PCF · ISO 14067 · GHG Protocol Product · PEF · Pathfinder
PCF Frameworks Comparison Calculator | Pathfinder, PEF & ISO 14067
Enter one product inventory once and see its carbon footprint recomputed under each framework’s rules — ISO 14067, GHG Protocol Product, EU PEF, and WBCSD Pathfinder — with the divergences (electricity basis, biogenic carbon, recycling, and boundary) made visible rather than buried in a single number. A methodological reconciliation tool: it teaches how the frameworks differ, not which published figure is “right”. Built on the shared ISO 14040/14044 foundation.
One inventory, four rulesets. The four major product carbon footprint (PCF) frameworks all descend from the same ISO 14040/14044 life-cycle assessment foundation, so they share a goal-and-scope structure, a system-boundary logic, the ISO 14044 allocation hierarchy, and a 100-year GWP basis. This calculator holds your inventory fixed and varies only the framework-specific rules, producing one comparable CO₂e figure per framework plus a qualitative conformance matrix.
The four divergent levers the engine models. (1) Electricity basis — ISO 14067 uses a market-based factor, GHG Protocol Product a location/grid-average factor, PEF the residual mix, and Pathfinder a supplier/market factor, each selected from the three electricity factors you enter. (2) Biogenic carbon — whether the net biogenic uptake/release credit is included in the headline total or reported separately. (3) Recycling and end-of-life — the Circular Footprint Formula (CFF) value versus the cut-off value, applied only on a cradle-to-grave boundary. (4) System boundary — all four compute over your chosen boundary except Pathfinder, which defaults to gate-only and drops downstream stages.
Carbon-only comparison. Every framework figure here is carbon-only. For PEF the engine models the Climate Change impact category only — not PEF’s full 16-category multi-criteria profile, normalisation, or weighting. The bar chart is therefore four comparable kg CO₂e numbers; PEF’s multi-criteria nature is surfaced in the matrix, not the bar. Two terms are uniform across all four frameworks and never enter a total: purchased offsets (reported separately, never subtracted) and the aviation radiative-forcing multiplier (shown only as a secondary metric).
What this tool is not. This is a methodological reconciliation, not a conformant PCF study. A figure computed under one framework must never be compared against another framework’s published number — cross-framework comparison is the teaching point of this tool, not a licence to mix figures. Completeness and primary-data quality of the inventory remain the user’s responsibility. Once you have chosen a framework, build the conformant study in the ISO 14067 cradle-to-gate or cradle-to-grave calculator.
Enter your product inventory above to compare it across the PCF frameworks
Results appear instantly. The per-framework PCF bars, the divergence-driver decomposition, a clause-cited comparison matrix, conformance flags and the full audit trail appear after calculation.
This calculator recomputes one common product inventory under the accounting rules of ISO 14067:2018,
the GHG Protocol Product Standard, the EU PEF method and the WBCSD Pathfinder Framework
v2.0, and reports how far the resulting product carbon footprint diverges and why. It is a methodological
reconciliation, not a conformant PCF study — it does not replace a full assessment under any single framework or its critical
review. Framework rules (boundary, biogenic CO₂, land-use change, electricity basis, recycling/end-of-life, offsets, GWP) are read from
MasterBrain section lca.* with the governing standard clause cited; the inventory values are your own data,
already characterised to CO₂e. The Circular Footprint Formula result is user-supplied (MasterBrain carries each framework’s CFF
requirement, not its coefficients), and PEF’s EF3.1 characterisation is approximated by the GWP set. Never compare a footprint
computed under one framework against another’s. Use indicative figures for method screening only — adopt one named framework
end-to-end, replace estimates with primary data, and complete a critical review under ISO 14067 / ISO 14071 before publishing a PCF,
issuing an EPD, or exchanging product footprints under PACT / Catena-X.
Run the same product inventory through ISO 14067, the GHG Protocol Product Standard, EU PEF, and WBCSD Pathfinder and you can get four different carbon footprints — in the worked example below, from 4.20 to 6.55 kg CO₂e for one kilogram of the same packaged product. None of them is wrong.
