1. sports
2. skating
3. figure skating

CORPORATE GHG INVENTORY & PRODUCT LIFE CYCLE CARBON
FOOTPRINT ANALYSIS PROJECT REPORT – GITS FOOD
Authors:
cBalance Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
February 2015
Corporate GHG Inventory and Product Life Cycle Carbon Footprint Project Report- Gits Food
Contents
1.
INTRODUCTION
1
2.
PROJECT OBJECTIVE
1
3.
PROJECT SCOPE
2
3.1
4.
5.
Scope Definition .............................................................................................. 2
3.1.1
Corporate GHG Inventory ........................................................................ 2
3.1.2
Product Carbon Footprint ........................................................................ 9
RESEARCH & ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
4.1
Site Visit and Data Collection ........................................................................ 11
4.2
Data Quality Assessment............................................................................... 12
4.3
Allocation....................................................................................................... 12
4.4
Calculation of GHG Inventory........................................................................ 12
4.4.1
Scope 1 emissions .................................................................................. 12
4.4.2
Scope 2 Emissions .................................................................................. 14
4.4.3
Scope 3 Emissions .................................................................................. 14
RESULTS AND ANALYSIS OF LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT
Results and analysis of Gulab Jamun ............................................................ 21
5.1
Overall Scope wise Emissions ........................................................................ 21
5.2
Scope 1 Activity Emissions ............................................................................ 22
5.3
Scope 2 Activity Emissions ............................................................................ 23
5.4
Scope 3 Activity Emissions ............................................................................ 23
5.5
GHG Emissions by LCA stage ......................................................................... 25
5.6
Comparison – 2012-13 and 2013-14 ............................................................. 26
Overall LCA Stage-wise Emissions in % .................................................. 26
RESULTS AND ANALYSIS OF ‘KHAMAN DHOKLA’
27
6.1
Overall scope-wise Emissions........................................................................ 27
6.2
Scope 1 Emissions Inventory ......................................................................... 28
6.3
Scope 2 Emissions Inventory ......................................................................... 29
6.4
Scope 3 Emissions Inventory ......................................................................... 29
6.5
LCA Stage-wise GHG Emissions ..................................................................... 30
6.6
Comparison – 2012-13 and 2013-14 ............................................................. 31
6.6.1
7.
21
5.1
5.6.1
6.
11
Overall LCA Stage-wise Emissions in % .................................................. 31
RESULTS AND ANALYSIS OF ‘RICE IDLI’
Corporate GHG Inventory and Product Life Cycle Carbon Footprint Project Report- Gits Food
32
7.1
Overall Scope-wise Emissions ....................................................................... 32
7.2
Scope 1 Emissions Inventory ......................................................................... 33
7.3
Scope 2 Emissions Inventory ......................................................................... 34
7.4
Scope 3 Emissions Inventory 2012-13........................................................... 34
7.5
LCA Stage wise Emissions .............................................................................. 35
7.6
Comparisons – 2012-13 and 2013-14 ........................................................... 36
7.6.1
8.
RESULTS AND ANALYSIS OF ‘DOSAI’
38
8.1
Overall Scope wise Emissions 2012-13 ......................................................... 38
8.2
Scope 1 Activity Emissions Inventory ............................................................ 39
8.3
Scope 2 Emissions Inventory ......................................................................... 40
8.4
Scope 3 Emissions Inventory ......................................................................... 40
8.5
LCA Stage wise Emissions .............................................................................. 41
8.6
Comparisons – 2012-13 and 2013-14 ........................................................... 43
8.6.1
9.
Overall LCA Stage-wise Emissions in % .................................................. 37
Overall LCA Stage-wise GHG Emissions in %.......................................... 43
HOTSPOT ANALYSIS
44
9.1
Gulab Jamun .................................................................................................. 44
9.2
Khaman Dhokla ............................................................................................. 46
9.3
Idli .................................................................................................................. 48
9.4
Dosai .............................................................................................................. 49
9.5
Product by product hotspot analysis of major life cycle stages.................... 50
10. CONCLUSION
53
11. RECOMMENDATIONS
56
11.1
Agriculture and raw materials input.......................................................... 56
11.1.1
Raw materials: food and agricultural practices ..................................... 56
11.1.2
Raw materials: packaging ...................................................................... 57
11.2
Energy: renewables, energy efficiency, alternative energy ...................... 57
11.2.1
Heating, Ventilation and Air-conditioning (HVAC) Systems related ...... 67
11.2.2
Renewable Energy Technologies (supply side alternatives) .................. 57
11.2.3
Passive energy related interventions..................................................... 69
11.2.4
Lighting related ...................................................................................... 72
11.2.5
Water Heating ........................................................................................ 73
11.3
Water: conservation, usage efficiency, recycling ...................................... 73
11.4
Waste: reduction and management.......................................................... 75
Corporate GHG Inventory and Product Life Cycle Carbon Footprint Project Report- Gits Food
11.5
Mobility: efficiency, alternate modes of transport ................................... 58
11.5.1
Fuel additives for diesel and petrol vehicles ......................................... 58
11.5.2
Use of vehicles with alternate fuel ........................................................ 58
11.5.3
Switching to sustainable marine transport companies ......................... 58
11.5.4
Modification for auto-engine to increase mileage ................................ 59
11.5.5
Consideration of alternative shipping routes ........................................ 59
11.5.6
Promoting the use of bicycles ................................................................ 59
11.6
Consumer awareness and associated reduction of carbon emissions
potential ................................................................................................................... 60
11.7
Consumable Materials: reduced embodied energy and carbon, reduced
downstream impacts ............................................................................................... 76
12. LOW CARBON SCENARIO MODELLING
Corporate GHG Inventory and Product Life Cycle Carbon Footprint Project Report- Gits Food
62
Table of Figures
Figure 1 Activity Differentiation according to Scope 1, Scope 2 & Scope 3 GHG
Emissions ........................................................................................................................ 7
Figure 2: Research Methodology for Product Life Cycle GHG Emission Accounting &
Reporting...................................................................................................................... 11
Figure 3: Steps for Data Collection and Verification .................................................... 12
Figure 4: Gulab Jamun: scope-wise emissions 2012-2013 .......................................... 21
Figure 5: Gulab Jamun: scope-wise emissions 2013-2014 .......................................... 22
Figure 6: Gulab Jamun: Scope 1 emissions 2012-2013 ................................................ 22
Figure 7: Gulab Jamun: Scope 1 emissions 2012-2013 ................................................ 23
Figure 8: Gulab Jamun: Scope 3 emissions 2012-2013 ................................................ 24
Figure 9: Gulab Jamun: Scope 3 emissions 2013-2014 ................................................ 25
Figure 10: Gulab Jamun: LCA stage wise emissions 2012-2013 .................................. 25
Figure 11: Gulab Jamun: LCA stage wise emissions 2013-2014 .................................. 26
Figure 12: Gulab Jamun: LCA emissions % 2013-2013 ................................................ 26
Figure 13: Gulab Jamun: LCA emissions % 2013-2014 ................................................ 27
Figure 14: Khaman Dhokla: Overall scope-wise emissions 2012-2013 ....................... 27
Figure 15: Khaman Dhokla: Overall scope-wise emissions 2013-2014 ....................... 28
Figure 16: Khaman Dhokla Scope 1 emissions 2012-2013 .......................................... 28
Figure 17: Khaman Dhokla: Scope 1 emissions 2013-2014 ......................................... 29
Figure 18: Khaman Dhokla: Scope 3 emissions 2012-2013 ......................................... 29
Figure 19: Khaman Dhokla: Scope 3 emissions 2013-2014 ......................................... 30
Figure 20: Khaman Dhokla: LCA stage-wise emissions 2012-2013.............................. 30
Figure 21: Khaman Dhokla: LCA stage-wise emissions 2013-2014.............................. 31
Figure 22: Khaman Dhokla: LCA emissions in % 2012-2013 ........................................ 31
Figure 23: Khaman Dhokla: LCA emissions in % 2013-2014 ........................................ 32
Figure 24: Idli: Overall scope-wise emissions 2012-2013 ............................................ 32
Figure 25: Idli: Overall scope-wise emissions 2013-2014 ............................................ 33
Figure 26: Idli: Scope 1 emissions 2012-2013 .............................................................. 33
Figure 27: Idli: Scope 1 emissions 2013-2014 .............................................................. 34
Figure 28: Idli: Scope 3 emissions 2012-2013 .............................................................. 35
Figure 29: Idli: Scope 3 emissions 2013-2014 .............................................................. 35
Figure 30: Idli: LCA stage-wise emissions 2012-2013 .................................................. 36
Figure 31: LCA stage-wise emissions 2013-2014 ......................................................... 36
Figure 32: Idli: LCA emissions in % 2012-2013............................................................. 37
Figure 33: Idli: LCA emissions in % 2013-2014............................................................. 38
Figure 34: Dosai: Overall scope-wise emissions 2012-2013 ........................................ 38
Figure 35: Dosai: Overall scope-wise emissions 2012-2013 ........................................ 39
Figure 36: Scope 1 emissions 2012-2013 ..................................................................... 39
Figure 37: Dosai: Scope 1 emissions 2013-2014 .......................................................... 40
Figure 38: Dosai: Scope 3 emissions 2012-2013 .......................................................... 41
Figure 39: Dosai: Scope 3 emissions 2013-2014 .......................................................... 41
Figure 40: Dosai: LCA stage-wise emissions 2012-2013 .............................................. 42
Figure 41: Dosai: LCA stage-wise emissions 2013-2014 .............................................. 42
Figure 42: Dosai: LCA emissions in % 2012-2013......................................................... 43
Figure 43: Dosai: LCA emissions % 2013-2014 ............................................................ 43
Figure 44: Summary of GHG emissions per kg of product........................................... 50
Corporate GHG Inventory and Product Life Cycle Carbon Footprint Project Report- Gits Food
Figure 45: Gulab Jamun: Hotspot analysis % contribution of life cycle emissions to 1
kg of product ................................................................................................................ 51
Figure 46: Khaman Dhokla: Hotspot analysis % contribution of life cycle emissions to
1 kg of product ............................................................................................................. 51
Figure 47: Idli : Hotspot analysis % contribution of life cycle emissions to 1 kg of
product ......................................................................................................................... 52
Figure 48: Dosai: Hotspot analysis % contribution of life cycle emissions to 1 kg of
product ......................................................................................................................... 52
Figure 49: Emissions reductions through use of recycled carton ................................ 65
Figure 50: Emissions reductions through use of renewable energy ........................... 65
Figure 51: Emissions reduction through more efficient cooking and packaging
disposal ........................................................................................................................ 66
List of Tables
Table 1 GHG Inventory Organizational Boundary Definition......................................... 5
Table 2: GHG Inventory Operational Boundary Definition ............................................ 8
Table 3: Gulab Jamun: Hotspot analysis summary ...................................................... 44
Table 4: Khaman Dhokla: Hotspot analysis summary ................................................. 46
Table 5: Idli: Hotspot analysis summary ...................................................................... 48
Table 6: Dosai: Hotspot analysis summary .................................................................. 49
Table 7: Total emissions by product, year and life cycle stage.................................... 54
Table 8: Low carbon alternative interventions ............................................................ 63
Corporate GHG Inventory and Product Life Cycle Carbon Footprint Project Report- Gits Food
Acknowledgements
This Life Cycle Carbon Footprinting Project has been executed through the efforts,
domain expertise and strategic as well as technical mentorship and guidance
provided by the following individuals from Best Food Forward, cBalance and the
Reporting Entity (Gits Food) who worked seamlessly, enthusiastically, and
competently together as the Project team to deliver a high quality of research,
analysis and reporting to ‘Gits Food’.
Corporate GHG Inventory and Product Life Cycle Carbon Footprint Project Report- Gits Food
Executive Summary
The carbon Life Cycle Assessment was undertaken during 2014 by cBalance Pvt Ltd
for Gits Food Products Pvt Ltd in order to ascertain the carbon footprint of its
products and to map out next steps in reducing its organisational footprint.
The four products- Gulab Jamun, Khaman Dhokla, Idli and Dosai- were selected from
the “Ready to Cook” and “Ready to Eat” range, as the most representative in terms
of the sample, since they represent the highest proportion of the firm’s revenue
(insert figures on the 4 products as a % of total revenue) and their ingredients impact
highly in terms of carbon emissions.
The project activities included collection, collation, documentation, verification and
analysis of all data related to activities contributing to the life-cycle carbon footprint
of the aforementioned food products.
The overarching goals of the assessment were to:
- Estimate organizational GHG Inventory of the four products;
- Assess product Carbon Footprint of the four products in accordance with GHG
Protocol’s Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard (referred to as the
Corporate Standard).
GHG Protocol’s Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting Standard (referred to as
the Product Standard).
Findings
Recommendations
Next steps
Corporate GHG Inventory and Product Life Cycle Carbon Footprint Project Report- Gits Food
1. Introduction
This project report has been prepared by cBalance Solutions Private Limited with the
technical guidance from Best Food Forward, United Kingdom based organization.
‘Gits Food’ is established in 1963 and has pioneered the convenience packaged food
segment in India. ‘Gits Food’ is amongst the first Food Product manufacturing
companies in India to obtain ISO 9001 – 2008 (Quality Standard) ISO 22000 (Food
safety). ‘Gits Corporate Office’ is situated in Mumbai whereas the plant is in Pune.
‘Gits Food’ has already differentiated on quality and local credentials and is now
considering differentiating on sustainability - starting with the efficiency of their own
operations. ‘Gulab Jamun’, ‘Khaman Dhokla’, ‘Idly’& ‘Dosai’ are the major products
for ‘Gits Food’. These 4 products account to nearly 74% of the total production in
local market whereas around 49% in foreign countries.
This report seeks to quantify and provide a comprehensive overview of the carbon
footprint of food products during their life phases (cradle to gate). This will facilitate
the understanding of environmental impacts of a product at every stage of its life.
This study will also help establishing the environmental benchmarks for the food
specific studies in future.
2. Project Objective
‘Gits Food’ has selected the four food products for this study. Selection has been
made based on scale of strategic importance of the products (sales volume as
aforementioned) and GHG intensity (high level rice composition).
1.
2.
3.
4.
Gulab Jamun
Khaman Dhokla
Idly
Dosai
The project activities included collection, collation, documentation, verification and
analysis all data related to activities contributing to the life-cycle carbon footprint of
selected food products. The overarching goals of the Project were to:



Establish baseline partial Product Life Cycle Carbon Footprint (cradle-to-gate)
for a chosen product categories from the entire product portfolio
Establish a cradle-to-grave carbon hotspot profile for selected product
categories
Determine Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) related to sustainability
performance of the company with respect to energy, water, waste and supply
and distributed network.
Corporate GHG Inventory Product Life Cycle Carbon Footprint Project Report- Gits Food
1
3. Project Scope
‘Gulab Jamun’, ‘Khaman Dhokla’, ‘Idly’& ‘Dosai’ are the major products for Gits Food.
Gits Corporate Office is based in Mumbai, with the manufacturing plant being based
in Pune. Both locations have been included in the scope of the project.
3.1 Scope Definition
3.1.1 Corporate GHG Inventory
This GHG Protocol’s Corporate Standard provides standards and guidance for
companies and other types of organizations preparing a GHG emissions inventory. It
covers the accounting and reporting of the six greenhouse gases covered by the
Kyoto Protocol—Carbon Dioxide (CO2), Methane (CH4), Nitrous Oxide (N2O),
Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), Perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and Sulphur Hexafluoride (SF6).
