of Physics,
University of Sydney.
Lenzen, M., L.-L. Pade, and J. Munksgaard. 2004. CO2 multipliers
in multi-region input-output models. Economic Systems Research
16(4): 391–412.
Lenzen, M., A. Geschke, T. Wiedmann, J. Lane, N. Anderson, T.
Baynes, J. Boland, et al. 2014. Compiling and using input-output
frameworks through collaborative virtual laboratories. Science of
the Total Environment 485–486: 241–251.
Liang, S., S. Guo, J. P. Newell, S. Qu, Y. Feng, A. S. F. Chiu, and
M. Xu. 2016. Global drivers of Russian timber harvest. Journal of
Industrial Ecology 20(3): 515–525.
Liu, J., H. Mooney, V. Hull, S. J. Davis, J. Gaskell, T. Hertel, J.
Lubchenco, et al. 2015. Systems integration for global sustain-
ability. Science 347(6225): 1258832.
López, L. A., G. Arce, and J. E. Zafrilla. 2013. Parcelling virtual car-
bon in the pollution haven hypothesis. Energy Economics 39:
177–186.
MAGRAMA. 2014. Convocatoria 2014 para la selección de Proyectos
Clima (2014 Call for Climate Projects). Madrid: Ministerio de Agri-
cultura Alimentación y Medio Ambiente - Gobierno de España.
Majeau-Bettez, G., A. H. Strømman, and E. G. Hertwich. 2011. Evalu-
ation of process- and input-output-based life cycle inventory data
with regard to truncation and aggregation issues. Environmental
Science & Technology 45(23): 10170–10177.
Matthews, H. S., C. T. Hendrickson, and C. L. Weber. 2008. The
importance of carbon footprint estimation boundaries. Environ-
mental Science & Technology 42(16): 5839–5842.
McKinnon, A. C. 2010. Product-level carbon auditing of supply chains:
Environmental imperative or wasteful distraction? International
Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 40(1–2):
42–60.
Minne, E. and J. C. Crittenden. 2015. Impact of maintenance on life
cycle impact and cost assessment for residential flooring options.
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 20(1): 36–45.
Minx, J. C., T. Wiedmann, R. Wood, G. P. Peters, M. Lenzen, A. Owen,
K. Scott, et al. 2009. Input-output analysis and carbon footprint:
Alvarez et al., Corporate and Product Carbon Footprint 11
 R E S E A R C H A N D A N A LY S I S
An overview of applications. Economic Systems Research 21(3):
187–216.
Moran, D. and R. Wood. 2014. Convergence between the Eora, Wiod,
Exiobase, and Openeu’s consumption-based carbon accounts.
Economic Systems Research 26(3): 245–261.
Murray, J., T. Wiedmann, and C. Dey. 2011. Comment on “Corpo-
rate carbon performance indicators revisited”. Journal of Industrial
Ecology 15(1): 158–160.
Navarro, A., R. Puig, and P. Fullana-i-Palmer. 2017. Product vs corpo-
rate carbon footprint: Some methodological issues. A case study
and review on the wine sector. Science of the Total Environment
581–582: 722–733.
OECC. 2015. Huella de carbono 2014. Evolución 2010-2014 (2014 Car-
bon Footprint. 2010-2014 Evolution). Madrid: Oficina Española de
Cambio Climático - Ministerio de Agricultura Alimentación y
Medio Ambiente - Gobierno de España.
Owen, A., K. Steen-Olsen, J. Barrett, T. Wiedmann, and M.
Lenzen. 2014. A structural decomposition approach to com-
paring mrio databases. Economic Systems Research 26(3): 262–
283.
Peters, G. P. 2010. Carbon footprints and embodied carbon at multiple
scales. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2(4): 245–
250.
Rutger, H., E. Bram, Z. Daan, and W. Harry. 2014. Reducing the varia-
tion of environmental footprint estimates based on multiregional
input-output databases. Sustainability Accounting, Management and
Policy Journal 5(3): 325–345.
Schaltegger, S. and M. Csutora. 2012. Carbon accounting for sustain-
ability and management. Status quo and challenges. Journal of
Cleaner Production 36: 1–16.
Scipioni, A., A. Manzardo, A. Mazzi, and M. Mastrobuono. 2012.