The frameworks share one foundation and diverge in a handful of specific rules — and knowing exactly where they part company is what separates a defensible PCF from a contested one.
The four PCF frameworks — ISO 14067, GHG Protocol Product, EU PEF, and WBCSD Pathfinder — share an ISO 14040/14044 core and diverge mainly on four rules: electricity basis, biogenic carbon, recycling treatment, and system boundary. Use PEF where EU regulation requires it, Pathfinder for value-chain data exchange, and ISO 14067 or GHG Protocol Product for general disclosure.
Frameworks compared
ISO 14067 · GHG Protocol Product · EU PEF (Climate Change category) · WBCSD Pathfinder (PACT).
Shared core
All descend from ISO 14040/14044 — same goal/scope, boundary logic, allocation hierarchy, 100-yr GWP.
Real divergences
Electricity basis · biogenic carbon · recycling/EoL (CFF vs cut-off) · system boundary.
Use case → framework
EU regulation → PEF · value-chain data exchange → Pathfinder · general disclosure → ISO 14067 / GHG Product.
Comparison basis
Carbon-only. PEF shown as Climate Change category, not its 16-category multi-criteria profile.
Interoperability
Pathfinder recommends CFF alignment so one inventory can serve both Scope 3 and PEF.
Start from the driver, not the framework. If EU regulation or a product category rule names a method, you are almost certainly on PEF. If a customer or value-chain partner is asking for product data through the PACT network, you need Pathfinder. For a general product disclosure, an EPD, or a science-based product claim, ISO 14067 (international standard) or the GHG Protocol Product Standard (corporate-inventory lineage) is the usual choice. The calculator above shows how your own inventory moves under each ruleset so you can see what the choice costs you — then build the conformant study in the matching tool.
Build the conformant PCF next →
What a PCF Framework Is — and Why There Are Four
A product carbon footprint framework is the ruleset that turns life-cycle inventory data into a single declared CO₂e figure for a product. It specifies what is inside the system boundary, how shared emissions are allocated, how biogenic carbon and recycling are treated, and how the result must be reported. Four frameworks dominate the field — and the most useful thing to understand about them is how much they have in common.
The Shared Foundation: They All Descend from ISO 14040/14044
ISO 14067, the GHG Protocol Product Standard, EU PEF, and WBCSD Pathfinder are not four rival systems built from scratch. Each is a specialisation of the same ISO 14040/14044 life-cycle assessment methodology. They share the goal-and-scope structure, the system-boundary concept, the ISO 14044 allocation hierarchy (avoid → physical → economic), and a 100-year global warming potential basis. The differences sit on top of that common spine, not in place of it.
Why the Choice Matters Less Than People Think — and More Where It Counts
For most of a footprint, the framework you pick changes nothing: the same fossil energy, the same combustion factors, the same transport. The divergence is concentrated in a small set of decisions — electricity accounting, biogenic carbon, recycling and end-of-life, and where the boundary is drawn. Those few decisions, however, can move the headline by a third or more. Knowing precisely where the frameworks part company lets you choose deliberately and defend the result.
| Framework | Owner | Character | Primary use |
|---|---|---|---|
| ISO 14067 | ISO | International standard, carbon-only | General product disclosure, EPD input, science-based claims |
| GHG Protocol Product | WRI / WBCSD | Corporate-inventory lineage, carbon-only | Product footprints aligned to corporate GHG reporting |
| EU PEF | European Commission | Regulatory, multi-criteria (16 categories) | EU regulation and product category rules |
| WBCSD Pathfinder (PACT) | WBCSD | Value-chain data-exchange framework | Scope 3 primary-data sharing between trading partners |
The Four Frameworks in Brief
ISO 14067 — the international standard
The ISO standard for the carbon footprint of products, building directly on ISO 14040/14044 and ISO 14044’s allocation hierarchy. Carbon-only, boundary-flexible (cradle-to-gate or cradle-to-grave), and the usual reference point for a defensible, internationally recognised PCF.
GHG Protocol Product — corporate lineage
The product-level standard in the GHG Protocol family, designed to align product footprints with corporate Scope 1/2/3 reporting. Predates current Scope 2 market-based guidance, so its electricity convention defaults to location/grid-average accounting.
