Climate Leadership Coalition (CLC) has played a key role in developing carbon handprint methodologies for products, companies, cities, and regions. In a recent study, the Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE) updates its assessment of the carbon handprint of Finland’s exports and compares two approaches: an environmentally extended input–output model and process-based, product-level life cycle assessments.
The carbon handprint calculation method developed in Finland was originally designed to assess the positive climate impacts of products. Carbon handprint refers to a situation where a solution creates positive climate impact by helping to reduce another actor’s carbon footprint. Companies have applied the method developed by LUT University and VTT to calculate carbon handprints at the company level, based on the principles presented in the Carbon Handprint Guide. LUT University later extended the approach to defining carbon handprints for cities and regions.
On 13 April, the Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE) published a new study presenting the results of its assessment of the carbon handprint of Finland’s exports.
SYKE approached the carbon handprint of Finland’s exports using two different methods. In the first phase, the carbon handprint of Finland’s exports was determined using an environmentally extended input–output model for the years 2019 and 2022. In the second phase, product-specific carbon handprints were assessed based on six export product case examples.
Carbon handprint calculated using an input–output model
To calculate the carbon handprint of exports, SYKE utilized its own environmentally extended input-output models, ENVIMAT and EXIOBASE. The carbon handprint calculated using this method describes the potential impact of export products on global greenhouse gas emissions compared to a scenario where Finnish products are not available on international markets. The calculation is based on a counterfactual assessment that evaluates what products would have been used if Finnish exports had been absent on the markets. The assessment covered 56 product groups and 48 market areas.
The carbon handprint is defined as the difference between two carbon footprints: the life cycle emissions of substitute products minus the life cycle emissions of Finnish exports. Substitute products are assumed to represent the same product group as the Finnish export products. The assessment does not include substitution between different product groups serving the same function, nor does it consider situations in which no substitute product for Finnish exports can be found on other markets.
In 2019, the total value of Finland’s exports was approximately EUR 87.9 billion. Based on market-area-specific calculations, the carbon handprint of exports was 21.7 Mt CO₂e. In an alternative assessment, where Finnish exports were compared with products representing the global average, the carbon handprint was higher, amounting to a total of 34.9 Mt CO₂e.
In 2022, the value of Finland’s exports was EUR 93.7 billion when calculated at 2019 price levels and EUR 116.8 billion at current prices. Based on market-area-specific calculations, the carbon handprint was 22.3 Mt CO₂e, while the alternative assessment resulted in a carbon handprint of 32.3 Mt CO₂e.
The most significant product groups contributing to the carbon handprint came from the chemical industry, forest industry, metal industry, and electronics industry. In terms of market areas, the most significant carbon handprint impacts occurred in China.
Product-specific carbon handprint estimates for exports
For comparison, SYKE examined the carbon handprint of exports of products from six selected companies in the chemical and technology industries in 2022. The companies included Outokumpu, SSAB, Mäkelä Alu, Terrafame, Yara, and an automation company.
The carbon handprint of exported products was calculated using process-based life cycle assessment (LCA) by comparing the carbon footprint of the assessed product with that of a baseline product. The resulting difference was then multiplied by the export volume of each product to estimate its total carbon handprint. The assessment was mainly based on climate change indicators presented in the products’ Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs), taking into account life cycle stages A1–A3 (cradle-to-gate). Climate impact data for corresponding products from the ecoinvent database (version 3.12) were used as the baseline.
The magnitude of the carbon handprints of different companies is therefore influenced by the size of the company and the volume of exports, as well as by how much the carbon footprint of the assessed product differs from that of the baseline product.
Perspectives on different calculation methods
According to SYKE, the method based on environmentally extended input–output analysis is well suited for assessing the overall impacts of exports as it is based on comprehensive economy-wide statistical data and enables comparisons between different countries and years. The method produces transparent and comparable estimates of life cycle emissions across different product groups, making it particularly suitable for assessing large-scale systems such as national economies.
However, results based on input–output analysis are sensitive to the emission factor choices used, and the sector-based approach may lead to situations where production structures in different countries are not fully functionally comparable. The method also does not account for substitution between different product groups or for potential emission reduction benefits arising from the use of export products. In addition, the carbon handprint represents a potential, rather than realized, emission reduction, as it is not possible to know how exports would actually have been replaced in reality.
The case examples based on product-specific calculations show that product-level carbon handprints and corresponding company-level assessments can, in principle, be prepared for functionally comparable products by using EPD data, company LCA summaries, and LCA databases. In practice, however, the accuracy of the assessments varied significantly, as the results depended strongly on the level of detail in the input data and the success of the baseline selection. In addition, the products examined did not in all cases represent production taking place specifically in Finland, but partly reflected European or group-level operations. This highlights that reliable and detailed assessment of the carbon handprint of export products requires more precise, product-specific, and country-specific input data than is currently available.
Industry-level carbon handprint assessments would require comprehensive company-level and product-level analysis covering the entire industry, or at least a significant share of it. Reliable conclusions about the carbon handprint of an entire industrial sector cannot be drawn on the basis of a single company or product, particularly in sectors where several major companies operate.
Overall, the different methods complement each other, but reliable and comparable assessment of the carbon handprint requires further development of both the methods and the available input data. Particular attention should be paid to the selection of appropriate baseline products and to better defining substitution effects. If more comprehensive product-specific life cycle data were available, the carbon handprint of total exports could be calculated using a so called hybrid LCA approach by combining product-level data with environmentally extended input–output analysis.
For Nordic companies, calculating and communicating positive climate impacts has become an increasingly important tool alongside the implementation and monitoring of their own emission reductions. Carbon handprints complement traditional footprint metrics by helping companies demonstrate how their solutions contribute to wider climate benefits beyond their own value chains.