While this standard has been followed almost entirely for this project, the aspect of
‘materiality threshold’ as defined by the concept of ‘key categories’ has been
incorporated from the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories. This is discussed as part of the ‘Completeness’ attributes of the GHG
Inventory and described later in the report.
The standard requires adherence to the key principles of Relevance, Completeness,
Consistency, Transparency, and Accuracy. These principles and measures taken to
adhere to them in the execution of this project are discussed below.
RELEVANCE: It must be ensured that the GHG inventory appropriately reflects the
GHG emissions of the company and serves the decision-making needs of users –
both internal and external to the company. Relevance can be ensured by appropriate
and thoughtful selection of Operational and Organizational Boundary (described
later). The selection of an appropriate inventory boundary that reflects the
substance and economic reality of the company’s business activities, processes and
relationships, not merely its legal form, is pivotal to this process and has been
addressed in compiling the GHG inventory for the ‘Gits Food’ Project.
COMPLETENESS: The GHG inventory must account for and report on all GHG
emission sources (i.e. Scopes) and activities (i.e. within each Scope) within the
chosen inventory boundary and any specific exclusions must by disclosed and
justified. Exclusions of activities from the Inventorying process may be the outcome
of limiting constraints such as a lack of primary data, high uncertainty level of
available secondary data, or the cost of gathering data. Theoretically a materiality
threshold (a minimum emissions accounting threshold), stating that a source not
exceeding a certain size can be omitted from the inventory, can be implemented to
address unquantifiable emission sources. However, the practical implementation of
such a threshold is not compatible with the completeness principle of the GHG
Protocol Corporate Standard. Instead, companies must transparently document and
justify cases where emissions have not been estimated, or estimated at an
insufficient level of quality.
Corporate GHG Inventory Product Life Cycle Carbon Footprint Project Report- Gits Food
2
For the Gits Food Products GHG Inventory project, the concept of ‘key categories’
has been adopted from the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories for implementability reasons. ‘Key categories’ are identified using a predetermined cumulative emissions threshold. ‘Key categories’ are those that, when
summed together in descending order of magnitude, add up to 95 percent of the
total level. The pre-determined threshold has been determined based on an
evaluation of several inventories, and is aimed at establishing a general level where
90% of inventory uncertainty will be covered by key categories1.
The Operational Boundary for the Gits Food project’s Corporate Inventory
component is defined later with relevant rationale related to the inclusion of
activities presented alongside. Moreover, any exclusions stemming from data
constraints or other systemic reasons are listed and discussed in the Appendix.
CONSISTENCY: The process of inventorying must use consistent methodologies
across time boundaries to allow for meaningful comparisons of emissions over time.
To enable this, a GHG inventory report must transparently document any changes to
the data, inventory boundary, methods, or any other relevant factors in the time
series. Thus, the inventorying process might require the base year emissions to be
recalculated as companies undergo significant structural changes such as
acquisitions, divestments, and mergers. Since the Corporate Footprint produced as
an outcome of this exercise will serve as the Baseline Year GHG Inventory for the
Gits Food, the need to recalculate any previous year emissions is moot. However,
future inventories will need to address any recalculation efforts explicitly.
TRANSPARENCY: All relevant issues must be addressed by the Inventory process in a
factual and coherent manner, based on a clear audit trail. The reported activity must
disclose any relevant assumptions and make appropriate references to the
accounting and calculation methodologies and data sources used. The standard
requires information to be recorded, compiled, and analyzed in a way that enables
internal reviewers and external verifiers to attest to its credibility and enable a third
party to derive the same results if provided with the same source data. The project
report addresses transparency related requirements by providing a comprehensive
listing of all assumptions, simplifications, emission factor sources, and technical
references in Appendix. along with relevant equations and mathematical and
scientific relationships used data processing and analysis required for calculating
GHG emissions.
ACCURACY: The Corporate Standard requires that the quantification of GHG
emissions is systematically neither over nor under actual emissions, and that
uncertainties are reduced as far as possible. The process must be designed to
achieve sufficient accuracy to ensure integrity of the reported information and
enable users to determine its reliability with reasonable assurance. This project
1
2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Chapter 4: Methodological Choice
and Identification of Key Categories
Corporate GHG Inventory Product Life Cycle Carbon Footprint Project Report- Gits Food
3
effort incorporated extensive efforts to ensure accuracy of the activity data
obtained, collated and transmitted by the reporting entity through:
a) administering rigorously designed data collection questionnaires,
b) providing guidance to the entity with respect to best-practices to be followed for
ensuring high data quality
c) establishing the preferred units for data collection and suggesting acceptable
surrogate units for activity data collection if data was not available in the ideally
preferred form
d) establishing a priority list of emission source activities for which primary data was
imperative and activities for which secondary data would be acceptable
The GHG Inventory process’s accuracy is also augmented by use of well documented
Tier 2 and Tier 3 GHG Emission Factors wherever possible and use of Tier 1 default
emissions factors as the least preferred option2. The emission factors used and their
sources are presented in Appendix.
The Corporate GHG Inventory accounts for three major Greenhouse Gases: Carbon
dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), Nitrous oxide (N2O). Emissions of these gases have
been accounted for activities classified as part of Scope 1, Scope 2, and relevant
significant Scope 3 emission sources. Emission sources leading to generation of the
other 3 Kyoto Protocol Gasses, namely HFCs, PFCs, and SF6, were not considered as
‘key categories’ (or below the materiality threshold as defined earlier as part of the
‘Completeness’ attributes of the project) by project’s technical advisory team.
Implementation of the Corporate Standard for GHG Inventorying requires definition
of an Organizational and Operational Boundary.
3.1.1.1 Organizational Boundary Definition
For corporate reporting, two distinct approaches can be used to consolidate GHG
emissions: the equity share and the control approach.
Equity share approach: Under the equity share approach, a company accounts for GHG
emissions from operations according to its share of equity in the operation. The equity share
reflects economic interest, which is the extent of rights a company has to the risks and
rewards flowing from an operation.
Control approach: Under the control approach, a company accounts for 100 percent of the
GHG emissions from operations over which it has control. It does not account for GHG
emissions from operations in which it owns an interest but has no control. Control can be
2 defined in either financial or operational terms. When using the control approach to
The 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (Chapter 1: Introduction to the
consolidate GHG emissions, companies shall choose between either the operational control
2006 Guidelines) defines Emission Factor ‘Tiers’. A ‘Tier’ represents a level of methodological
or financial control criteria.
complexity. Usually three tiers are provided. Tier 1 is the basic method, Tier 2 intermediate and Tier 3
most
demanding
in terms
ofProtocol,
complexity
and data
requirements.
Tiers 2Standard
and 3 are sometimes referred
Source:
The Greenhouse
Gas
A Corporate
Accounting
and Reporting
to as higher tier methods and are generally considered to be more accurate. Tier 1 methods for all
categories are designed to use readily available national or international statistics in combination with
the provided default emission factors and additional parameters that are provided, and therefore
should be feasible for all countries.
Corporate GHG Inventory Product Life Cycle Carbon Footprint Project Report- Gits Food
4
The criterion for setting the Organizational Boundary for this Inventory is the
Operational Control. The Standard stipulates that a company has operational
control over an operation if the company or one of its subsidiaries has the full
authority to introduce and implement its operating policies in the operations.
According to this interpretation of operational control and based on discussions with
the Reporting Entity’s Management personnel, contractual activities at the
production facility are entirely within the operational control of the Reporting Entity
and hence 100% of the emissions from the activities are reported in this Inventory
and are considered as emissions over which the Reporting Entity has 100% control.
As an outcome of this approach selection, the operations and emissions-generating
activities of the following Stakeholders / Operational Entities were considered to be
within the GHG Inventory Boundary.
Table 1 GHG Inventory Organizational Boundary Definition
Life Cycle Stage
Major GHG
Emission
Sources
Organizational
Boundary
Storage
Logistic to upstream
suppliers
Direct &
Indirect
Energy Use,
Water,
Fertilizer,
Pesticides,
Chemicals,
Land Use
Direct
Energy Use
Indirect
Energy Use
Direct
Energy Use
Within
Boundary
Within
Boundary
Within
Boundary
Within
Boundary
Material Production
Direct &
Indirect
Energy Use
Within
Boundary
Scope 3
Extraction
Fugitive
Emissions
Within
Boundary
Scope 3
Production
Fugitive
Emissions
Within
Boundary
Scope 3
Fugitive
Emissions
Direct
Energy Use
Direct
Energy Use
Within
Boundary
Within
Boundary
Within
Boundary
Activities
Operational
Boundary
Purchased of Goods & Services
Cultivation
Material Procurement
Energy (Fuel & Electricity)
Procurement
Logistics to warehouse
Transportation &
Distribution
Tier 1 Suppliers, Third Party
Inbound & Outbound Logistics
Air Travel
Road Travel
Corporate GHG Inventory Product Life Cycle Carbon Footprint Project Report- Gits Food
Scope 3
Scope 3
Scope 3
Scope 3
Scope 3
Scope 3
Scope 3
5
Storage in Warehouses
Direct
Energy Use
Direct
Energy Use
Indirect
Energy Use
Within
Boundary
Within
Boundary
Within
Boundary
Waste Generation by third Party
Landfilling/Composting
Non Energy
Within
Boundary
Scope 3
Waste Transportation
Mobility
Within
Boundary
Scope 3
Waste water Treatment
Waste water Treatment
Direct
Energy Use
Direct &
Indirect
Energy Use
Within
Boundary
Scope 3
Direct
Energy Use
Direct
Energy Use
Direct
Energy Use
Direct
Energy Use
Direct
Energy Use
Direct &
Indirect
Energy Use
Direct
Energy Use
Direct
Energy Use
Direct
Energy Use
Direct
Energy Use
Direct
Energy Use
Within
Boundary
Within
Boundary
Within
Boundary
Within
Boundary
Within
Boundary
Indirect
Energy Use
Within
Boundary
Direct &
Indirect Use
Direct
Energy Use
Direct
Energy Use
Direct
Energy Use
Direct
Energy Use
Indirect
Energy Use
Within
Boundary
Within
Boundary
Within
Boundary
Within
Boundary
Within
Boundary
Within
Boundary
Rail Travel
Marine Travel
Air Travel
Rail Travel
Business Travel
Bus Travel
Automobile Travel
Other Medium
Accommodation in
Hotels
Air Travel
Rail Travel
Bus Travel
Employee Travel
Automobile Travel
Other Medium
Emission due to
employees working
from remote locations
Leased Assets
Routine Operations
Air Travel
Road Travel
Downstream Transportation &
Distribution
Rail Travel
Marine Travel
Storage in Warehouses
Within
Boundary
Within
Boundary
Within
Boundary
Within
Boundary
Within
Boundary
Within
Boundary
Corporate GHG Inventory Product Life Cycle Carbon Footprint Project Report- Gits Food
Scope 3
Scope 3
Scope 3
Scope 3
Scope 3
Scope 3
Scope 3
Scope 3
Scope 3
Scope 3
Scope 3
Scope 3
Scope 3
Scope 3
Scope 3
Scope 3
Scope 3
Scope 3
Scope 3
Scope 3
6
Downstream Transportation &
Distribution
Disposal
Cooking
Direct
Energy Use
Waste Generation
Non Energy
Within
Boundary
Within
Boundary
Scope 3
Scope 3
3.1.1.2 Operational Boundary Definition
Subsequent to organizational boundaries definition in terms of the operations that it
owns or controls, The Corporate Value Chain Standard requires specifying of
operational boundaries which entails identifying emissions associated with its
operations, categorizing them as direct and indirect emissions, and choosing the
scope of accounting and reporting for indirect emissions.
Direct GHG emissions are emissions from sources that are owned or controlled by the
company.
Indirect GHG emissions are emissions that are a consequence of the activities of the
company but occur at sources owned or controlled by another company.
Furthermore, to improve transparency, and provide utility for different types of organizations
three “scopes” (scope 1, scope 2, & scope 3) are defined for GHG accounting & reporting
Scope 1: These are direct GHG emissions from sources that are owned or controlled by the
company. For example, emissions from combustion in owned or controlled facilities and
vehicles.
Scope 2: These are indirect GHG emissions occurring as a consequence of GHG emissions
from the generation of purchased electricity by the company.
Scope 3: These comprise other indirect emissions except those accounted for as Scope 2
emissions. They are a consequence of the activities of the company, but occur from sources
not owned or controlled by the company and are an optional reporting category. Examples
include embodied carbon emissions from manufacturing of materials used by a company,
third party deliveries, business travel activities and use of sold products and services.
Source: The Greenhouse Gas Protocol, A Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard
The general framework for Operational Boundary setting is depicted below.
Figure 1 Activity Differentiation according to Scope 1, Scope 2 & Scope 3 GHG Emissions
Corporate GHG Inventory Product Life Cycle Carbon Footprint Project Report- Gits Food
7
Source: “Greenhouse Gas Protocol – Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting Standard” – World
Resource Institute
The Operational Boundary for the Corporate GHG Inventory compiled as part of this
Project is defined in the Table below.
Table 2: GHG Inventory Operational Boundary Definition
Emissions Category
Scope 1
Direct Energy Consumption
Scope 2
Indirect Emissions
1
Purchased goods and services
2
Capital Goods
Fuel- and energy-related
activities
Upstream transportation and
distribution
Waste generated in operations
(From Third Party)
Business Travel
Employee Commuting
Upstream leased assets
Downstream transportation and
distribution
Processing of Sold Products
Use of sold products
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Emissions Sub-category
Fuel Combustion & Refrigerants
Captive Power Generation
Purchased Electricity
Purchased Water
Production related Procurement
Non Production related Procurement
Capital goods (Complete LCA)
Upstream Emissions of Purchased Fuels,
Electricity and T & D Losses
Transportation of Purchased Products from
Tier 1 Suppliers & Storage in warehouses
Solid Waste
Wastewater & Waste Transportation
Business Travel & Accommodation
Employee Commuting
Upstream leased assets
Transportation, Storage in Warehouses &
Retail Stores
Processing of Sold Products
Fuel Consumption
Corporate GHG Inventory Product Life Cycle Carbon Footprint Project Report- Gits Food
Within
Operational
Boundary?
Scope
1
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
2
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
3
Yes
Yes
8
12
13
14
15
End-of-life treatment of sold
products
Downstream leased assets
Franchises
Investments
Waste generation
Yes
Downstream leased assets
Franchises
Investments
NA
NA
NA
With regards to the exclusions of contractual arrangements (leased assets and
franchises) as well as investments, these are considered to be irrelevant to the
company as they are either zero or do not represent a significant fraction of the
company’s activities (therefore unlikely to result in significant scope 3 GHG
emissions).
3.1.2 Product Carbon Footprint
The GHG Protocol Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting Standard (referred to
as the Product Standard) provides requirements and guidance for companies and
other organizations to quantify and publicly report an inventory of GHG emissions
and removals associated with a specific product. The primary goal of this standard is
to provide a general framework for companies to make informed choices to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions from the products (goods or services) they design,
manufacture, sell, purchase, or use.
The primary goal of compiling a Product Life Cycle GHG Inventory as part of this
project, to compliment the Corporate GHG Inventory, is to ascertain ‘Carbon
Hotspots’ in the Product Life Cycle to target future efforts at GHG mitigation along
the entire Corporate Value Chain.