EU PEF — regulatory, multi-criteria
The European Commission’s Product Environmental Footprint method. Unique in being multi-criteria — 16 impact categories with required normalisation and weighting — and in mandating the Circular Footprint Formula for recycling. Climate Change is one category within it.
WBCSD Pathfinder (PACT) — data exchange
A value-chain framework for exchanging product-level emissions data between trading partners. Cradle-to-gate by default, primary-data-first, and recommends (not requires) CFF alignment so one inventory can serve both Scope 3 and PEF.
Where They Agree — The Common Core
Before the divergences, it is worth stating plainly what all four frameworks share. This common core is why an inventory built for one can usually be adapted to another without starting over.
- Life-cycle foundation. All four implement ISO 14040/14044 — the same goal-and-scope definition, functional/declared unit logic, and life-cycle inventory structure.
- Allocation hierarchy. All adopt the ISO 14044 §4.3.4.2 preference order: avoid allocation, then partition on a physical relationship, then economic value as a last resort. (How to apply it in practice is covered by the PCF allocation methods calculator.)
- GWP basis. All use a 100-year global warming potential horizon. The engine applies AR6 GWP-100 by default (AR5 selectable for comparison), uniformly across frameworks for comparability.
- Offsets are not subtracted. Every framework reports purchased offsets separately and none nets them against the gross footprint — the one accounting point on which all four agree without qualification.
The frameworks are not four competing answers to the same question. They are four specialisations of one ISO 14040/14044 method, diverging in a small, identifiable set of rules. The practical skill is not “picking the right framework” in the abstract — it is knowing which of those few rules your product is sensitive to, and choosing the framework whose treatment of those rules fits your purpose.
Where They Diverge — The Decisions That Move the Number
Four rules account for essentially all of the divergence between frameworks. Each is grounded below in the live methodology keys the calculator cites in its own matrix tooltips, so the editorial description and the tool agree.
Electricity Basis
This is the single largest divergence driver in most footprints. ISO 14067 applies a market-based electricity factor; the GHG Protocol Product Standard applies a location/grid-average factor (its 2011 text predates current Scope 2 market-based guidance, so it cites the attributional-default convention, lca.ghg_protocol_product.electricity.attributional_method_default); PEF mandates the residual mix (lca.pef.electricity.residual_mix_default); and Pathfinder prioritises supplier-specific/primary data (lca.pathfinder.data.primary_data_priority). Because residual-mix factors are typically far higher than market or grid-average factors, PEF tends to carry the heaviest electricity load.
Biogenic Carbon and Land-Use Change
Frameworks differ on whether the net biogenic uptake/release credit enters the headline total or is reported separately. ISO 14067 and PEF include the biogenic result in the comparable carbon figure; the GHG Protocol Product Standard reports biogenic separately from the fossil line (lca.ghg_protocol_product.biogenic.separate_reporting_required), and Pathfinder likewise reports biogenic separately (lca.pathfinder.pcf.biogenic_carbon_separate_reporting). This convention is decisive: a product with a large biogenic credit looks very different depending on whether that credit is allowed to offset the fossil load. Direct land-use change (dLUC) is treated as a cradle term; ISO, PEF, and Pathfinder carry it in the headline, while the GHG Protocol Product Standard reports it separately (lca.ghg_protocol_product.land_use_change.included_separately). The shared quantitative mechanics — 20-year dLUC amortisation, 100-year storage permanence — live in the generic lca.biogenic.* keys.
Recycling and End-of-Life — CFF vs Cut-off
On a cradle-to-grave boundary, recycling treatment diverges sharply. PEF mandates the Circular Footprint Formula (lca.pef.recycling.cff_required); EN 15804+A2 and the carbon-only standards default to cut-off / 100:0 attribution; and Pathfinder recommends but does not require CFF alignment (lca.pathfinder.pcf.recycling.cff_alignment_recommended). The allocation methods calculator covers the substitution-versus-cut-off mechanics in depth.
