Carbon footprint reporting process and software assessment framework
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
ESG reporting requirements are a response to global environmental and social challenges. Sustainability reporting poses challenge for organizations, mostly due to complex regulations and numerous calculation methods, causing confusion and requiring in-depth research and learning. This research is focused on carbon footprint reporting, indicating the role and importance of purpose-built reporting software in this process. The framework carbon footprint reporting process (F-CF-RP) was proposed based on a literature review, with the aim of providing guidance and indicating the steps required for proper CF reporting. Based on the guidelines, standards, literature and software review, the carbon footprint reporting software assessment framework (CF-RS-AF) was developed to provide researchers and practitioners with a framework to systematize the selection process of carbon footprint reporting software. The framework combines functional and non-functional requirements, support and pricing models, and automated and artificial intelligence functionalities. The framework was positively validated with review of sample tools.
Downloads
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
References
Alshqaqeeq, F. et al. (2020). Comparing reusable to disposable products: Life cycle analysis metrics. Journal of Advanced Manufacturing and Processing, 2 (4), pp. 1–9, doi: 10.1002/amp2.10065.
An, E. (2023). Accelerating sustainability through better reporting. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 14 (4), pp. 904–914, doi: 10.1108/SAMPJ-08-2022-0453.
Bełcik, A. (2024). PKO BP testuje technologie wspierające ESG. Są pierwsze pilotaże Puls Biznesu, https://www.pb.pl/pko-bp-testuje-technologie-wspierajace-esg-sa-pierwsze-pilotaze-1206113 [accessed: 11.02.2024].
Bhattacharya, C., Zaman, M. (2023). The What, Why and How of ESG Dashboards. NIM Marketing Intelligence Review, 15 (1), pp. 32–39, doi: 10.2478/nimmir-2023-0005.
Buettner, S. M. (2022). Roadmap to Neutrality – What Foundational Questions Need Answering to Determine One’s Ideal Decarbonisation Strategy. Energies, 15 (3126), pp. 1–24, doi: 10.3390/en15093126.
Castillo-Benancio, S. et al. (2022). Circular Economy for Packaging and Carbon Footprint. Environmental Footprints and Eco-Design of Products and Processes, pp. 115–138, doi:10.1007/978-981-19-0549-0_6/COVER.
Dao, V., Langella, I., Carbo, J. (2011). Information Technology and an integrated sustainability framework. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 20 (1), pp. 63–79, doi: 10.1016/j.jsis.2011.01.002.
Deconinck, K., Jansen, M., Barisone, C. (2023). Fast and furious: the rise of environmental impact reporting in food systems. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 50 (4), pp. 1310–1337, doi: 10.1093/erae/jbad018.
DeCotis, P. A. (2022). Digitizing Climate Reporting Compliance. Climate and Energy, 38 (11), pp. 21–27, doi: 10.1002/gas.22292.
EFRAG (2022). Draft European Sustainability Reporting Standards. ESRS E1. Climat Change.
Forreseter (2022) The Forrester New WaveTM: Sustainability Management Software, Q1 2022, https://reprints2.forrester.com/#/assets/2/2273/RES176324/report?utm_source=Persefoni [accessed: 11.02.2024].
Forreseter (2024). The Forrester New WaveTM: The Sustainability Management Software Landscape, Q1 2024, https://www.forrester.com/report/the-sustainability-management-softwarelandscape-q1-2024/RES180343 [accessed: 11.02.2024].
Gartner (2023). Emerging Tech: Sustainability and ESG Software Providers Focus on Simplifying ESG Reporting, https://www.gartner.com/en/documents/4341799 [accessed: 11.02.2024].
Gómez-Prado, R. et al. (2022). Circular Economy for Waste Reduction and Carbon Footprint. Environmental Footprints and Eco-Design of Products and Processes, pp. 139–159, doi: 10.1007/978-981-19-0549-0_7/COVER.
GRI (n.d.). GRI–Mission & history, https://www.globalreporting.org/about-gri/mission-history/ [accessed: 11.02.2024].
Grzelakowski, A. S., Herdzik, J., Skiba, S. (2022). Maritime Shipping Decarbonization: Roadmap to Meet Zero-Emission Target in Shipping as a Link in the Global Supply Chains. Energies, 15 (6150), pp. 1–16, doi: 10.3390/en15176150.
Hettler, M., Graf-Vlachy, L. (2023). Corporate scope 3 carbon emission reporting as an enabler of supply chain decarbonization: A systematic review and comprehensive research agenda. Business Strategy and the Environment, (Nov. 2022), pp. 1–20, doi: 10.1002/bse.3486.
Immink, H., Louw, R. T., Brent, A. C. (2018). Tracking decarbonisation in the mining sector. Journal of Energy in Southern Africa, 29 (1), pp. 14–23, doi: 10.17159/2413-3051/2018/v29i1a3437.