The primary difference between the process of compiling Corporate GHG Inventory
and assessing the Product Life Cycle GHG Inventory is the emphasis on
Organizational & Operational Boundaries in the case of the Corporate Standard and
the corresponding emphasis on classifying GHG emissions on the basis of Product
Life Cycle Processes in the case of the Product Standard.
Similar to the Corporate Standard, the Product Standard provides detailed guidance
for the GHG Inventory process.
3.1.2.1 Product GHG Inventory Framework
The Product Standard requires that companies shall account for carbon dioxide
(CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6),
perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) emissions to, and removals
from, the atmosphere. However, as explained in the prior sections related to the
Corporate Inventory Boundary, only carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous
oxide (N2O) are accounted for in this Product Inventory.
Corporate GHG Inventory Product Life Cycle Carbon Footprint Project Report- Gits Food
9
Defining the product, unit of analysis, and reference flow are imperative aspects of
the Product Carbon Footprinting process. The unit of analysis is defined as the
performance characteristics and services delivered by the product being studied. The
reference flow is the amount of product on which the results of the study are based.
The Standard requires that for all final products, companies shall define the unit of
analysis as a functional unit (FU). For this project, since the product is a final product
(i.e. a packet of ready-made meal to be consumed directly), the unit of analysis is
defined as an individual final product (i.e. a kilogram of Idli, Khaman Dhokla, Gulab
Jamun or Dosai produced and sold) and the reference flow is defined to be the mass
of the food material and packaging, required to create that one kilogram of product.
The standard requires inclusion of all attributable processes (i.e Scope 1 & Scope 2
emission sources) within the boundary of the product GHG inventory. As presented
in the Life Cycle Boundary table below, all relevant Scope 1 & Scope 2 emission
activities within the control of the Reporting Entity are included in the activity
boundary. The Standard requires companies to disclose and justify any exclusions of
attributable processes in the inventory report. These exclusions are the same as
those presented for the Corporate Inventory and are presented in Appendix.
As required by the Standard, Companies are required to report the time period of
the inventory which for this project is FY 2012-13 and FY 2013-2014.
Corporate GHG Inventory Product Life Cycle Carbon Footprint Project Report- Gits Food
10
4. Research & Analysis Methodology
Figure 2: Research Methodology for Product Life Cycle GHG Emission Accounting & Reporting
4.1
• Site visit and data collection
4.2
• Data quality assessment
4.3
• Allocation
4.4
• Calculating GHG inventory
The project activities commenced in May 2014. The goal, scope and project
boundary setting spanned a-2 week duration. The subsequent data collection
process took 2 months to complete. The post data collection analysis, secondary
research, GHG inventory calculations, and reporting period lasted 8 weeks and
concluded in the December 20143.
4.1 Site Visit and Data Collection
Three personnel from cBalance visited the Gits main office premises in Pune during
the initial kick-off stage and during the data collection period. During the site visits
cBalance personnel met with the company managers, Operations and Finance
managers, allowing for collection of the required data from validated sources.
Steps for data collection are represented diagrammatically below:
3
The project included staff handover at cBalance, therefore slightly extending the reporting period
Corporate GHG Inventory Product Life Cycle Carbon Footprint Project Report- Gits Food
11
Figure 3: Steps for Data Collection and Verification
1
2
3
• Defined questionnaire according to GHG Protocol
• Gits Food Pune main premises visit: office and production facilities
• Checked data quality and completeness for FY 2013-14, 2012-13
The data collection process commenced with devising and administering a
questionnaire in alignment with data needs identified by the GHG Corporate
Inventory and Product Life Cycle GHG Emission Accounting and Reporting Standard.
The questionnaire (presented in Appendix A) encompassed all the previously
mentioned organizational boundary stakeholders, related to all operational
boundary activities, and comprised all product life cycle stage considered within the
project boundary.
4.2 Data Quality Assessment
Primary activity data related to emission sources was available to cBalance both
through paper records and electronic records. The following exercises were carried
out to ensure accuracy, completeness and reliability of data: cross-referencing of
data from multiple departments, tallying bottom-up aggregated departmental data
with centrally obtained business-unit level data, and other QA-QC processes.
4.3 Allocation
Allocation of raw materials and other processes, including business travel, upstream
and downstream transportation and logistics, was based on the total mass of each
product produced and sold by the company, as a percentage of the total mass of all
products manufactured and sold.
4.4 Calculation of GHG Inventory
4.4.1 Scope 1 emissions
As per the Life Cycle Carbon Footprint Operational Boundary (refer to Table 2) Scope
1 emissions include direct energy consumption activities, such as fuel combustion&
energy and captive power generation. More specifically, the above activities focus
on the three categories of fossil fuels, refrigerants and captive power generation. For
Gits Food the major Scope 1 categories therefore include petrol and diesel marketing
team vehicles, diesel generator and LPG-cooking facilities for two products (Idli and
Corporate GHG Inventory Product Life Cycle Carbon Footprint Project Report- Gits Food
12
Dosai). Furthermore, diesel generator falls into the category of captive power
generation.
4.4.1.1 Direct Emissions from Fuel Combustion
At Gits Food direct emissions comprise petrol and diesel vehicles owned by the
company (2 are diesel, with 6 running on petrol), LPG-cooking facilities for Idli &
Dosai, and diesel generator (captive power generation).
Moreover, Scope 1 (direct emissions) reflected the GHG emissions arising from travel
by petrol motorbikes of the sales and marketing team, since these emissions are
then directly attributable to the four products. The estimation was made using
average per km consumption in litres (here assumed to be 72 rupees per litre),
multiplied by total spend in rupees.
Wherever the data was provided in monetary terms, conversion into the appropriate
activity data units (e.g. litre of fuel combusted) was made based on assumptions of
expenditure trend (disclosed in the Appendix), prevalent at the time and pertaining
to the company.
The methodology for estimating direct emissions from fuel combustion was the
following:
Total emissions from fuel use
Emissions GHG, fuel = Fuel Consumption × Emission Factor
Where,
Emissions GHG, fuel= emission of a given GHG by type of fuel (kg GHG)
Fuel Consumption = Amount of fuel combusted (Litre)
Emission factor = Default emission factor of a given GHG by type of fuel (kg gas/litre)
4.4.1.2 Direct Emissions from Refrigerants
Fugitive emissions from intentional or unintentional releases, e.g. equipment leaks
from joints, seals, packing, and gaskets; hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) emissions during
the use of refrigeration and air conditioning equipment are accounted under Scope
1.
Where the data of consumption was provided in monetary terms, conversion into
the appropriate activity data units (e.g. kg of R22 consumed) was made based on
assumptions of expenditure trend (disclosed in the Appendix), prevalent at the time
and pertaining to the company.
Refrigerant leakage emissions (fugitive emissions) are calculated based on the
following methodology:
Emissions GHG, refrigerant= Refrigerant Consumption × Emission Factor
Where,
Corporate GHG Inventory Product Life Cycle Carbon Footprint Project Report- Gits Food
13
Emissions GHG, refrigerant= emission of a given GHG for R22 type of refrigerant (kg GHG)
Refrigerant Consumption = Amount of R22 refrigerant consumed (kg)
Emission factor = Default emission factor of a given GHG for R22 (kg gas/kg refrigerant)
4.4.2 Scope 2 Emissions
4.4.2.1 Indirect Emissions from Purchased Electricity and Water
Emissions from the generation of purchased or acquired electricity, steam, heating,
or cooling consumed by the reporting company fall under the Scope 2, Indirect
Emissions (upstream activities).
The method of calculating the total emissions from electricity use is the following:
Emissions GHG, Purchased Electricity= Electricity Consumption (kWh) × Emission Factor Purchased
electricity
Where,
Emission Factor GHG, Purchased Electricity= Grid GHG Emission Factor for the Region
(Maharashtra)
The above calculation also applies to emissions from purchased water (replaced by
the national emission factor for municipal water supply, multiplied by the number of
litres consumed).
4.4.3 Scope 3 Emissions
4.4.3.1 Purchased Products & Services
This category includes all upstream (i.e., cradle-to-gate) emissions from the production of
products purchased or acquired by the reporting company in the reporting year. Products
include both goods (tangible products) and services (intangible products).
Cradle-to-gate emissions include all emissions that occur in the life cycle of purchased
products, up to the point of receipt by the reporting company (excluding emissions from
sources that are owned or controlled by the reporting company)
Source: Corporate Value Chain (Scope 3) Accounting and Reporting Standard
Purchased Products & Services category comprised primarily the purchase of Raw
Materials, required for the production of the final four products- production-related
purchases.
The categories of purchased intermediate goods comprised:
Raw materials
-
Rice flour
Lentil flour
Salt
Sodium bicarbonate
-
Citric acid
Fenugreek powder
Wheat flour
Skim milk powder
Corporate GHG Inventory Product Life Cycle Carbon Footprint Project Report- Gits Food
14
-
Hydrogenated vegetable oil
Chickpea flour
Semolina
-
Rice
Urad dal powder
Packaging
-
Plastic
Carton
The quantities of the ingredients were based on the sales volume and sold mass of
each product, as well as the recipe of each product (% share of each ingredient
within the final product), rather than the total quantity of ingredients purchased by
Gits, which avoids the disturbance from balance stocks at the beginning and the end
of the year.
The method of calculating the total emissions from purchased raw materials is the
following:
Emissions GHG, Raw Materials= Raw materials procured (kg) × Emission Factor Raw materials
Where,
Emission Factor GHG, Raw Material= Relevant emission factor for a specific food or
packaging category (e.g. wheat flour or plastic)
4.4.3.2 Purchased Capital Goods
This category includes all upstream (i.e. cradle-to-gate) emissions from the production of
capital goods purchased or acquired by the reporting company in the reporting year
Capital goods are final products that have an extended life and are used by the
company to manufacture a product, provide a service, or sell, store, and deliver
merchandise. In financial accounting, capital goods are treated as fixed assets or as
plant, property, and equipment (PP&E).
Source: Corporate Value Chain (Scope 3) Accounting and Reporting Standard
The GHG protocol stipulates that companies are not required to include nonattributable processes, but can if they wish.
In case with Gits Food the process is not assessed for GHG emissions, as the
emissions are deemed to be immaterial in relation to, for example, purchased Raw
Materials. This process may be included in the future, where more resources are
made available to perform an in-depth assessment.
4.4.3.3 Upstream Energy (Fuel & Electricity) Emissions
This category includes emissions related to the production of fuels and energy
purchased and consumed by the reporting company in the reporting year that are
not included in scope 1 or scope 2.
Source:GHG
Corporate
Value
Chain
3) Accounting
and Reporting
Corporate
Inventory
Product
Life (Scope
Cycle Carbon
Footprint Project
Report- GitsStandard
Food
15
This category (also referred to as “Supply chain” later on in the report) considers
fugitive emissions which are calculated taking into account the Scope 1 and Scope 2
activity data (consumption of diesel, electricity, LPG and petrol) thereby
encompassing purchased fuels, electricity, and electricity T&D losses.
Emissions GHG, Supply Chain= Fuel Consumption (litres, kg or kwh) × Emission Factor Supply
chain
Where,
Emission Factor GHG, Supply Chain= Relevant emission factor for a type of fuel and its
corresponding fugitive emission rate (e.g. electricity transmission & distribution losses
factor)
4.4.3.4 Upstream Transportation & Distribution
This category includes emissions from the transportation and distribution of products
(excluding fuel and energy products) purchased or acquired by the reporting company in
the reporting year in vehicles and facilities not owned or operated by the reporting
company, as well as other transportation and distribution services purchased by the
reporting company in the reporting year (including both inbound and outbound logistics).
Source: Corporate Value Chain (Scope 3) Accounting and Reporting Standard
Assessment of Upstream Transportation & Distribution has included tier 1 suppliers
transportation and distribution (of raw materials) in the following categories:
-
Air transportation
Road transportation
Rail transportation
-
Sea transportation
Warehouse storage
(accounting for electricity)
Moreover, upstream transportation & distribution emissions included marine and
road travel for export of products to retail warehouse across the globe, from which
point on the products possession is taken over by the international retailers.
The split of transportation and distribution by road is the following:
-
Purchase of raw materials from local suppliers (kg transported in distance in
km)
Final products for local sale across India (kg transported in distance in km)
Final products for export sale (kg transported in distance in km)
There are a total of 22 warehouses (CNFs) used for storage of the final Gits Food
products, with no requirement for refrigeration. Thus, the only emission contributing
factor is the electricity used to light the warehouse facilities (allocated by product
accordingly).
Corporate GHG Inventory Product Life Cycle Carbon Footprint Project Report- Gits Food
16
The method of calculating the total emissions from upstream logistics and
distribution is the following:
Emissions GHG, Road transportation= Distance travelled (kg-km) × Emission Factor Road transport
Emissions GHG, Marine transportation= Distance travelled (kg-km) × Emission Factor Marine
transport
Emissions GHG, Storage= Electricity consumed (kwh) × Emission Factor Storage
Where,
Emission Factor GHG, Road transportation= Relevant emission factor for a road truck
Emission Factor GHG, Marine transportation= Relevant emission factor for shipment by sea
Emission Factor GHG, Storage= Emission factor for consumption of electricity
4.4.3.5 Waste generated in operations
This category includes emissions from third-party disposal and treatment of waste that is
generated in the reporting company’s owned or controlled operations in the reporting year.
This category includes emissions from disposal of both solid waste and wastewater. Only
waste treatment in facilities owned or operated by third parties is included in scope 3.
Source: Corporate Value Chain (Scope 3) Accounting and Reporting Standard
The following comprised this category which was accounted for in the emissions:
-
Vegetable waste (biodegradable)
Old Corrugated boxes (non-biodegradable)
Plastic (recyclable and non-recyclable non-biodegradable)
Cartons (recyclable and non-recyclable non-biodegradable)
Wastewater generated through production
The waste GHG emissions contribution was calculation as follows:
Emissions GHG, Waste= Waste produced (kg or litres) × Emission Factor Waste
Where,
Emission Factor GHG, Waste= Relevant emission factor for a type of waste not recycled
4.4.3.6 Business Travel
This category includes emissions from the transportation of employees for business-related
activities in vehicles owned or operated by third parties, such as aircraft, trains, buses, and
passenger cars.
Companies may optionally include emissions from business travelers staying in hotels.
Source: Corporate Value Chain (Scope 3) Accounting and Reporting Standard
Corporate GHG Inventory Product Life Cycle Carbon Footprint Project Report- Gits Food
17
Business travel emissions, resulting from management business activities are spread
across the categories of: domestic air, international air, rail, road (bus), car, domestic
overnight stays, international overnight stays.
Actual travel was measured in passenger kilometers, while the overnight stays were
measured in number of nights.
The calculations for air travel were made using average mileage approach, based on
the provided trips data (in monetary terms and destinations).
In order to calculate business travel in km by road/train/accommodation, company
per-diem allowance for non-air travel expenses was used (the split provided was the
following: travel (70%), accommodation (15%) and food (15%)).
Further break-up of travel allowance was as follows: petrol motorbike (50%)attributable to Scope 1 emissions as used by the marketing team, bus (15%), train
(35%).