System Boundary and Multi-Criteria Scope
Three of the four frameworks compute over whatever boundary you set. Pathfinder defaults to cradle-to-gate (lca.pathfinder.pcf.scope.cradle_to_gate_default), dropping use-phase and end-of-life from the headline, which makes a Pathfinder figure not directly comparable to a cradle-to-grave figure from the other three. Separately, PEF is multi-criteria — 16 impact categories with required normalisation and weighting (lca.pef.impact_categories_count = 16) — of which Climate Change is one. This calculator models only that Climate Change category for PEF, so its bar is a carbon-only figure, not a PEF environmental-footprint score.
| Decision | ISO 14067 | GHG Protocol Product | EU PEF | Pathfinder |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Electricity basis | Market | Location / grid-average | Residual mix | Supplier / market |
| Biogenic in headline? | Yes | Reported separately | Yes (sub-indicator) | Reported separately |
| dLUC in headline? | Yes | Reported separately | Yes (sub-indicator) | Yes |
| Recycling / EoL | Cut-off default | Cut-off default | CFF mandated | CFF recommended |
| Default boundary | Flexible | Flexible | Flexible | Cradle-to-gate |
| Scope | Carbon-only | Carbon-only | Multi-criteria (16) | Carbon-only |
Side by Side — One Product, Four Framework Treatments
The chart below holds one inventory fixed — the bio-based packaging worked example from the next section — and recomputes the headline carbon figure under each framework’s rules. Same activity data, same emission factors, four different rulesets.
The spread runs from ISO 14067 at 4.20 to GHG Protocol Product at 6.55 — a gap of 2.35 kg CO₂e, or 35.9% measured against the maximum (a high band). The counter-intuitive result is that GHG Protocol Product is the ceiling despite not having the highest electricity factor: it omits both the −1.5 biogenic credit and the dLUC term from its headline (both reported separately), so it carries the full fossil load with no biogenic offset. PEF has higher electricity (residual mix) but its biogenic credit pulls it back below GHG Product. The biogenic convention dominates the electricity gap here — which is exactly why knowing your product’s sensitivity matters more than ranking the frameworks.
What Drives the Divergence
Decomposing the spread across the four divergent levers (fossil-gate and aviation are identical across all four, so they contribute nothing to the divergence):
Electricity basis and biogenic accounting together account for 74.4% of the divergence. These shares are an indicative variance attribution that ranks the levers — because the minimum and maximum framework differ from one driver to the next, the shares do not additively reconstruct the 2.35 kg spread, they rank which decisions move the result most.
Every figure here is carbon-only. The PEF bar is the Climate Change impact category alone, not PEF’s full 16-category environmental footprint with normalisation and weighting. A PEF score is not a single carbon number, and the 5.75 shown here is not a conformant PEF result — it is PEF’s climate sub-result, modelled for like-for-like carbon comparison only. Treat the cross-framework comparison as a teaching device; never lift one framework’s figure and compare it against another’s published number.
Worked Example — Bio-Based Packaging, Framework by Framework
This example uses one inventory for 1 kg of a bio-based packaged product with recycled content and an air-freight leg — chosen because it exposes the biogenic, electricity, recycling, and boundary divergences at once. The inputs are illustrative, stated-source figures that mirror the live calculator’s seeded example; the per-framework totals are the engine’s exact computed outputs.
B2C product, cradle-to-grave audience. Shared inventory: fossil A1–A3 gate 3.2 · use-phase 0.2 · biogenic uptake 1.8 and release 0.3 (net −1.5) · dLUC 0.4 · aviation base 0.6 (RF-adjusted secondary +0.54, excluded from all totals) · three electricity factors entered (market / location / residual) · recycling CFF and cut-off values both supplied. All figures kg CO₂e.
| Component | ISO 14067 | GHG Product | EU PEF | Pathfinder |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fossil — gate (A1–A3) | 3.20 | 3.20 | 3.20 | 3.20 |
| Electricity | 0.75 (market) | 2.00 (location) | 2.60 (residual) | 0.75 (market) |
| Aviation (base) | 0.60 | 0.60 | 0.60 | 0.60 |
| Use-phase | 0.20 | 0.20 | 0.20 | — gate |
| Biogenic (net) | −1.50 | — sep. | −1.50 | — sep. |
| dLUC | 0.40 | — sep. | 0.40 | 0.40 |
| Recycling / EoL | 0.55 (cut-off) | 0.55 (cut-off) | 0.25 (CFF) | — gate |
| Headline total | 4.20 | 6.55 | 5.75 | 4.95 |
“— sep.” means the term is computed but reported separately, not summed into the headline (treated as zero in the comparable carbon number). “— gate” means the term is stripped because Pathfinder defaults to a gate boundary.
