Product carbon footprint (ISO 14067) or avoided emissions: which question does each one answer?

Short answer. A product carbon footprint answers "how much does this product emit over its life?" It is an absolute number, built under ISO 14067. Avoided emissions answer "how much less is emitted because this product replaced something else?" It is a difference against a counterfactual. A fund asking about climate impact needs the second. A customer asking a supplier for its footprint needs the first.

Side by side

	Product carbon footprint	Avoided emissions
Question	How much does this product emit?	How much less is emitted because of it?
Result	An absolute amount, CO2e per functional unit	A difference: incumbent minus solution, per functional unit, times volumes
Counterfactual	None	Required: the incumbent the solution displaces
Main reference	ISO 14067	Project Frame (forward-looking), WBCSD Guidance on Avoided Emissions (sold products)
Time	The product's life cycle, counted as if at the start (ISO 14067 6.4.8)	Each year of each unit's service life, for every year's units
Typical reader	A customer, a tender, a product label	An investor, an LP, a grant evaluator

What the standards say

ISO 14067 defines the carbon footprint of a product as the sum of greenhouse gas emissions and removals in a product system, in CO2 equivalents, based on a life cycle assessment limited to climate change (3.1.1.1). It is expressed per functional unit; a partial footprint, covering selected processes, uses a declared unit (3.1.1.2). Offsetting is not allowed in the result (3.1.1.7), and communicating a footprint is outside the standard's scope (Clause 1); ISO 14026 covers it. The standard has no counterfactual. Footprints of different products can be compared only under the conditions of Annex B (normative): identical functional unit, full life cycle, equivalent boundaries and data rules. Annex A (informative) adds that a footprint covers one impact category and should not be the sole basis of a decision. If a critical review is done, it follows ISO/TS 14071 (Clause 8).

Project Frame defines impact as the comparison with an incumbent, "distinct from GHG footprinting, which typically assesses absolute amounts of past GHGs" (Guidelines 2024, Section 1, p. 6). As a company matures, expectations rise towards detailed life cycle assessments that quantify GHGs on an absolute basis across all company operations, which "go well beyond Frame's methodology" (Section 3, p. 26). For realised impact, net unit impact "should begin overlapping more with traditional GHG footprinting, while still focusing on the comparison between the solution and incumbent" (Section 3, p. 27).

The WBCSD Guidance on Avoided Emissions (v2.0) defines avoided emissions as the estimated difference in full life cycle emissions between a scenario with the solution and a reference scenario without it, kept separate from the company's inventory with no netting. Both sides are assessed cradle to grave, on the same functional unit (Step 3).

The ILCD Handbook adds a caution that applies to both: a climate-only study is a scope limitation to be highlighted and justified (§6.7.3, p. 111), and a comparison based on a carbon footprint shall say that it cannot identify the environmentally preferable option, unless it shows that other impacts would not change the conclusion (Provision 6.10 VII, p. 146).

How the two connect

Avoided emissions are built from two footprints: the incumbent's and the solution's, per functional unit, on the same rules. Then come the parts a footprint does not have: the counterfactual, the change over time, and the volumes. A good footprint of the solution is therefore an input to a good avoided-emissions number, never a substitute for it.

How Carbbin does it

• A Carbbin case is an avoided-emissions assessment, a Carbon Performance Potential (CPP). It is not a product carbon footprint study, not an EPD and not a certification, and it does not claim conformance with ISO 14067.
• Carbbin models the life cycle of the solution and of each incumbent on the same functional unit and over the full life cycle, the conditions ISO 14067 sets for any comparison (6.3.3 and Annex B).
• Carbbin never nets the result against the company's footprint, and never presents it as a negative footprint.
• The same case is useful to the founder. It gives a sourced avoided-emissions figure for a grant application, a customer's climate questions or the next round's data room. Where a customer or a tender asks for a product carbon footprint under ISO 14067, or an EPD, that is a different study with its own rules, and a CPP does not replace it.
• Need a different environmental assessment, such as a product carbon footprint, a full environmental footprint or a complete life cycle assessment? We are open to building it with you as a design partner.

Common mistakes

• Calling avoided emissions a "negative footprint" or subtracting them from a company's inventory.
• Presenting the solution's footprint as its impact. A low footprint says nothing about what it replaces.
• Comparing two footprints built on different rules, boundaries or data years, and calling the gap avoided emissions (ISO 14067 Annex B).
• Claiming ISO 14067 conformance for an avoided-emissions number. The standard has no counterfactual.
• Answering a customer's footprint request with an avoided-emissions figure, or the reverse.
• Carbon-neutral claims built on avoided emissions. Avoided emissions do not compensate a footprint.

Sources

• ISO 14067:2018. Greenhouse gases: Carbon footprint of products. Requirements and guidelines for quantification. Clauses 1, 3.1.1.1, 3.1.1.2, 3.1.1.7, 6.3.3, 6.4.8, 8, Annex A and Annex B.
• Project Frame. Project Frame Methodology: Evaluating Greenhouse Gas Impact for Early-Stage Investments. December 2024. https://projectframe.how/s/2024-Project-Frame-Methodology.pdf
• WBCSD. Guidance on Avoided Emissions, version 2.0. 2025.
• European Commission, JRC. ILCD Handbook: General guide for Life Cycle Assessment, Detailed guidance. First edition, March 2010. §6.7.3 and Provision 6.10 VII.