The distances in km were further calculated from the monetary data using the
standard coefficients of INR/km for a typical deluxe coach travel (here assumed to be
1.77 INR/km)™.
The method of calculating the total emissions from Business Travel (Scope 3) is the
following:
Emissions GHG, Business Travel= Distance travelled (pass-km) × Emission Factor Business Travel
Emissions GHG, Hotel Stays= Nights stayed × Emission Factor Hotel stays
Where,
Emission Factor GHG, Business Travel= Relevant emission factor for a passenger km travelled
by air (domestic or international), rail, bus, car
Emission Factor GHG, Hotel stays= Relevant emission factor for a 1 night stay at a domestic or
international hotel property
4.4.3.7 Employee Commuting
This category includes emissions from the transportation of employees & between their
homes and their worksites.
Companies may include emissions from teleworking (i.e., employees working remotely) in
this category.
Source: Corporate Value Chain (Scope 3) Accounting and Reporting Standard
Employee commuting was split as follows:
-
48 staff split between Pune, Bombay, Kothrud, Pimpri offices
Of the above staff 22 use motorbikes, 3 used cars 6 days of the week
Corporate GHG Inventory Product Life Cycle Carbon Footprint Project Report- Gits Food
18
-
Out of the other 300 staff staying within 5 km of the offices 25% would walk
to the office, 5% arrive by bike, 70% take a bus
Thus, distances in km were estimated using the above criteria. Subsequently, the
emissions were calculated using the appropriate emission factors for each category
of transport as follows:
Emissions GHG, Employee commute= Distance travelled (pass-km) × Emission Factor Employee
commute
Where,
Emission Factor GHG, Employee commute= Relevant emission factor for a passenger km
travelled by rail, bus, car, motorbike
4.4.3.8 Downstream Transportation & Distribution
This category includes emissions from transportation and distribution of products sold by
the reporting company in the reporting year between the reporting company’s operations
and
end consumer
(if notofpaid
by the reporting
company),
in vehicles(by
androad)
facilities
Thisthe
category
comprised
thefor
downstream
logistics
and transport
from
not owned or controlled by the reporting company. This category includes emissions from
warehouse stores to retailers and storage of the products for sale at the retail
retail and storage.
outlets (India-based only given the lack of data on the retail facilities abroad).
Source: Corporate Value Chain (Scope 3) Accounting and Reporting Standard
Transportation distance from the warehouses was calculated taking an approximate
distance of each warehouse to the final sales outlet (city and state in India). In cases
where export sales were made, the distances were calculated from the final city
destinations overseas.
Emissions from the retail outlet storage were allocated on the basis of given area,
occupied by the Gits products (in metres and average number of days per year),
multiplied by the number of distributors and the average electricity consumption per
store (data available from TERI). This was subsequently multiplied by the relevant
emission factor as illustrated below:
Emissions GHG, Downstream transportation= Distance travelled (kg-km) × Emission Factor
Downstream transport
Emissions GHG, Storage in retail stores= Electricity consumed (kwh) × Emission Factor Storage in
retail stores
Where,
Emission Factor GHG, Downstream transport= Relevant emission factor for a kg of product per
km transported by road trucks
Emission Factor GHG, Storage in retail stores= Relevant emission factor for kwh of electricity
consumed across the retail stores
Corporate GHG Inventory Product Life Cycle Carbon Footprint Project Report- Gits Food
19
4.4.3.9 Use of sold products
This category includes emissions from the use of goods and services sold by the reporting
company in the reporting year. A reporting company’s scope 3 emissions from use of sold
products include the scope 1 and scope 2 emissions of end users. End users include both
consumers and business customers that use final products.
Source: Corporate Value Chain (Scope 3) Accounting and Reporting Standard
The use of sold products refers to the cooking and preparation of the final sold
products by the consumers. Almost all of the Indian households use the LPG as the
means to prepare food, therefore it is assumed here to be 100%. Using the statistics
on LPG usage in India from BIS, an estimate was made of LPG used per kg of Gits
product, subsequently multiplied by a relevant emission factor as follows:
Emissions GHG, Use of products= Consumption of LPGS (kg) × Emission Factor GHG, Use of products
Where,
Emission Factor GHG, Use of products= Relevant emission factor for a kg of LPG consumed
4.4.3.10 End-of-life treatment of sold products
This category includes emissions from the waste disposal and treatment of products sold
by the reporting company (in the reporting year) at the end of their life.
This category includes the total expected end-of-life emissions from all products sold in the
reporting year
Source: Corporate Value Chain (Scope 3) Accounting and Reporting Standard
It is assumed here that 10% of all packaging will be recycled after the final product
use. The percentage was arrived at as a conservative estimate, given that the
recovery rate of total paper and paperboard consumed is 27% according to this
paper. Regarding the plastic component of packaging, given its limited utility, the
recycling rate is reduced from the India average “unorganized” plastic recycling rate
of 60%. Moreover, given that recycling rates differ greatly between countries (with
many Gits products being sold abroad), the assumed rate used in the calculation has
been lowered further.
Thus the 90% of the packaging that the products are sold in is assumed to go to the
landfill.
The method of calculating the total emissions from End of life treatment is the
following:
Emissions GHG, End of life treatment= Packaging mass not recycled (kg) × Emission Factor GHG,
End of life treatment
Where,
Corporate GHG Inventory Product Life Cycle Carbon Footprint Project Report- Gits Food
20
Emission Factor GHG, End of life treatment= Relevant emission factor for a kg of packaging
material sent to the landfill
5. Results and Analysis of Life Cycle Assessment
For all four products Scope 3 emissions prevail. This is due to raw material purchases
(milk powder, wheat, rice, rice powder) having a substantial carbon footprint due to
the nature of their production. Total raw materials’ (including packaging) carbon
footprint range for all four products was at 43-54%.
Scope 1 (direct and controllable emissions) comprises emissions from use of petrol
cars (6 company owned) and motorbikes, used by the sales team.
Recommendations on lowering the carbon footprint from car usage are provided in
the section “Conclusion and Recommendations”.
The positive practices implemented by Gits include high level of recycling of
production waste (usually taken away by scrap vendors), thus emissions from waste
production are close to zero (including wastewater emissions).
5.1 Results and analysis of Gulab Jamun
5.1 Overall Scope wise Emissions
Figure 4: Gulab Jamun: scope-wise emissions 2012-2013
Gulab Jamun
Overall Scope wise Emissions 2012-13
Total Emissions = 10867.9 MT CO2e
12000.0
10311.9
MT CO2e
10000.0
8000.0
6000.0
4000.0
2000.0
91.3
464.8
Scope 1
Scope 2
0.0
Scope 3
Corporate GHG Inventory Product Life Cycle Carbon Footprint Project Report- Gits Food
21
Figure 5: Gulab Jamun: scope-wise emissions 2013-2014
Gulab Jamun
Overall Scopewise Emissions 2013-14
Total Emissions = 13966.6 MT CO2e
16000.0
13420.5
14000.0
MT CO2e
12000.0
10000.0
8000.0
6000.0
4000.0
2000.0
119.9
426.2
Scope 1
Scope 2
0.0
Scope 3
Scope
5.2 Scope 1 Activity Emissions
Figure 6: Gulab Jamun: Scope 1 emissions 2012-2013
Gulab Jamun
Scope 1 Activity Emissions 2012-13
Total Scope 1 Emissions = 91.3 MT CO2e
70.0
58.1
60.0
MT CO2e
50.0
40.0
31.8
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
1.4
0.0
Diesel
Petrol
LPG
R22
Corporate GHG Inventory Product Life Cycle Carbon Footprint Project Report- Gits Food
22
Figure 7: Gulab Jamun: Scope 1 emissions 2012-2013
Gulab Jamun
Scope 1 Activity Emissions 2013-14
Total Scope 1 Emissions = 119.9 MT CO2e
74.8
80.0
70.0
MT CO2e
60.0
50.0
43.6
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
1.5
LPG
R22
0.0
Diesel
5.3
Petrol
Scope 2 Activity Emissions
The scope 2 emissions for the year 2012-13 and 2013-14 have been largely due to
electricity and is 464.8 MT CO2e and 426.20 MT CO2e respectively.
5.4 Scope 3 Activity Emissions
Corporate GHG Inventory Product Life Cycle Carbon Footprint Project Report- Gits Food
23
Figure 8: Gulab Jamun: Scope 3 emissions 2012-2013
Gulab Jamun
Scope 3 Activity Emissions 2012-13
Total Scope 3 Emissions = 5372.8 MT CO2e
3000.0
2840.1
MT CO2e
2500.0
2000.0
1426.6
1500.0
1000.0
500.0
584.2
130.2
233.0
0.0
35.5
8.8
75.8
0.0
0.0
Corporate GHG Inventory Product Life Cycle Carbon Footprint Project Report- Gits Food
24
38.5
Figure 9: Gulab Jamun: Scope 3 emissions 2013-2014
MT CO2e
Gulab Jamun
Scope 3 Activity Emissions 2013-14
Total Scope 3 Emissions = 7391.45 MT CO2e
4000.0
3500.0
3000.0
2500.0
2000.0
1500.0
1000.0
500.0
0.0
3466.9
1741.4
851.8
721.6
233.0
0.0
24.7
9.3
0.0
90.7
0.0
252.0
5.5 GHG Emissions by LCA stage
Figure 10: Gulab Jamun: LCA stage wise emissions 2012-2013
Gulab Jamun
LCA Stage wise GHG Emissions 2012-13
4000
3555
3500
MT CO2e
3000
2500
2000
1427
1500
789
1000
500
76
39
44
End of Life
Treatment
Office
footprint
0
Material
Acquisition
and Preprocessing
Production
Distribution
and Storage
Use of
Products
Corporate GHG Inventory Product Life Cycle Carbon Footprint Project Report- Gits Food
25
Figure 11: Gulab Jamun: LCA stage wise emissions 2013-2014
Gulab Jamun
LCA Stage wise GHG Emissions 2013-14
6000
5040
MT CO2e
5000
4000
3000
1741
2000
779
1000
252
34
End of Life
Treatment
Office
footprint
91
0
Material
Acquisition
and Preprocessing
Production
Distribution
and Storage
Use of
Products
5.6 Comparison – 2012-13 and 2013-14
5.6.1 Overall LCA Stage-wise Emissions in %
Figure 12: Gulab Jamun: LCA emissions % 2013-2013
Gulab Jamun
LCA Emissions % 2012-13
0.35%
0.41%
0.70%
Material Acquisition and Preprocessing
Production
13.13%
7.26%
Distribution and Storage
Use of Products
78.15%
End of Life Treatment
Office footprint
Corporate GHG Inventory Product Life Cycle Carbon Footprint Project Report- Gits Food
26
Figure 13: Gulab Jamun: LCA emissions % 2013-2014
Gulab Jamun
LCA Emissions % 2013-14
1.80%
0.65%
0.24%
Material Acquisition and Preprocessing
Production
12.47%
5.58%
Distribution and Storage
Use of Products
79.26%
End of Life Treatment
Office footprint
6. Results and Analysis of ‘Khaman Dhokla’
6.1 Overall scope-wise Emissions
Figure 14: Khaman Dhokla: Overall scope-wise emissions 2012-2013
Khaman Dhokla
Overall Scopewise Emissions 2012-13
Total Emissions = 1206.1 MTCO2e
1200.0
1092.9
MT CO2e
1000.0
800.0
600.0
400.0
200.0
18.6
94.6
0.0
Scope 1
Scope 2
Scope
Scope 3
Corporate GHG Inventory Product Life Cycle Carbon Footprint Project Report- Gits Food
27
Figure 15: Khaman Dhokla: Overall scope-wise emissions 2013-2014
Khaman Dhokla
Overall Scopewise Emissions 2013-14
Total Emissions = 1298.3 MT CO2e
1400.0
1191.7
MT CO2e
1200.0
1000.0
800.0
600.0
400.0
23.4
83.2
Scope 1
Scope 2
200.0
0.0
Scope 3
Scope
6.2 Scope 1 Emissions Inventory
Figure 16: Khaman Dhokla Scope 1 emissions 2012-2013
Khaman Dhokla
Scope 1 Activity Emissions 2012-13
Total Scope 1 Emissions = 18.6 MT CO2e
14.0
11.8
MT CO2e
12.0
10.0
8.0
6.5
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
0.3
LPG
R22
0.0
Diesel
Petrol
Corporate GHG Inventory Product Life Cycle Carbon Footprint Project Report- Gits Food
28
Figure 17: Khaman Dhokla: Scope 1 emissions 2013-2014
Khaman Dhokla
Scope 1 Activity Emissions 2013-14
Total Scope 1 Emissions = 23.4 MT CO2e
16.0
14.6
14.0
MT CO2e
12.0
10.0
8.5
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
0.3
LPG
R22
0.0
Diesel
Petrol
6.3 Scope 2 Emissions Inventory
The major share of scope 2 emissions is from electricity and the emissions for the
year 2012-13 are and 2013-14 are 94.6 MT CO2e and 84.3 MT CO2e.
6.4 Scope 3 Emissions Inventory
Figure 18: Khaman Dhokla: Scope 3 emissions 2012-2013
MT CO2e
Khaman Dhokla
Scope 3 Activity Emissions 2012-13
Total Scope 3 Emissions= 1092.9 MTCO2e
400.0
350.0
300.0
250.0
200.0
150.0
100.0
50.0
0.0
338.3
290.4
246.5
121.4
47.4
0.0
3.3
1.8
7.8
0.0
Corporate GHG Inventory Product Life Cycle Carbon Footprint Project Report- Gits Food
29
36.1
Figure 19: Khaman Dhokla: Scope 3 emissions 2013-2014
MT CO2 e
Khaman Dhokla
Scope 3 Activity Emissions 2013-14
Total Scope 3 Emissions = 1191.7 MTCO2e
450.0
400.0
350.0
300.0
250.0
200.0
150.0
100.0
50.0
0.0
395.9
339.9
275.7
89.9
47.4
0.0
4.8
1.8
9.6
0.0
26.6
6.5 LCA Stage-wise GHG Emissions
Figure 20: Khaman Dhokla: LCA stage-wise emissions 2012-2013
MT CO2e
Khaman Dhokla
LCA Stage wise GHG Emissions 2012-13
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
700
290
161
8
Material
Acquisition and
Pre-processing
Production
Distribution Use of Products
and Storage
36
5
End of Life
Treatment
Office footprint
Corporate GHG Inventory Product Life Cycle Carbon Footprint Project Report- Gits Food
30
Figure 21: Khaman Dhokla: LCA stage-wise emissions 2013-2014
MT CO2e
Khaman Dhokla
LCA Stage wise GHG Emissions 2013-14
754
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
340
154
10
Material
Acquisition
and Preprocessing
Production
Distribution
and Storage
Use of
Products
27
7
End of Life
Treatment
Office
footprint
6.6 Comparison – 2012-13 and 2013-14
6.6.1 Overall LCA Stage-wise Emissions in %
Figure 22: Khaman Dhokla: LCA emissions in % 2012-2013
Khaman Dhokla
LCA Emissions in % 2012-13
0.42%
Material Acquisition and Preprocessing
3.01%
Production
24.20%
Distribution and Storage
0.65%
58.34%
Use of Products
13.39%
End of Life Treatment
Office footprint
Corporate GHG Inventory Product Life Cycle Carbon Footprint Project Report- Gits Food
31
Figure 23: Khaman Dhokla: LCA emissions in % 2013-2014
Khaman Dhokla
LCA Emissions in % 2013-14
2.06%
0.51%
Material Acquisition and Preprocessing
Production
26.33%
0.74%
Distribution and Storage
Use of Products
58.43%
11.93%
End of Life Treatment
Office footprint
7. Results and Analysis of ‘Rice Idli’
7.1 Overall Scope-wise Emissions
Figure 24: Idli: Overall scope-wise emissions 2012-2013
MT CO2e
Idli
Overall Scopewise Emissions 2012-13
Total Emissions = 1270.6 MT CO2e
1400.0
1200.0
1000.0
800.0
600.0
400.0
200.0
0.0
1167.5
17.4
Scope 1
85.7
Scope 2
Scope 3
Scope
Corporate GHG Inventory Product Life Cycle Carbon Footprint Project Report- Gits Food
32
Figure 25: Idli: Overall scope-wise emissions 2013-2014
Idli
Overall Scope wise Emissions 2013-14
Total Emissions= 1245.8 MT CO2e
1400.0
1158.1
MT CO2e
1200.0
1000.0
800.0
600.0
400.0
200.0
19.7
67.9
Scope 1
Scope 2
0.0
Scope 3
Scope
7.2 Scope 1 Emissions Inventory
Figure 26: Idli: Scope 1 emissions 2012-2013
Idli
Scope 1 Activity Emissions 2012-13
Total Scope 1 Emissions= 17.4 MT CO2e
12.00
10.71
MT CO2e
10.00
8.00
6.00
5.86
4.00
2.00
0.62
0.26
LPG
R22
0.00
Diesel
Petrol
Corporate GHG Inventory Product Life Cycle Carbon Footprint Project Report- Gits Food
33
Figure 27: Idli: Scope 1 emissions 2013-2014
Idli
Scope 1 Activity Emissions 2013-14
Total Scope 1 Emissions= 19.7 MT CO2e
14.0
11.9
12.0
MT CO2e
10.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.6
0.2
LPG
R22
0.0
Diesel
Petrol
7.3 Scope 2 Emissions Inventory
The scope 2 emissions largely contributed by electricity are 85.7 MT CO2e and 67.9
MT CO2e for the year 2012-13 and 2013-14 respectively.