Reading the Result
The two lowest figures reach their position by different routes. ISO 14067 (4.20) carries the full grave inventory but keeps the −1.5 biogenic credit and uses a low market electricity factor. Pathfinder (4.95) lands just above it through two opposing mechanisms: its gate boundary removes use-phase and end-of-life (−0.75 versus ISO), while its biogenic-separate rule removes the −1.5 credit (+1.5 versus ISO) — the two nearly cancel. GHG Protocol Product (6.55) tops the range because it strips both biogenic and dLUC from the headline, leaving the fossil load unoffset, even though its location-based electricity (2.00) is lower than PEF’s residual mix (2.60).
Conformance note: one flag fires on this seed — Pathfinder’s figure is cradle-to-gate (use-phase and end-of-life excluded) and is not directly comparable to the cradle-to-grave figures from the other three. GHG Protocol Product with a B2C cradle-to-grave boundary is conformant (no flag); AR6 is selected, so no PEF GWP flag. Audit trail: seed inputs are illustrative stated-source figures, not Master Brain emission factors; the framework rules are cited live from the MB lca.* keyspace (ISO_14067_2018, GHG_PROTOCOL_PRODUCT_2011, EU_PEF_REC_2021_2279, WBCSD_PATHFINDER_v2). Aviation RF secondary (+0.54) and purchased offsets are reported separately and excluded from every total.
Which Framework Should You Use?
The framework is determined by your reporting driver far more often than by preference. Work from the trigger.
| Trigger | Framework | Why |
|---|---|---|
| EU regulation or a Product Environmental Footprint Category Rule names a method | EU PEF | PEF is the prescribed method; its multi-criteria, CFF, and residual-mix rules are mandatory, not optional. |
| A customer or value-chain partner requests product data through PACT | WBCSD Pathfinder | Pathfinder is the data-exchange framework; primary-data-first and designed for supplier-to-customer transfer. |
| General product disclosure, EPD input, or a science-based product claim | ISO 14067 | The international standard; the most widely recognised reference for a defensible standalone PCF. |
| Product footprint that must align with your corporate GHG inventory | GHG Protocol Product | Shares lineage and conventions with the corporate Scope 1/2/3 standards your inventory already uses. |
Running One Inventory for Multiple Frameworks
These triggers are not mutually exclusive — a company may face a PEF regulatory requirement and a customer Pathfinder request for the same product. Because all four share the ISO 14040/14044 core, one well-built inventory can usually serve several frameworks if you record the framework-sensitive data (the three electricity bases, biogenic uptake and release separately, recycling parameters, and stage-level results) rather than only the headline. The next section covers how Pathfinder’s design supports this directly.
PEF multi-criteria is not computed. The tool models PEF’s Climate Change category only; its 16-category profile, normalisation, and weighting are surfaced in the matrix but not calculated. CFF is user-supplied, not parametric. You enter each framework’s CFF and cut-off values; the engine applies the framework’s rule but does not yet run the full parametric Circular Footprint Formula (a later release). PEF EF3.1 LCIA is approximated. The tool applies a uniform AR6 (default) or AR5 GWP-100 across all frameworks for comparability rather than the prescribed EF3.1 characterisation; selecting AR5 raises an explicit flag that the result is not PEF-conformant.
Interoperability — Build Once, Report Many
The fear that drives a lot of PCF anxiety is that each framework demands a separate study from scratch. It does not. Because the frameworks share the ISO 14040/14044 core, the inventory work is overwhelmingly common; only the framework-specific rules need re-application.