Monitoring the carbon footprint of products: A methodological
proposal. Journal of Cleaner Production 36: 94–101.
Skelton, A. 2013. EU corporate action as a driver for global emissions
abatement: A structural analysis of EU international supply chain
carbon dioxide emissions. Global Environmental Change 23(6):
1795–1806.
Strømman, A. H., E. G. Hertwich, and F. Duchin. 2009. Shifting trade
patterns as a means of reducing global carbon dioxide emissions.
Journal of Industrial Ecology 13(1): 38–57.
Suh, S. and G. Huppes. 2005. Methods for life cycle inven-
tory of a product. Journal of Cleaner Production 13(7): 687–
697.
Suh, S. and S. Nakamura. 2007. Five years in the area of input-output
and hybrid LCA. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment
12(6): 351–352.
Suh, S. and B. C. Lippiatt. 2012. Framework for hybrid life cycle inven-
tory databases: A case study on the Building for Environmental
and Economic Sustainability (BEES) database. The International
Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 17(5): 604–612.
Supporting Information
Supporting information is linked to this article on the JIE website:
Supporting Information S1: This supporting information provides a description of the process of transforming firm data to
hybrid model data, and a listing of the relevant Matlab code.
12 Journal of Industrial Ecology
Suh, S., M. Lenzen, G. J. Treloar, H. Hondo, A. Horvath, G. Huppes,
O. Jolliet, et al. 2004. System boundary selection in life-cyclex
inventories using hybrid approaches. Environmental Science &
Technology 38(3): 657–664.
Teh, S. H., T. Wiedmann, A. Castel, and J. de Burgh. 2017. Hybrid
life cycle assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from cement,
concrete and geopolymer concrete in Australia. Journal of Cleaner
Production 152: 312–320.
The Climate Registry. 2016. General Reporting Protocol for the Voluntary
Reporting Program (version 2.1, January). Mountain View: The
Climate Registry.
Timmer, M. P., E. Dietzenbacher, B. Los, R. Stehrer, and G. J. de
Vries. 2015. An illustrated user guide to the world input-output
database: The case of global automotive production. Review of
International Economics 23(3): 575–605.
United Nations. 2015. The Paris agreement. Paris: United Nations.
Waugh, F. V. 1950. Inversion of the Leontief Matrix by power series.
Econometrica 18: 142–154.
Wiebe, K. S., M. Bruckner, S. Giljum, C. Lutz, and C. Polzin. 2012.
Carbon and materials embodied in the international trade of
emerging economies: A multiregional input-output assessment of
trends between 1995 and 2005. Journal of Industrial Ecology 16(4):
636–646.
Wiedmann, T. 2009. A review of recent multi-region input-output
models used for consumption-based emission and resource ac-
counting. Ecological Economics 69(2): 211–222.
Wiedmann, T. and J. Minx. 2007. A definition of ‘carbon footprint’.
In Ecological economics research trends, edited by C. C. Pertsova,
1–11. Hauppauge NY, USA: Nova Science.
Wiedmann, T. and J. Barrett. 2013. Policy-relevant applications of
environmentally extended MRIO databases—Experiences from
the UK. Economic Systems Research 25(1): 143–156.
Wiedmann, T., H. C. Wilting, M. Lenzen, S. Lutter, and V. Palm.
2011. Quo Vadis MRIO? Methodological, data and institutional
requirements for multi-region input-output analysis. Ecological
Economics 70(11): 1937–1945.
Wiedmann, T. O., M. Lenzen, and J. R. Barrett. 2009. Companies on
the scale. Journal of Industrial Ecology 13(3): 361–383.
Wolfram, P., T. Wiedmann, and M. Diesendorf. 2016. Carbon footprint
scenarios for renewable electricity in Australia. Journal of Cleaner
Production 124: 236–245.
World Resources Institute and World Business Council for Sustain-
able Development. 2004. The Greenhouse Gas Protocol. A Corpo-
rate Accounting and Reporting Standard. Revised edition. Conches-
Geneva and Washington DC: World Resources Institute and
World Business Council for Sustainable Development.
Zafrilla, J. E., M.-Á. Cadarso, F. Monsalve, and C. de la Rúa. 2014. How
carbon-friendly is nuclear energy? A hybrid MRIO-LCA model
of a Spanish facility. Environmental Science & Technology 48(24):
14103–14111.