7.4 Scope 3 Emissions Inventory 2012-13
Corporate GHG Inventory Product Life Cycle Carbon Footprint Project Report- Gits Food
34
Figure 28: Idli: Scope 3 emissions 2012-2013
MT CO2e
Idli
Scope 3 Activity Emissions 2012-13
Total Scope 3 Emissions=1167.5 MT CO2e
450.0
400.0
350.0
300.0
250.0
200.0
150.0
100.0
50.0
0.0
423.6
263.0
243.2
138.7
43.1
0.0
6.5
1.6
6.4
41.3
0.0
Figure 29: Idli: Scope 3 emissions 2013-2014
MT CO2e
Idli
Scope 3 Activity Emissions 2013-14
Total Scope 3 Emissions= 1158.1
500.0
450.0
400.0
350.0
300.0
250.0
200.0
150.0
100.0
50.0
0.0
447.0
277.6
248.1
99.9
43.1
0.0
3.9
1.5
7.4
0.0
7.5 LCA Stage wise Emissions
Corporate GHG Inventory Product Life Cycle Carbon Footprint Project Report- Gits Food
35
29.6
Figure 30: Idli: LCA stage-wise emissions 2012-2013
MT CO2e
Idli
LCA Stage wise GHG Emissions 2012-13
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
800
263
146
41
8
End of Life
Treatment
Office
footprint
6
Material
Acquisition
and Preprocessing
Production
Distribution
and Storage
Use of
Products
Figure 31: LCA stage-wise emissions 2013-2014
MT CO2e
Idli
LCA Stage wise GHG Emissions 2013-14
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
789
278
131
7
Material
Acquisition
and Preprocessing
Production
Distribution
and Storage
Use of
Products
30
5
End of Life
Treatment
Office
footprint
7.6 Comparisons – 2012-13 and 2013-14
Corporate GHG Inventory Product Life Cycle Carbon Footprint Project Report- Gits Food
36
7.6.1 Overall LCA Stage-wise Emissions in %
Figure 32: Idli: LCA emissions in % 2012-2013
Idli
LCA Emissions in % 2012-13
3.26%
0.65%
Material Acquisition and Preprocessing
Production
19.23%
Distribution and Storage
0.51%
11.56%
63.23%
Use of Products
End of Life Treatment
Office footprint
Corporate GHG Inventory Product Life Cycle Carbon Footprint Project Report- Gits Food
37
Figure 33: Idli: LCA emissions in % 2013-2014
Idli
LCA Emissions in % 2013-14
2.38%
0.44%
Material Acquisition and Preprocessing
Production
20.01%
Distribution and Storage
0.60%
Use of Products
10.55%
End of Life Treatment
63.65%
Office footprint
8. Results and Analysis of ‘Dosai’
8.1 Overall Scope wise Emissions 2012-13
Figure 34: Dosai: Overall scope-wise emissions 2012-2013
MT CO2e
Dosai
Overall Scope wise Emissions 2012-13
Overall Emissions=825.05 MT CO2e
900.00
800.00
700.00
600.00
500.00
400.00
300.00
200.00
100.00
0.00
825.05
11.70
Scope 1
57.44
Scope 2
Scope 3
Scope
Corporate GHG Inventory Product Life Cycle Carbon Footprint Project Report- Gits Food
38
Figure 35: Dosai: Overall scope-wise emissions 2012-2013
MT CO2e
Dosai
Overall Scope wise Emissions 2012-13
Total Emissions= 869.3 MT CO2e
900.0
800.0
700.0
600.0
500.0
400.0
300.0
200.0
100.0
0.0
798.4
57.4
13.4
Scope 1
Scope 2
Scope 3
Scope
8.2 Scope 1 Activity Emissions Inventory
Figure 36: Scope 1 emissions 2012-2013
Dosai
Scope 1 Activity Emissions 2012-13
Total Scope 1 Emissions= 11.7 MT CO2e
8.0
7.2
7.0
MT CO2e
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.9
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.4
0.2
LPG
R22
0.0
Diesel
Petrol
Corporate GHG Inventory Product Life Cycle Carbon Footprint Project Report- Gits Food
39
Figure 37: Dosai: Scope 1 emissions 2013-2014
Dosai
Scope 1 Activity Emissions 2013-14
Total Scope 1 Emissions= 13.4 MT CO2e
9.0
8.1
8.0
MT CO2e
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.7
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.4
0.2
LPG
R22
0.0
Diesel
Petrol
8.3 Scope 2 Emissions Inventory
The Scope 2 Emissions for the year 2012-13 and for 2013-14 is 57.44 MT CO2e with
electricity being the major contributor to the emissions.
8.4 Scope 3 Emissions Inventory
Corporate GHG Inventory Product Life Cycle Carbon Footprint Project Report- Gits Food
40
Figure 38: Dosai: Scope 3 emissions 2012-2013
Dosai
Scope 3 Activity Emissions 2012-13
Total Scope 3 Emissions= 825.1 MT CO2e
300.0
281.7
MT CO2e
250.0
200.0
176.3
164.5
127.0
150.0
100.0
37.7
28.9
50.0
0.0
4.4
1.1
3.5
0.0
0.0
Figure 39: Dosai: Scope 3 emissions 2013-2014
MT CO2e
Dosai
Scope 3 Activity Emissions 2013-14
Total Scope 3 Emissions= 798.4 MT CO2e
350.0
300.0
250.0
200.0
150.0
100.0
50.0
0.0
302.1
189.1
171.8
76.1
28.9
0.0
2.7
1.0
4.2
0.0
8.5 LCA Stage wise Emissions
Corporate GHG Inventory Product Life Cycle Carbon Footprint Project Report- Gits Food
41
22.6
Figure 40: Dosai: LCA stage-wise emissions 2012-2013
Dosai
LCA Stage wise GHG Emissions 2012-13
600
570
MT CO2e
500
400
300
176
200
98
100
38
4
5
0
Material
Acquisition
and Preprocessing
Production
Distribution
and Storage
Use of
Products
End of Life
Treatment
Office
footprint
Figure 41: Dosai: LCA stage-wise emissions 2013-2014
Dosai
LCA Stage wise GHG Emissions 2013-14
600
547
MT CO2e
500
400
300
189
200
89
100
4
23
4
End of Life
Treatment
Office
footprint
0
Material
Acquisition
and Preprocessing
Production
Distribution
and Storage
Use of
Products
Corporate GHG Inventory Product Life Cycle Carbon Footprint Project Report- Gits Food
42
8.6 Comparisons – 2012-13 and 2013-14
8.6.1 Overall LCA Stage-wise GHG Emissions in %
Figure 42: Dosai: LCA emissions in % 2012-2013
Dosai
LCA Emissions % 2012-13
4.23%
0.61%
Material Acquisition and Preprocessing
Production
19.79%
Distribution and Storage
0.39%
Use of Products
11.01%
63.97%
End of Life Treatment
Office footprint
Figure 43: Dosai: LCA emissions % 2013-2014
Dosai
LCA Emissions % 2013-14
2.64%
0.43%
Material Acquisition and Preprocessing
Production
22.12%
Distribution and Storage
0.49%
10.37%
Use of Products
63.94%
End of Life Treatment
Office footprint
Corporate GHG Inventory Product Life Cycle Carbon Footprint Project Report- Gits Food
43
9. Hotspot Analysis
This carbon footprint example includes use-phase emissions, as (cradle-to-grave
approach) to provide Gits Food to with the “hotspots” of carbon emissions
throughout the full life cycle of each of the four products.
The figures reflected within the hotspot analysis are calculated based on the average
emissions per packet/per kg across two financial years (FY 2012-2013, FY 2013-2014)
under examination.
Identifying key hotspots
Within carbon footprinting, hotspots are the most relevant inputs or phases
influencing resource and energy use in the life cycle of a product, as they relate to
climate impact. It is useful for identifying key areas which may require more in-depth
analysis but cannot be used for comparing products as hotspots are a rough
overview of relevant aspects of the product life cycle. Hotspots are identified per life
cycle stage, for instance in case of Gits Food products life cycle assessment, milk
powder is the most impacting input for the raw material life cycle stage, while for
the transport life cycle stage, marine transport has a larger footprint than road
transport.
9.1 Gulab Jamun
The results of the carbon hotspot analysis for Gulab Jamun are presented below. The
most significant life-cycle areas have been illustrated to provide a clear picture of the
areas contributing the most to emission of greenhouse gases (GHGs) as a result of
sourcing, manufacturing, using and disposing of products. The results are presented
in the form showing the kg of CO2e emissions produced per kg of Gulab Jamun with
respective ratios, given the total CO2e per kg of the product is 2.431 kg (average
across 2 years).
Table 3: Gulab Jamun: Hotspot analysis summary
kg CO2e per kg
Material acquisition and pre-processing
Wheat Flour
Skim Milk Powder
Hydrogenated Vegetable Oil
Plastic
Carton
1.490
0.178
0.816
0.089
0.015
0.160
61%
7%
34%
4%
1%
7%
Corporate GHG Inventory Product Life Cycle Carbon Footprint Project Report- Gits Food
44
Tier 1-Road Travel
Tier 1-Marine Travel
Tier 1-Storage in Warehouse (Electricity)
Production
Diesel
Petrol
R22
Electricity
Municipal and Well Water
Fugitive emissions - Diesel
Fugitive emissions - Petrol
Fugitive emission - Electricity
Electricity T & D Loss
Waste
Distribution & Storage
Road Travel
Storage in Retail Stores (Electricity)
Use of sold products
End of Life Treatment
Office footprint
Domestic Air Travel
International Air Travel
Road Travel
Domestic Overnight Stays
International Overnight Stays
Employee commute Bus Travel
Employee commute Car Travel
Employee commute motorbike Travel
0.154
0.066
6%
3%
0.012
0.279
0.013
0.024
0.001
0.159
0.000
0.004
0.008
0.021
0.050
0.000
0.030
0.029
0.001
0.565
0.052
0.015
0.002
0.005
0.001
0.001
0.002
0.002
0.000
0.001
2.431
<1%
11%
1%
1%
<1%
7%
<1%
<1%
<1%
1%
2%
<1%
1%
1%
<1%
23%
2%
1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
What is clear is that Raw Material component (Scope 3) contributes the most
towards carbon emissions at a total of 52%. This is due to several elements: 1) skim
milk powder contributes a total of 35% or more than a third towards the total
emissions for 1 kg of Gulab Jamun; 2) wheat flour and carton each contribute 7% of
the total emissions per kg of product. The reason behind skim milk powder is due to
the sourcing and processing of dairy products- a food category naturally carbonintensive, unless the use of pesticides is excluded (resulting in a more organic nature
of products) and more sustainable practices are implemented to reduce the process
emissions.
Carton used in packaging contributes highly to the overall footprint due to the
change in land-use following reduction in tree mass, required for virgin carton
production. Hence, usage of recycled cartons can help reduce the overall emissions
significantly (refer to low-carbon scenario modelling section).
Corporate GHG Inventory Product Life Cycle Carbon Footprint Project Report- Gits Food
45
Second, largest component is use of final product by consumers (Scope 3)- this refers
to cooking of the Gulab Jamun using LPG stoves (most common way of cooking in
Indian households). Although here Gits does not have direct control over the
emissions, recommendations, geared towards consumers, in order to aid Gits Food
reduce the carbon footprint associated with this life-cycle stage of the product are
given in the section “Conclusion and Recommendations”.
Although the products undergo a full production cycle, emissions from the usage of
water and waste production is minimal due to recycling that is implemented at the
facilities (mostly use of powder which is reused, as well as packaging taken by scrap
vendors). The company maintains own water well (thus with zero emissions) while
municipal water does not contribute significantly to carbon emissions. Still,
recommendations have been made to ensure maximum water efficiency is instilled
at the company (e.g. through rainwater harvesting and grey water reuse).
Upstream distribution, which includes road trucks distribution, marine travel and
storage in warehouses, contributes further 10% towards product emissions with the
largest component being road trucks, used to deliver both raw materials to the
company production facilities, as well as deliver final products to the ports for
shipping. The road trucks emissions are higher both in absolute and percentage
terms for Gulab Jamun, in comparison with other products due to the higher
proportion of Gulab Jamun products being shipped using truck transportation to
Nepal.
Electricity (Scope 2) contributes 7% of the total emissions per kg of product, due to
the connection to the main national grid, where electricity is sourced primarily from
coal (highly emission intensive fossil fuel), therefore switching to renewable energy
sources will both reduce emissions from electricity and emissions from electricity
transmission& distribution losses (2% of the total product emissions).
Finally, with the business travel and employee commuting resulting emissions (Scope
1 and Scope 3) being minimal at product level, the company should still encourage
use of public transport as well as more sustainable ways of travel, such as promoting
the use of bicycles and trains, as this contributes significantly at the company and
industry level.
9.2 Khaman Dhokla
Table 4: Khaman Dhokla: Hotspot analysis summary
kg CO2e per kg
Material acquisition and pre-processing
Chick pea flour
Fine Semolina
Sugar
Salt
Sodium bicarbonate
1.517
0.523
0.172
0.127
0.005
0.032
62%
21%
7%
5%
0%
1%
Corporate GHG Inventory Product Life Cycle Carbon Footprint Project Report- Gits Food
46
Salt
Plastic
Carton
Tier 1-Road Travel
Tier 1-Marine Travel
Tier 1-Storage in Warehouse (Electricity)
Production
Diesel
Petrol
R22
Electricity
Municipal and Well Water
Fugitive emissions - Diesel
Fugitive emissions - Petrol
Fugitive emission - Electricity
Electricity T & D Loss
Waste
Distribution & Storage
Road Travel
Storage in Retail Stores (Electricity)
Use of sold products
End of Life Treatment
Office footprint
Domestic Air Travel
International Air Travel
Road Travel
Domestic Overnight Stays
International Overnight Stays
Employee commute Bus Travel
Employee commute Car Travel
Employee commute motorbike Travel
0.005
0.023
0.167
0.068
0.389
<1%
1%
7%
3%
16%
0.013
0.281
0.013
0.023
0.000
0.159
0.000
0.004
0.009
0.021
0.052
0.000
0.016
0.014
0.002
0.565
0.056
0.012
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.000
0.000
2.446
1%
11%
1%
1%
<1%
7%
<1%
<1%
<1%
1%
2%
1%
1%
<1%
23%
2%
<1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
The results are largely similar to those of Gulab Jamun analysis above, hence for
detailed analysis refer to that section.