The Pathfinder Bridge
WBCSD Pathfinder is explicitly designed to reduce this duplication. It recommends — though does not require — alignment with the PEF Circular Footprint Formula so that a single product inventory can serve both a company’s Scope 3 reporting and a downstream PEF obligation. Combined with Pathfinder’s primary-data-first approach, this lets a supplier build one PACT-conformant dataset and have it travel through the value chain rather than recomputing per customer.
To keep one inventory framework-portable, capture the four divergent levers at source: store all three electricity factors (market, location, residual), record biogenic uptake and release as separate line items, keep recycling parameters rather than only a net recycling figure, and retain stage-level (gate vs grave) results. With those recorded, switching frameworks is a re-application of rules, not a new study.
Audit Checklist — Framework-Selection Errors
Most framework-related findings in a PCF review come not from arithmetic but from selection and conformance mistakes. The following are the recurring ones.
- Comparing figures computed under different frameworks. A number produced under one framework’s rules is not comparable to one produced under another’s. This is the cardinal error — the cross-framework comparison in this tool is a teaching device, not a licence to benchmark a PEF figure against an ISO 14067 figure.
- Citing a carbon-only figure as a PEF result. PEF is a 16-category multi-criteria method. A single carbon number — including the Climate Change category modelled here — is not a conformant PEF environmental footprint and must not be presented as one.
- Comparing a gate figure to a grave figure. Pathfinder defaults to cradle-to-gate. Placing its headline next to a cradle-to-grave figure from another framework compares different boundaries; the conformance flag exists precisely to catch this.
- Treating the biogenic credit as universal. Whether the biogenic credit enters the headline depends on the framework. A product that looks low-carbon under ISO 14067 (credit included) can look materially higher under GHG Protocol Product (credit reported separately) with no change to the underlying physics.
- Mismatching electricity basis to framework. Each framework prescribes its own electricity convention — market, location, residual, or supplier. Applying a market-based factor inside a PEF study, or a residual mix inside an ISO 14067 study, breaks conformance.
- Assuming AR-set neutrality. The engine defaults to AR6 GWP-100. Selecting AR5 for comparison raises a non-conformance flag for PEF, which prescribes the EF3.1 characterisation set; do not carry an AR5 comparison run into a conformant PEF submission.
- Skipping the framework-justification record. The chosen framework, the boundary, the electricity basis, and the biogenic treatment should all be documented. A footprint that states a number without stating which framework produced it cannot be verified.
Data Sources, Provenance, and Version Currency
Framework Rule Provenance
The framework-specific rules in this calculator are read from the Master Brain methodology layer (the lca.* keyspace, 86 rows), each traceable to its governing publication:
- ISO 14067 rules — ISO 14067:2018 (ISO_14067_2018): allocation adoption, biogenic reporting, dLUC period, GWP horizon, boundary flexibility.
- GHG Protocol Product rules — GHG Protocol Product Standard (2011) (GHG_PROTOCOL_PRODUCT_2011): attributional electricity default, separate biogenic and dLUC reporting, allocation hierarchy mirroring ISO 14044.
- EU PEF rules — EU PEF method (EU_PEF_REC_2021_2279): residual-mix default, CFF requirement, 16 impact categories, biogenic and land-use sub-indicators.
- Pathfinder rules — WBCSD Pathfinder Framework (WBCSD_PATHFINDER_v2): cradle-to-gate default, primary-data priority, separate biogenic reporting, CFF-alignment recommendation, declared-unit requirement.
- Shared LCA foundation — ISO 14040/14044:2006 (ISO_14040_2006, ISO_14044_2006): the allocation hierarchy and life-cycle structure all four inherit.
What Is and Is Not a Master Brain Value
The framework rules are Master Brain reads. The worked-example inventory values (fossil, electricity, biogenic, dLUC, recycling figures) are illustrative activity data, not Master Brain emission factors — the lca.* keyspace holds methodology rules, not per-product factors. In live use, your own activity data and emission factors populate the inventory.
Version Currency
GWP values are stable until IPCC AR7 (expected ~2028). Framework rules change only when a standard is revised; the data version stamp in the source bar reflects the live Master Brain version. The PEF method and Pathfinder framework are the fastest-moving of the four — verify the current method version before a regulatory submission.