ISO 14064–1:2018 – Greenhouse gases – Part 1: Specification with guidance at the organization level for quantification and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions and removals (n.d.), https://www.iso.org/standard/66453.html [accessed: 10.02.2024].
ISO 14067:2018 – Greenhouse gases – Carbon footprint of products – Requirements and guidelines for quantification (n.d.), https://www.iso.org/standard/71206.html [accessed: 10.02.2024].
ISO 14068–1:2023 – Climate change management – Transition to net zero – Part 1: Carbon neutrality (n.d.), https://www.iso.org/standard/43279.html [accessed: 10.02.2024].
ISO 14083:2023 – Greenhouse gases – Quantification and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions arising from transport chain operations (n.d.), https://www.iso.org/standard/78864.html [accessed: 10.02.2024].
Jayadatta, S. (2023). The Role of Social Media in Promoting ESG – A Theoretical Assimilation. International Journal of Marketing and Business Communication, 12 (2), pp. 25–36, doi: 10.32441/kjhs.4.6.13.
Karlsson, I. et al. (2020). Roadmap for climate transition of the building and construction industry – a supply chain analysis including primary production of steel and cement. Energies, 13 (4136), pp. 1–40.
Luo, L., Tang, Q. (2023). The real effects of ESG reporting and GRI standards on carbon mitigation: International evidence. Business Strategy and the Environment, 32 (6), pp. 2985–3000, doi: 10.1002/bse.3281.
Mahapatra, S. K., Schoenherr, T., Jayaram, J. (2021, Feb). An assessment of factors contributing to firms’ carbon footprint reduction efforts. International Journal of Production Economics, 235, p. 108073, doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2021.108073.
Miklautsch, P., Woschank, M. (2022, June). A framework of measures to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions in freight transport: Systematic literature review from a Manufacturer’s perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production, 366, p. 132883, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132883.
Ocicka, B., Gemra, K. (Red.). (2023). Zrównoważona transformacja. Stan i uwarunkowania w kontekście ESG. Oficyna Wydawnicza SGH.
Paridhi, Arora, A. (2023). Sustainability reporting: Current state and challenges. Business Strategy and Development, 6 (3), pp. 362–381, doi: 10.1002/bsd2.244.
Patchell, J. (2018). Can the implications of the GHG Protocol’s scope 3 standard be realized?’, Journal of Cleaner Production, 185, pp. 941–958, doi: 10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2018.03.003.
Pojasek, R. (2012). Checking and Reviewing Sustainability Progress. Environmental Quality Management, pp. 83–91, doi: 10.1002/tqem.
Poschmann, J., Bach, V., Finkbeiner, M. (2023, Apr). Deriving decarbonization targets and pathways – A case study for the automotive industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 409, p. 137256, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137256.
Saxena, A. et al. (2023). Technologies Empowered Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG): An Industry 4.0 Landscape. Sustainability, 15 (309), pp. 1–17.
Seelig, B., Schoeneboom, J. (2023). Product Carbon Footprint: A Key to Effective Sustainability Strategies. SOFW Journal, 149, pp. 12–17.
Stanek-Kowalczyk, A., Martinek-Jaguszewska, K., Turek J. (2023). Raportowanie niefinansowe. Pomiar aspektów środowiskowych, społecznych i ładu korporacyjnego. In: Ocicka, B. and Gemra, K. (Eds.), Zrównoważona transformacja. Stan i uwarunkowania w kontekście ESG (p. 47–60). Oficyna Wydawnicza SGH.
TCFD (2021, Oct). Implementing the Recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures. Task Force on Climate-related Fiancial Disclosures, pp. 1–87, https:// assets.bbhub.io/company/sites/60/2020/10/FINAL-TCFD-Annex-Amended-121517.pdf
Turek, J., Martinek-Jaguszewska, K. (2023). Transformacja ESG przedsiębiorstw i łańcuchów dostaw – wyniki badań wśród przedsiębiorstw produkcyjnych i handlowych. In: Ocicka, B. and Gemra, K. (Eds.), Zrównoważona transformacja. Stan i uwarunkowania w kontekście ESG (p. 149–166). Oficyna Wydawnicza SGH.
UN (n.d.). THE 17 GOALS | Sustainable Development, https://sdgs.un.org/goals#history [accessed: 11.02.2024].
Villena, V. H., Dhanorkar, S. (2020). How institutional pressures and managerial incentives elicit carbon transparency in global supply chains. Journal of Operations Management, 66 (6), pp. 697–734, doi: 10.1002/joom.1088.
Zampou, E. et al. (2022). A Design Theory for Energy and Carbon Management Systems in the Supply Chain. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 23 (1), pp. 329–371, doi: 10.17705/1jais.00725.
Zieliński, D. (2023). ESG a wyzwania dekarbonizacyjne przedsiębiorstw działających w Polsce. Studia BAS, 74 (2), pp. 127–144, doi: 10.31268/studiabas.2023.15.ort and pricing models, and automated and artificial intelligence functionalities. The framework was positively validated with review of sample tools.