Raw materials still make up the largest emission categories, with chickpea flour and
semolina contributing the most.
Regarding the upstream distribution and logistics, marine travel contributes 16% of
emissions of the product, which is due to higher export sales of Khaman Dhokla
abroad, with the percentage of Tier 1 supplier and distributor road truck logistics
contributing a lower share of emissions at 3%. To compare with Gulab Jamun, which
is primarily sold within India, marine travel component is higher due to distribution
and sales of the Khaman Dhokla to customers abroad.
Corporate GHG Inventory Product Life Cycle Carbon Footprint Project Report- Gits Food
47
With the other categories once more contributing minimal share towards the
product emissions, still recommendations should be reviewed to achieve overall
lower company-level emissions.
9.3 Idli
Table 5: Idli: Hotspot analysis summary
kg CO2e per kg
Material acquisition and pre-processing
Salt
Rice
Urad Dal Powder
Plastic
Carton
Tier 1-Road Travel
Tier 1-Marine Travel
Tier 1-Storage in Warehouse (Electricity)
Production
Diesel
Petrol
R22
Electricity
Municipal and Well Water
Fugitive emissions - Diesel
Fugitive emissions - Petrol
Fugitive emission - Electricity
Electricity T & D Loss
Waste
Distribution & Storage
Road Travel
Storage in Retail Stores (Electricity)
Use of sold products
End of Life Treatment
Office footprint
Domestic Air Travel
International Air Travel
Road Travel
Domestic Overnight Stays
International Overnight Stays
Employee commute Bus Travel
Employee commute Car Travel
Employee commute motorbike Travel
1.636
0.006
0.606
0.261
0.038
0.211
0.081
0.420
0.013
0.289
0.013
0.023
0.000
0.161
0.000
0.004
0.008
0.023
0.054
0.000
0.014
0.013
0.000
0.565
0.074
0.014
0.002
0.006
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.000
0.000
2.565
63%
<1%
23%
10%
1%
8%
3%
16%
<1%
11%
<1%
1%
<1%
6%
<1%
<1%
<1%
1%
2%
<1%
1%
<1%
<1%
22%
3%
1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
Corporate GHG Inventory Product Life Cycle Carbon Footprint Project Report- Gits Food
48
Once more, similar situation to the other 2 products, therefore reference should be
made to analysis above (Gulab Jamun hotspot analysis).
Raw material procurement contributes around one half of all emissions of 1 kg of Idli
final product, with rice powder being the most GHG-intensive factor at 23% of the
total GHG emissions for Idli. Use of sold products by customers and shipping by
marine transport outside of India, and receipt of raw materials from abroad also
remain largest contributors in terms of GHG emissions.
9.4 Dosai
Table 6: Dosai: Hotspot analysis summary
kg CO2e per kg
Material acquisition and pre-processing
Salt
Rice flour
Lentils flour
Plastic
Carton
Tier 1-Road Travel
Tier 1-Marine Travel
Tier 1-Storage in Warehouse (Electricity)
Production
Diesel
Petrol
R22
Electricity
Municipal and Well Water
Fugitive emissions - Diesel
Fugitive emissions - Petrol
Fugitive emission - Electricity
Electricity T & D Loss
Distribution & Storage
Road Travel
Storage in Retail Stores (Electricity)
Use of sold products
End of Life Treatment
Office footprint
Domestic Air Travel
International Air Travel
Road Travel
1.703
0.006
0.633
0.232
0.040
0.272
0.083
0.423
0.012
0.288
0.012
0.025
0.000
0.176
0.000
0.003
0.009
0.022
0.053
0.012
0.012
0.000
0.565
0.093
0.015
0.003
0.006
0.000
64%
<1%
24%
9%
2%
10%
3%
16%
<1%
11%
<1%
1%
<1%
7%
<1%
<1%
<1%
1%
2%
<1%
<1%
<1%
21%
3%
1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
Corporate GHG Inventory Product Life Cycle Carbon Footprint Project Report- Gits Food
49
Domestic Overnight Stays
International Overnight Stays
Employee commute Bus Travel
Employee commute Car Travel
Employee commute motorbike Travel
0.000
0.003
0.003
0.000
0.000
2.677
<1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
Due to the similar GHG emissions structure of the Dosai product to the other 3
products, please refer to the commentary sections of the above 3 products for
detailed analysis.
Figure 44: Summary of GHG emissions per kg of product
Total GHG emissions per product mass
(kgCO2e/kg)
2.68
Gulab
Jamun
Khaman
Dhokla
Idli
2.57
2.43
2.45
Dosai
9.5 Product by product hotspot analysis of major life cycle
stages
Corporate GHG Inventory Product Life Cycle Carbon Footprint Project Report- Gits Food
50
Figure 45: Gulab Jamun: Hotspot analysis % contribution of life cycle emissions to 1 kg of product
Hotspot analysis of Gulab Jamun
(% contribution of life cycle GHG emissions to 1 kg of product)
61%
23%
11%
1%
Material
Production
acquisition and
pre-processing
Distribution &
Storage
Use of sold
products
2%
1%
End of Life
Treatment
Office
footprint
Figure 46: Khaman Dhokla: Hotspot analysis % contribution of life cycle emissions to 1 kg of product
Hotspot analysis of Khaman Dhokla
(% contribution of life cycle GHG emissions to 1 kg of product)
62%
23%
11%
1%
Material
Production
acquisition and
pre-processing
Distribution &
Storage
Use of sold
products
2%
0%
End of Life
Treatment
Office
footprint
Corporate GHG Inventory Product Life Cycle Carbon Footprint Project Report- Gits Food
51
Figure 47: Idli : Hotspot analysis % contribution of life cycle emissions to 1 kg of product
Hotspot analysis of Idli
(% contribution of life cycle GHG emissions to 1 kg of product
63%
22%
11%
1%
Material
Production
acquisition and
pre-processing
Distribution &
Storage
Use of sold
products
3%
1%
End of Life
Treatment
Office
footprint
Figure 48: Dosai: Hotspot analysis % contribution of life cycle emissions to 1 kg of product
Hotspot analysis of Dosai
(% contribution of life cycle GHG emissions to 1 kg of product)
64%
21%
11%
3%
0%
Material
Production
acquisition and
pre-processing
Distribution &
Storage
Use of sold
products
End of Life
Treatment
1%
Office
footprint
Note: the percentages may not add up exactly to 100% in their totality according to
graphs due to rounding down of figures during calculations.
Hotspots can highlight areas for carbon reduction improvements and help
concentrate reduction efforts in those areas which are likely to see the greatest
benefits. For recommendations focusing on highlighted and other areas refer to the
section “Conclusions and Recommendations”.
Corporate GHG Inventory Product Life Cycle Carbon Footprint Project Report- Gits Food
52
10. Conclusion
Although the purpose of this report is to focus on the carbon emissions of the four
products, there are different aspects of sustainability that need to be considered
alongside of the climate inducing emissions, such as waste production and
consumption of water during, before and after the manufacturing process. These
different aspects are shown in the figure below alongside the product life cycle
stages. Thus the recommendations in the Appendix are also geared towards
reduction of waste, better packaging alternatives and reduction of water as part of
the overall sustainability programme.
Figure 49: Sustainability Matrix (Source: IGD.com/sustainability)
Total emissions by product, year and by life cycle stage can be gleaned from the
table below. The table provides an overview, highlighting the most significant
sources of emissions, as well as showing the emissions per packet or per kg of
product, based on the production data. These emission indicators (kg of CO2e per
packet or per kg of product) are split between two different types of carbon
assessment carried out in this study: Hotspot analysis- taking into account all life
cycle stages of a product; Cradle to gate assessment- including production and
distribution only, excluding the carbon emissions arising from the usage of the
product.
Corporate GHG Inventory Product Life Cycle Carbon Footprint Project Report- Gits Food
53
Table 7: Total emissions by product, year and life cycle stage
2013
Life cycle stage
Material acquisition and preprocessing
Production
Activities
Procurement of food
raw materials and
packaging
Major GHG emission
sources
2014
Gulab Jamun (tonnes
CO2e)
2013
2014
Khaman Dhokla
(tonnes CO2e)
2013
2014
Idli (tonnes CO2e)
2013
2014
Dosai (tonnes CO2e)
Wheat flour
Skimmed milk powder
450
2062
549
2517
-
-
-
-
-
-
Hydrogenated vegetable oil
Chickpea flour
Semolina
Rice
Urad dal powder
Rice flour
Lentils flour
Sugar
Carton
Plastic
224
118
12
273
781
71
269
88
65
102
20
315
103
76
84
6
282
122
110
29
297
129
92
8
198
73
110
17
212
78
66
10
Upstream transport &
distribution (from
suppliers and to
retailers)
Tier 1 suppliers delivery by
trucks
377
488
36
39
37
40
26
28
Tier 1 delivery by sea freight
174
198
204
230
200
202
134
139
Use of fossil fuels, water
and other resources in
production
Company owned petrol cars
and marketing team petrol
motorbikes
58
75
12
15
11
12
7
8
Corporate GHG Inventory Product Life Cycle Carbon Footprint Project Report- Gits Food
54
Company owned diesel cars
and diesel power generator
Purchased electricity
32
465
44
426
6
95
9
83
6
86
7
68
4
57
5
57
Supply chain
Electricity transmission &
distribution losses
141
141
29
29
26
26
17
17
Downstream logistics
Truck transportation to
warehouses
73
88
7
9
6
7
3
4
Use of products
Consumer use
Cooking with LPG cookers
1427
1741
290
340
263
278
176
189
End of life
Consumer disposal of
waste
Packaging waste to landfill
38
252
36
27
41
30
38
22
Management and other
business travel by air
(international)
19
11
-
2
4
2
2
1
Subtotal
7
5677
5
7660
2
1261
1
1368
1
1224
1
1199
1
863
1
837
Total emissions
5827
7814
1311
1421
1254
1228
885
848
Distribution & Storage
Office footprint
Business travel
Management and other
business hotel stays
(international)
Hotspot analysis- Life cycle carbon footprint
kg CO2e per kg of product
kg CO2e per packet
2.31
0.55
2.53
0.64
2.55
0.63
2.36
0.61
2.69
0.71
2.5
0.67
2.14
0.54
1.89
0.49
Cradle to gate- Life cycle carbon footprint
kg CO2e per kg of product
kg CO2e per packet
1.7
0.40
1.86
0.47
1.9
0.47
1.74
0.45
2.03
0.54
1.86
0.50
2.14
0.54
1.89
0.49
Corporate GHG Inventory Product Life Cycle Carbon Footprint Project Report- Gits Food
55
11. Recommendations to reduce the carbon
emissions
Gits has different levels of influence over the various product life cycle stages and
the purpose of this section is to pinpoint the most obvious and perhaps easiest to
implement strategies and processes to reduce the carbon footprint in the long run.
For instance, within raw materials, a significant component of Gulab Jamun is
skimmed milk powder. A slight re-formulation of the product which would not affect
function, while reducing the amount of the raw material required, can allow for an
overall reduction in GHG emissions associated with raw materials. The same
principle can be applied to chick pea flour for Khaman Dhokla, rice for Idli and rice
flour for Dosai.
11.1 Agriculture and raw materials input
11.1.1 Raw materials: food and agricultural practices
While specific recommendations can be applied to each ingredient constituting a
high proportion of GHG emissions for the four products, a more general
recommendation can be made at the overall company level with regards to the
partnership with the suppliers. This step can become important in ensuring
sustainability in the supply chain of Gits Food and ultimately lead to carbon
reduction and reductions in cost of operations.
For example, milk powder makes up a large proportion of one of the product’s
carbon footprint, while three quarters of the greenhouse gas emissions associated
with milk are linked to the dairy farm, largely due to emissions of methane from
dairy cattle. With a clear commitment from Gits to reduce carbon in its supply chain,
it is possible to collaborate with the dairy farms directly, developing programmes to
help dairy farmers to reduce their carbon emissions.
Farmers can be provided with a set of best practice guidelines4 with indicative carbon
and cost savings, aimed at helping them reduce GHG emissions and save money
(based on practices employed on the best performing farms).
Example of such practices include sustainable practices in milk production:
4
5
-
Removing soya from the diet of low-yielding cows, saving the average farm 89
tonnes of carbon equivalent and over INR 2.4 lakh per year5 with the minimal
impact on the cow’s milk yield.
-
In addition, workshops can be set up for farmers to discuss challenges and
cBalance can aid in providing a specific set of such guidelines
UK-based estimates
Corporate GHG Inventory Product Life Cycle Carbon Footprint Project Report- Gits Food
56
opportunities that arise from each farmer’s specific situation.
Further recommendations:
-
Promote livestock source organic fertilizer, procuring as much of organic
stock as possible
Promote methane capture from livestock manure
Farmers to reuse straw for mulching or other purposes to reduce need for
burning
-
Promote use of on-farm anaerobic digestion
-
Promote use of bio-fuels in farm vehicles
11.1.2 Raw materials: packaging
With regards to the use of packaging, increasing the use of recycled materials could
substantially reduce the carbon footprint of plastic and carton packaging, research
suggests. A new study of the life-cycle of plastic trays has shown that increasing the
proportion of recycled material could lead to a significant reduction of greenhouse
gas emissions.
While plastic does not form the most significant component of packaging from the
emissions point of view, the focus is to ensure increased usage of recycled carton (as
opposed to using virgin material), but also gradually incorporating recycled plastic
packaging (which would satisfy the hygiene criteria, as required for food production).
Moreover, in order to reduce the overall usage of packaging an innovative design
could be considered which reduces the amount of carton required per product
without affecting the net weight of product (e.g. thinner and more lightweight
packet). Such intervention would ultimately not only affect the emissions resulting
from packaging, but also the total emissions throughout the supply chain and
distribution, due to the reduced carried weight.
11.2 Energy: renewables, energy efficiency, alternative energy
11.2.1 Renewable Energy Technologies (supply side alternatives)
Solar Photovoltaic Systems
Solar Photovoltaic (PV) can be used as source of renewable energy to reduce
dependence on thermal-power dominated grid electricity and thereby reduce the
Gits’ GHG emissions.
Corporate GHG Inventory Product Life Cycle Carbon Footprint Project Report- Gits Food
57
cBalance’s recommendation is to establish energy benchmarking or ecolabelling of
Solar PV system manufacturers to differentiate best-practice leaders (cBalance can
also perform this exercise for Gits if required).
Current global average energy payback or carbon payback period for Solar PVs is
seen to be approximately 2.5 years of its lifespan but local producers are anticipated
to have higher embodied GHG emissions and hence longer energy payback periods.