Frequently Asked Questions
The four main product carbon footprint frameworks are ISO 14067, the GHG Protocol Product Standard, EU PEF, and WBCSD Pathfinder. All descend from ISO 14040/14044 and share a goal-and-scope structure, the ISO 14044 allocation hierarchy, and a 100-year GWP basis. They diverge mainly on four rules: how electricity is accounted (market, location, residual, or supplier), whether biogenic carbon enters the headline or is reported separately, how recycling is treated (CFF vs cut-off), and the default system boundary.
Choose by your reporting driver. If EU regulation or a Product Environmental Footprint Category Rule names a method, use EU PEF. If a customer requests data through the PACT network, use Pathfinder. For general disclosure, an EPD, or a science-based claim, use ISO 14067. For a footprint that must align with your corporate GHG inventory, use the GHG Protocol Product Standard. The frameworks are not interchangeable for a single submission, so let the requirement decide.
No. A figure computed under one framework’s rules is not comparable to one computed under another’s — the electricity basis, biogenic treatment, recycling rule, and boundary all differ. This calculator places four frameworks side by side to teach how those rules move the result, not to license comparing published figures across frameworks. Two products can only be compared on a like-for-like basis if both were assessed under the same framework, boundary, and product category rules.
Because the frameworks apply different rules to the same inventory. In the worked example, one kilogram of bio-based packaging ranges from 4.20 kg CO₂e under ISO 14067 to 6.55 under GHG Protocol Product — a 35.9% spread. Electricity basis and biogenic accounting drive about 74% of that gap. The physical product is identical; only the accounting rules differ, which is why the framework must always be stated alongside the number.
No. PEF is a multi-criteria method covering 16 environmental impact categories with required normalisation and weighting. This calculator models only PEF’s Climate Change category so it can be compared like-for-like with the carbon-only frameworks. The PEF bar is a climate sub-result for comparison, not a conformant PEF environmental footprint score, and should never be presented as one.
Because it omits two credits from the headline. The GHG Protocol Product Standard reports biogenic carbon and direct land-use change separately rather than summing them into the total, so it carries the full fossil load with no biogenic offset. PEF uses a higher residual-mix electricity factor, but its biogenic credit (−1.5 in the example) pulls its total back below GHG Protocol Product. The biogenic reporting convention outweighs the electricity difference for this product.
Largely yes, because all four share the ISO 14040/14044 core. If you record the framework-sensitive data — all three electricity bases, biogenic uptake and release separately, recycling parameters, and stage-level results — switching frameworks becomes a re-application of rules rather than a new study. WBCSD Pathfinder is explicitly designed to support this, recommending CFF alignment so one inventory can serve both Scope 3 reporting and a PEF obligation.
Methodology Notes and Limitations
Reconciliation, not a conformant study. This tool recomputes one inventory under each framework’s rules to show how they diverge. It does not produce a conformant PCF for any single framework; that requires building the study in the framework’s own calculator with complete, quality-assured primary data.
Carbon-only; PEF is climate-category only. All figures are carbon-only. The PEF figure models the Climate Change impact category, not PEF’s 16-category multi-criteria profile, normalisation, or weighting. The PEF bar is not a conformant PEF score.
CFF is user-supplied, not parametric. Each framework’s CFF and cut-off recycling values are entered by the user; the engine applies the framework’s rule but does not yet run the full parametric Circular Footprint Formula. Full CFF is a later release.
GWP applied uniformly. AR6 GWP-100 is applied by default (AR5 selectable) across all frameworks for comparability, rather than PEF’s prescribed EF3.1 characterisation. Selecting AR5 raises a PEF non-conformance flag.
Uniform terms and separately-reported terms. Fossil-gate and aviation base are identical across frameworks and are not divergence drivers. The aviation radiative-forcing secondary metric and purchased offsets are reported separately and excluded from every total.
Inventory quality is the user’s responsibility. The tool reconciles framework rules; it does not validate the completeness or primary-data quality of the inventory you enter.
Once you have chosen a framework, build the conformant study — or go deeper on the two rules that drive most of the divergence.