Rapid adoption of monocrystalline Solar PV and its promising variants – thin-film and
BiPV should only be pursued following transparent disclosure of manufacturing
practices and rejection of manufacturers that fail to meet industry best practice
norms.
The alternative (as considered in the low carbon scenario modelling section) is to
switch the supply of grid energy from coal to renewable without the need for heavy
investment in Solar Photovoltaic panels. Transmission & Distribution losses,
however, would still be applicable in this case (thus the reduction in GHG emissions
would be less than in the case with the PV panels).
11.3 Mobility: efficiency, alternate modes of transport
11.3.1 Fuel additives for diesel and petrol vehicles
Use of bio-derived emissions-tested or ecolabelled fuel-additives is recommended to
be used for all petrol and diesel vehicles owned/leased by the company with the aim
of reducing the CO2e emissions with subsequent augmentation in fuel efficiency at
15%.
11.3.2 Use of vehicles with alternate fuel
Direct energy conservation potential arises from switching to alternate fuel in
vehicles that the company both owns and leases.
For example, petrol and diesel run cars and vans can be switched to CNG. This can be
also applied to the road trucks used in distribution and delivery of goods and will
require stakeholder engagement with suppliers and distribution partners to promote
the sustainable practices. Given the long-distance nature of the logistics, the GHG
potential for saving is considerable.
11.3.3 Switching to sustainable marine transport companies
Corporate GHG Inventory Product Life Cycle Carbon Footprint Project Report- Gits Food
58
With marine transport impacting heavily Scope 3 emissions of Gits due to export
operations, it is important to examine which companies are available at a similar cost
but which have implemented sustainable policies to reduce their GHG emissions.
With international shipping carrying more than 90% of global trade, maritime
industries are coming under increasing pressure to make their operations more ecofriendly.
Supplier charter can be demanded to make sure the supplier does their outmost to
minimise their carbon footprint, which will ultimately reduce the indirect emissions
of Gits.
11.3.4 Modification for auto-engine to increase mileage
Modified auto engine assembly consists of additional air pre heaters, air intake line
to the engine, and engine valve contrary to the conventional two-stroke engine
which does not have valve.
Part of the exhaust gas is utilized to heat the incoming air and some part is utilized to
heat the mixture (air + fuel) before entry to the engine for complete combustion.
Through evaluation of the heat recovery system the reported mileage increased by
around 33% through the use of this technology. With the engine consuming 33% less
fuel for every km, emissions reduction is calculated to be about 10 g CO2e per km
driven, which have a significant impact for the sales force travelling by car.
Moreover, this could be also recommended to the suppliers using truck deliveries.
This recommendation has been taken into account in the “Low carbon scenario
modelling” section to see how much can be saved in terms of emissions with specific
reference to this study.
11.3.5 Consideration of alternative shipping routes
Different shipping routes which can reduce the distance required to be travelled by
road or by sea would significantly reduce the transport footprint (as depicted in the
hotspot analysis section- “Upstream logistics and distribution” life cycle stage,
ranging from 10% to 20%).
11.3.6 Promoting the use of bicycles
Although the number of employees commuting by motorbike or by car is low (40),
for those employees living in the close proximity to the office, the use of bicycles
should be encouraged. Moreover, the switch from bus use (210 staff) to daily biking
can result yet in further emission cuts, with corresponding health benefits, which can
contribute towards fewer sick days and subsequent reduced productivity losses at
the company level.
Corporate GHG Inventory Product Life Cycle Carbon Footprint Project Report- Gits Food
59
If an assumed 15% of staff commuting to work by bus or motorbike switch to using
bicycles, with half of the daily commuters by car switching to biking (out of 3 people),
then an annual saving of 3.6 metric tonnes of CO2e will be mitigated, which
translates into a substantial 36 tonnes over a course of 10 years.
There are many different ways to implement an incentive system, ranging from high
upfront investment schemes, where the company purchases a minimum number of
bicycles, making them available on a monthly loan to its employees, to an effective
campaign where employees are encourage to buy or share a bicycle (e.g. with a
neighbour/friend), resulting in a small monthly bonus/benefit made available to the
employee. An effective tracking system would then be required and consideration for
tax-breaks (if available).
11.4 Consumer awareness and associated reduction of carbon
emissions potential
For the end user behaviour change is a key way to reduce GHG emissions arising
from the product use life cycle stage, although overall use of LPG is already one of
the most efficient ways of cooking in terms of resulting GHG emissions.
For example, the following initiatives do not require significant cash outflow to
implement (with some element of business process transformation necessary) and
can ultimately have a significant impact on the Scope 3 emissions (the highest in the
analysis above).
Gits should provide advice on packaging and through the company website,
increasing consumer intelligence by communicating on:

better use of products to reduce unnecessary energy usage, better advice on
recycling and disposal of the constituent materials (for instance by
composting, using companies such as Daily Dump to supply the necessary
materials)
o this can be done through insertion of a one pager (printed on FSC
certified paper) which will also contain information on the initiatives
undertaken by Gits in terms of measuring its ecological footprint. The
1 pager or even the packet itself can indicate the grams of CO2e per
product.

most energy efficient methods of food preparation, for example putting a lid
on pot when boiling water, cooking on low flame, only boiling the appropriate
amount of water and microwaving rather than oven cooking small quantities
of reheatable meals etc.

incentivising consumers to purchase more energy efficient products
Moreover, customer feedback will need to be captured, with regards to their views
on increased sustainability levels at Gits. Such initiatives may result in associated
costs being passed on to the consumers, therefore it is imperative that Gits is aware
Corporate GHG Inventory Product Life Cycle Carbon Footprint Project Report- Gits Food
60
of consumer reaction. This can be captured via an interactive app (to automate the
feedback process), which cBalance can help build and implement.
In terms of fuel efficiency gains when already cooking with LPG, still significant
reductions are possible, translating into lower GHG emissions.
For example, experiments conducted have revealed a saving of 25% fuel when the
flame was reduced after boiling had started. Furthermore, using the small burner of
the stove consumes 6% to 10% less gas than the big burner.
The use of higher efficiency ‘ISI’ marked LPG stove (the thermal efficiency level of
which is 68%+) saves up to 15% of gas. Other good practices such as using only clean
cooking vessels, using a clean burner, putting the lid on to avoid heat losses, using
shallow and wide vessels for cooking- all can contribute further 6%-10% of fuel
saving.
To further maximise efficiency of the cooking process by the final consumers, usage
of solar cookstoves can be recommended, although a suitable low-cost alternative is
required for consumers to replace their LPG cookstoves.
11.5 Implementation of Supplier Scorecard in operational
processes and establishing of partnership with Suppliers
Scorecard process of assessing and selecting suitable suppliers which can help
contribute towards reducing Gits’ Scope 3 emissions is recommended to be
implemented for review of the existing and selection of any new suppliers.
Vendor scorecards strengthen supply chain relationships and help focus your
suppliers on what matters most to you. Scorecards set goals for your vendors to
reach for so they can become your vendor of choice. You can clearly see where each
vendor ranks against each other, which helps you decide which supplier to work with
on complex projects.
When it comes to suppliers, they can represent critical partners in improving the
environmental sustainability of Gits’ end-to-end supply chain. The scorecard with its
Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) helps measure and track supplier performance on
dimensions important to Gits- in this case carbon footprint and overall sustainability
management. Key Process Indicators can be used in measuring level of suppliers’ eco
and sustainable credentials, which can contribute towards Gits’ ecological footprint,
and these indicators need to be selected carefully, so as to present a coherent and
complete picture without raising the complexity levels.
Such supplier scorecards can be used within the organisation not only for selecting
eco-suppliers, they can also be helpful in maximising supply chain efficiency with the
focus on areas such as Quality, Product Development, Payment terms, Product
Pricing, Weighted Average Lead Time. For further advice on constructing a suitable
Supplier Scorecard kindly reach out to cBalance Pvt Ltd.
Example of the Supplier Scorecard form, modelled on that of Procter & Gamble, is
Corporate GHG Inventory Product Life Cycle Carbon Footprint Project Report- Gits Food
61
given below:
Table 8: Example of a Supplier Scorecard
Core Measure
2015 (Current Year)
Scope
Jan - Dec
Data
2014 (Past Year)
Scope
Jan - Dec
Data
(Electric) Energy Usage
(Fuel) Energy Usage
(Input / Withdrawal) Water Usage
(Output / Discharge) Water Usage
Hazardous Waste Disposal
Non-Hazardous Waste Disposal
Kyoto Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Direct (Scope 1)
Kyoto Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Indirect (Scope 2)
Fines & Sanctions
Environmental Mgt. System
Optional Measure
Renewable Energy
Kyoto Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Indirect (Scope 3)
Potential Waste Material
Recycled, Reused, Recovered
Transportation Fuel Efficiency
(Transportation Suppliers Only)
Furthermore, in addition to the above scorecard approach, suppliers of Gits can be
requested to perform energy audits with appropriate follow ups to ensure the most
optimal energy consumption, reduction of energy and carbon emissions where
possible, as well as water and waste saving opportunities are taken advantage of.
Such collaborative efforts ensure that the positive impact that organisations and
businesses can have on the environment will be maximised further!
12. Low Carbon Scenario Modelling
Corporate GHG Inventory Product Life Cycle Carbon Footprint Project Report- Gits Food
62
This section depicts possible savings in terms of greenhouse gases emitted
throughout various lifecycle stages of the four products based on the total average
emissions across FY 2012-2013 and FY 2013-2014.
Assumptions have been noted down and are purely indicative, were the company to
undertake the interventions and initiatives as mentioned in the recommendations
section. For further details on each intervention, please refer to the section
“Recommendations” of the report.
Emissions offsetting
The combined GHG emissions to be neutralized from four products are
approximately 10,294 tonnes CO2e annually. The option is given below to offset the
full emissions of the four products through high density afforestation.
Table 9: Low carbon alternative interventions
Intervention
GHG
Scope
Carbon Savings
Assumptions
Fuel efficient road -transport
vehicles through modification
of auto engine, leading to 33%
increase in mileage
1
(MT CO2e average per
year)
16
Use of bio-derived emissionstested or ecolabelled fueladditives for all petrol and
diesel vehicles owned/leased
by the company.
1
29
Electricity
and power
usage
Switch to renewable energy
(for example through
purchasing of solar power and
wind)
2
898
Greening of
the supply
chain
Milk farms/milk powder
suppliers carry out energy
audits and implement energy
saving initiatives
Rice and rice powder
suppliers integrate energy
efficient practices
3
229
3
59
100% switch to organic wheat
3
26
Use of recycled/corrugated
and composted cartons for
packaging of products
3
718
Gits is using virgin carton paper,
received from its suppliers
Efficient cooking practices
communicated on the
product packaging: reducing
flame, small Burner and high
3
118
Assume a conservative
consumer uptake (perhaps
initially) at 20%.
Assume only some practices are
Transport
Use of
Recycled
materials in
production
Behavioural
Change –
Consumer
Only company owned cars are
taken into account, thus there is
greater scope to reduce supply
chain emissions by collaborating
with the suppliers
Includes company owned cars as
well as the motorbikes used by
the sales team
100% switch to renewable
energy supply of power (where
emissions from T&D losses and
fugitive emissions are still
present)
Assume a conservative rate of
possible reduction of 10% (due
to limitations of
implementation)
Assume a conservative rate of
possible reduction of 15% (due
to limitations of
implementation)
Corporate GHG Inventory Product Life Cycle Carbon Footprint Project Report- Gits Food
63
Level
efficiency LPG Burners
Increased consumer
3
packaging recycling ratereminders communicated
through packaging
Total annual carbon emission savings possible with the
above interventions
Saving as a % of total average annual product lifecycle
emissions for Gulab Jamun, Khaman Dhokla, Idli and Dosai
27
followed thus only reducing LPG
consumption by 25% (As
opposed to 54% potential)
Initial recycling rate assumed to
be 10%. Through consumer
awareness raising this rate
increases further by 10%
MT 2,120
21%
High Growth Rate Forrest Plantationmitigation option
Maximum mitigation scope
10,294
Metric tonnes per year
Sequestration Rate with Miyawaki Method6
7,500
3,750
Metric tonnes
CO2e/lifetime/hectare
36%
7,500
72%
Avoided emissions with 0.5 hectare afforestation a
year
Avoided emissions with 1 hectare afforestation a
year
The above analysis shows that with only a few interventions it is possible to achieve
a significant reduction in both directly controllable (Scope 1) and indirect emissions
(Scope 2 and Scope 3) of Gits. Taking into account that some interventions require
upfront investment, further analysis (Marginal Abatement Cost Curve analysis) needs
to be carried out in order to establish the most financially viable ways of reducing
product life cycle greenhouse gas emissions. However, initial review above does
show that relatively inexpensive ways can still lead to substantial emission
reductions (such as switching to recycled/composted carton for packaging or
promotion of efficient cooking and disposal practices by consumers).
6
The Dr. Miyawaki Method is a rapid forest growth method that works according to the principle of
‘Potential Natural Vegetation’ and involves planting of native specifies in high density grids of 300
trees per 100 sq.m. It is estimated that this method could sequester approximately 7,500 tonnes /
hectare during an assumed lifespan of 25 years. Estimation is based on 10 kg CO2e/year sequestration
capacity per tree and 25 year lifespan, leading to 0.25 tonnes CO2e sequestration during the lifetime
of a typical mid-growth stage tree
Corporate GHG Inventory Product Life Cycle Carbon Footprint Project Report- Gits Food
64
Figure 50: Emissions reductions through use of recycled carton
Figure 51: Emissions reductions through use of renewable energy
Total annual emissions from
renewable electricity (grid) (MT CO2e)
1,500
1,000
1,339
500
-
440
Grid electricity (current)
Grid electricity (renewable)
Corporate GHG Inventory Product Life Cycle Carbon Footprint Project Report- Gits Food
65
Figure 52: Emissions reduction through more efficient cooking and packaging disposal
13. Appendix
13.1 Annexure A- Assumptions, Limitations and Exclusions
13.2 Annexure B- Low carbon solutions & recommendations
13.2.1 Energy: renewables, energy efficiency, alternative energy
Emissions resulting from energy activities represent a large part of the company’s
operations, therefore a wide range of recommendations is provided to Gits,
implementation of can result in significant reductions in annual energy and electricity
expenditure.
Corporate GHG Inventory Product Life Cycle Carbon Footprint Project Report- Gits Food
66
13.2.2 Heating, Ventilation and Air-conditioning (HVAC) Systems
related
Economizers
An economizer is a collection of dampers, sensors, actuators and logic devices that
together decide how much outside air to bring into a building. When the outdoor
temperature and humidity are mild, economizers save energy by cooling buildings
with outside air instead of by using refrigeration equipment to cool recirculated air.
A properly operating economizer can cut energy costs by as much as 10% of a
building’s total energy consumption, depending mostly on local climate and internal
cooling loads.
Scale Control in Water Circuit
In a water-cooled air-conditioning system, heat is rejected from the refrigerant to the
cooling water in the condenser. The impurities in the cooling water circuit get
accumulated, and thus the scales and deposits are built up in the condenser tubes,
creating scaling problems on the condenser heat transfer surfaces. This reduces the
heat transfer efficiency of the condenser and thus increases chiller energy
consumption. The use of soft water for condensers and chilled water system will
reduce scale formation.
Solar Air Conditioning
The most common technique consists in using solar collectors to provide the heat
that is directed toward an absorption chiller. This machine dissociates, by boiling
point, a solution of water and bromide of lithium. After cooling, the recombination of
the two components produces the cold air which is distributed then into the zones
like classic air-conditioning. The sun can provide a substantial part of the energy
needed for air-conditioning. It can be used, either as stand-alone systems or with
conventional air conditioning, to improve the indoor air –quality of all types of
buildings. The main goal is to utilize “zero emission” technologies to reduce energy
consumption and CO2 emissions.
Thermal-Storage ACs
Thermo-storage ACs, relative to a conventional compressor based systems, can
reduce peak electrical load imposed during the afternoon peak cooling load periods
on the local electric grid. This technology essentially relies upon standard chillers
operating at off-peak hours to produce ice around which water is circulated through
heat-exchanger systems during peak hours to produce chilled water that is circulated
though the buildings HVAC systems. Thermal storage systems can be retrofitted into
existing water-based central air conditioning systems and is a very useful advantage
since it reduces barriers for rapid adoption on a wide scale. The technology is mature
enough and has seen widespread application within Maharashtra (Thane District)
and is ideally suited for applications such as office buildings.
Corporate GHG Inventory Product Life Cycle Carbon Footprint Project Report- Gits Food
67
Evaporative Air Coolers
An evaporative cooler produces effective cooling by combining a natural process water evaporation - with a simple, reliable air-moving system. Fresh outside air is
pulled through moist pads where it is cooled by evaporation and circulated through a
house or building by a large blower. As this happens, the temperature of the outside
air can be lowered as much as 30 degrees. This technology can provide significant
savings relative to conventional electric compressor-based AC systems in areas with
low humidity. Furthermore, this system will drastically improve air quality for and
occupational health of kitchen and office staff, since these systems do not
recirculate air unlike Air Conditioning systems. Incidences of building-sickness with
these systems will be largely eliminated and will improve overall workforce
productivity.
Desiccant Heat Recovery Systems
Properties of desiccants materials to readily attract water and thus dehumidify air
can be used in HVAC applications to reduce cooling loads, improve chiller efficiency
and widen the applicability of evaporative cooling, while providing improved indoor
air quality and eliminating the use of CFC refrigerants. In combination with
evaporative cooling, desiccant cooling can eliminate refrigerative Air conditioning in
many climates.
Variable Refrigerant Flow (VRF) and Variable Air Volume (VAV) AC Systems
In VAV systems, chilled air is distributed to spaces from an air handling unit, and the
temperature of individual spaces is controlled by throttling the quantity of air into
each space. The throttling is accomplished by terminal units that are controlled by
the space thermostats.
VAV systems were originally introduced as a more efficient alternative to constantvolume reheats systems. The VAV concept offers two major efficiency improvements:
(1) it reduces or eliminates reheat and (2) it minimizes fan power.
VRF AC systems are ideal for use in spaces which are expected to witness wide
variations in cooling needs through the day or in various physical zones of a
premises; for instance in offices. These systems are generally believed to yield
approximately 40% higher Coefficient of Performance (COP) compared to
conventional systems. The approximate Energy Efficiency Ratio (EER) for VRF systems
are in the vicinity of 4.3 relative to the EER’s of the most efficient split-unit
conventional compressor based systems of approximately 3.0 to 3.3; an
improvement of approximately 37%.
Displacement Ventilation Systems
Incoming air is delivered to interior rooms by way of floor-level vents. This incoming
air displaces upper air, which is exhausted through ceiling-level vents. Because
Corporate GHG Inventory Product Life Cycle Carbon Footprint Project Report- Gits Food
68
displacement ventilation systems typically use 100% outdoor air, air pollutants
generated within the building are removed at source and are not recirculated. In
addition, heat generated by ceiling level lights is removed, and thus heat is not
included when estimating building cooling loads.
Low Pressure Duct Work Design
Duct size should be increased to reduce duct pressure drop and fan speed.
Resistance in the duct system can be reduced by improving the aerodynamics of the
flow paths and avoiding sharp turns in duct routing. Increasing the size of ducting
where possible allows reductions in air velocity, which in turn permits reductions in
fan speed and yields substantial energy savings. Small increase in duct diameter can
greatly lower pressure, resulting in fan energy savings, because the pressure drop in
ducts is proportional to the inverse of duct diameter to the fifth power.
Building Energy Management Systems
Energy Management Systems for smart control of HVAC and Lighting is an industrywide best practice for commercial buildings in India. These control systems empower
facility managers and shift engineers to dramatically reduce excess energy
consumption especially with respect to unwanted lighting and excessive cooling in
building zones which not only escalates energy consumption but also undermines
thermal comfort of building occupants.
Motion-based HVAC and Lighting Controls
Energy consumption from building interiors and exteriors that do not require
continual lighting and cooling due to infrequent occupancy (eg. stairwell and
compound lighting in buildings and fan/light operation in toilets and elevators in
commercial and residential premises) can be significantly diminished by use of
Passive Infrared Sensors- PIR Sensors to controls HVAC and lighting fixtures.
Incorporating PIR Sensor-control in tubelights, used 12 hours per day (approximate
usage in stairwell lighting applications), can mitigate energy consumption by
approximately 160 kWh per fixture.
Common areas such as stairwells, elevators, lobbies etc. in residential buildings
should become synonymous with motion-sensing (PIR) technology which can yield
significant cost and energy savings for all stakeholders.
13.2.3 Passive energy related interventions
Double and Triple-Glazed Windows
Double and Triple-Glazed Windows enhance the insulation properties and reduce the
operational energy requirement of the buildings. The advantage of these methods of
insulation over other window systems which rely upon solar reflection (such as tinted
and coated window films) is that they achieve heat gain reduction without greatly
compromising visible light transmission. Solar reflection based systems, while
Corporate GHG Inventory Product Life Cycle Carbon Footprint Project Report- Gits Food
69
achieving comparable heat gain reduction, are compromised by the increased
interior lighting load necessitated by their application. Through Double and Triple
Glazed Systems the heat gain/loss can be reduced by approximately 50% to 75%
relative to Single Pane Glass Systems.
Heat Gain Reducing Paint
The Heat Gain Reducing Paint technology has the ability to reflect heat causing
infrared rays from solar radiation. This intervention was designed to help reduce the
internal temperature of the building i.e. reduce heat gain. Certification conducted by
the Centre for Energy Studies and Research (CESR, India) indicates that Weather
Shield Paints (i.e. solar reflective paints) can reduce the temperatures of walls by up
to 5oCand that reflectivity rate for solar radiation through these paints is 0.40
relative to ordinary exterior wall paint which exhibit a reflectivity rate of 0.21, i.e.
these paints are approximately twice as effective in curbing building wall
temperature rise due to solar radiation.
Natural Lighting
Natural lighting through dormer windows, skylights, and transparent cement as well
as optimal positioning of windows can reduce the lighting load incorporated into
building design. This intervention has the twin beneficial impact of reducing
manufacturing related LCA impacts of lighting fixtures as well as reduced energy
consumption. Some green architecture guidelines specify design lighting loads in the
vicinity of 7.5 W/sq.m. For building occupancy of 10 hours/day, the average annual
electricity conservation and GHG emissions mitigation per sq. m of naturally lit space
relative to conventionally lit space is estimated to be 27 kWh/sq.m and 24
kgCO2e/sq. m.
Natural Ventilation
Natural ventilation through facilitation of wind draft through open walls and from
under floor spaces, channelling through hollow support pillars and stairwells are
some of the ways in which natural ventilation can be employed. As in the case with
natural lighting, natural ventilation has the twin beneficial impact of reducing
manufacturing related LCA impacts of HVAC systems (by either eliminating it in some
spaces or reducing the design capacity) as well as reduced energy consumption. The
primary savings from natural ventilation systems are the consequence of reduced
power consumption for air handling unit fans.
Sun shading
Sun shading can be made possible either through intrinsic design features such as
Dougong Brackets (a design feature wherein the higher roof area to floor base ratio
limits the heat gain caused by 45 degree solar radiation, i.e. the maximum diurnal
solar influx) or through smart controlled window shades (to block the sun rays during
Corporate GHG Inventory Product Life Cycle Carbon Footprint Project Report- Gits Food
70
periods of high solar intensity).
Building Integrated Photo Voltaic
In BIPV, modules have been integrated into roofing or other building materials as an
alternative to traditional PV modules that are mounted above the roof on racks.
Once installed, BIPV components protect the home from weather and also produce
electricity for use. BIPV systems can be installed on a small scale to produce limited
amount of energy or be large enough to power an entire building and send excess
electricity to the utility.
Evaporative Reflective Roof
In this, roof design is composed of a concrete ceiling over which lies on a bed of
rocks in a water pool. Over this bed is an air gap separated from the external
environment by an aluminium plate. The upper surface of this plate is painted with a
white titanium-based pigment to increase reflection of a radiation to a maximum
during the day. At night, the temperature of the aluminium sheet falls below the
temperature of the rock bed mixed with water. Water vapour inside the roof
condenses and falls by gravity. This heat pipe effect carries heat outwards and cold
inwards.
Insulating Walls
Insulation of walls is important for reducing conduction losses especially where
significant difference exists between inside and outside temperature. Many
insulation materials require Air Barrier and Weather Relative Barrier to prevent air
and moisture movement into and out of the conditioned space as well as for
maintaining their installed R-value.
Infiltration and Exfiltration
Unwanted air movement through windows and envelope surfaces is caused by a
pressure difference (air moves from high pressure to a lower pressure). Limiting air
infiltration and exfiltration can improve the energy efficiency. Implementing a
continuous air barrier or roll-applied continuous air barrier can control the moisture
in the buildings.
Green Roofs and Green Walls
A green roof is a roof of a building that is partially or completely covered with
vegetation and a growing medium, planted over a waterproofing membrane. It may
also include additional layers such as a root barrier and drainage and irrigation
systems. Similarly, a green wall is a wall, either free-standing or part of a building,
which is partially or completely covered with vegetation and, in some cases, soil or
Corporate GHG Inventory Product Life Cycle Carbon Footprint Project Report- Gits Food
71
an inorganic growing medium. The vegetation for a green façade is can be attached
either to the outside walls or in the case of interior greening, they can be attached to
the inner wall.
Green roofs and walls can serve several purposes for a building, such as absorbing
rainwater, providing insulation, creating a habitat for wildlife, helping to lower
indoor air temperature, combatting heat island effects while at the same time
sequestering atmospheric carbon dioxide. Its impacts are therefore two-fold:
indirect GHG mitigation through energy conservation and direct GHG mitigation
through carbon sequestration.
Combining green roofs with food production and/or organic waste composting has
the potential to effectively address food supply inefficiencies (both, reduced
economic cost and GHG emissions from avoided logistics and land-use change effect)
as well as municipal solid waste management issues both from reduced system
operational cost and reduced GHG emissions from avoided logistics, reduced landfill
gas production and avoided NPK or urea based fertilizer production. Furthermore,
green roofs can be seen as low embodied carbon alternatives to conventional soundinsulation materials employed in commercial buildings as they reduce noise
penetration from outside. It has also been reported that green roofs reduce building
penetration of electromagnetic pollution – again, an instance of avoided embodied
carbon emissions from production of other conventional materials designed to
mitigate these effects on building inhabitants
One aspect of green roof technology to be considered is the competing technologies
for utilization of roof space. In hotter climates, relative electrical conservation and
consequent GHG mitigation benefits for solar thermal, solar PV, skylights etc. on a
unit area basis must be considered in a comprehensive analysis to determine the
most carbon efficient alternative for rooftop application on a wide scale.
Direct Evaporative Water Spraying Technology
This technology essentially comprises of spraying water on exterior building walls to
reduce the temperature of the interior environment and thereby reducing Air
Conditioning load and increasing operational energy efficiency of the built space.
While this system does increase water consumption and the associated energy for
pumping, these impacts might be mitigated by utilizing the grey water recycled or
stored harvested rain water from the building rooftop during the wet months and
putting it to use in the dry months. This technology is not expected to yield
significant benefit in humid climates or seasons. Also, the paint selection for building
exteriors must account for the increased fungal growth potential due to increased
surface moisture – and hence must have strong anti-fungal properties.
13.2.4 Lighting related
Corporate GHG Inventory Product Life Cycle Carbon Footprint Project Report- Gits Food
72
LED Lighting
Light Emitting Diode (LED) Lighting is known to be 50% more energy efficient (on a
lum/W baisis) relative to Compact Fluorescent Lamp (CFL) Bulbs; CFL Bulbs are
widely known to be 75% energy efficient relative to Incandescent Bulbs. The overall
energy efficiency of LED lighting relative to GLS lamps is therefore approximately
87.5%. Furthermore, the lifespan of LED bulbs is significantly longer (generally 25,000
hours) compared to GLS Lamps (generally 1,500 hours) and CFL Bulbs (generally
8,000 to 10,000 hours). While this lighting technology is financially unviable for
residential use (based on 2011 equipment and electricity prices), they offer immense
potential for cost and energy conservation at a viable payback period for Commercial
establishments.
Fibre-Optic Lighting
Fibre-optic lighting utilizes light-transmitting cable fed from a light source in a
remote location. They generally energy-efficient and provides illumination over a
given area. The only electrical connection needed for the system is an illuminator.
No wiring or electrical connection is required along any part, either at the fibre-optic
cable or at the actual point source fixture. This system provides many benefits and
eliminates many problems encountered with conventional lighting systems. They
require no voltage at the fixtures, are completely safe, emit no heat and are virtually
maintenance-free. This lighting technology is especially useful for retail settings,
supermarkets, because it emits no heat or ultraviolet radiation.
13.2.5 Water Heating
Solar Thermal Water Heating Systems
On a per unit area basis, Solar Thermal Flat Plate Collectors with 55 % thermal
efficiency can be expected to generate approximately 600 W/m2 and 830
kWh/m2/year. This is significantly higher (a factor of 6.0) than the specific power
generation by Solar PVs under identical climatic conditions. Hence rooftops at Gits
should be utilized first for satisfying Solar Thermal demand prior to their utilization
for Solar PV applications.
13.3 Water: conservation, usage efficiency, recycling
An overarching trend that defines the environmental benefits from all water
conservation and rainwater recycling technologies (especially when they result in
reduced potable water consumption as well as reduced wastewater discharge to the
sewage system), coupled with an indirect but potent advantage of application of this
technology on a multiple-site scale, is two-fold: a) significant reduction in the design
capacity of the water treatment, wastewater treatment and, stormwater
management systems (in the cases of stormwater runoff prevention systems),
Corporate GHG Inventory Product Life Cycle Carbon Footprint Project Report- Gits Food
73
required to convey and treat peak water supply and wastewater discharge flows , and
b) reduced operational energy consumption for all the infrastructure facilities
mentioned above stemming from their curtailed design capacity.
Water Saving Toilets
Water saving toilets can reduce water consumption by 65% (assuming a 1.6 gal/0.8
gal configuration) relative to a convention (5 gal/flush) system. The primary benefits
from this intervention are reduced potable water consumption and associated
pumping energy conservation.
Waterfree Urinals
Waterless urinals use no water at all and use a trap insert filled with a sealant liquid
instead of water. The lighter-than-water sealant floats on top of the urine collected in
the U-bend, preventing odours from being released into the air. Although the
cartridge and sealant must be periodically replaced, the system saves anywhere
between 15,000 and 45,000 gallons (approx. 55,000 and 170,000 liters) depending
on the urinal traffic in BAU conditions. Some variants are based on an outlet system
that traps the odour, preventing the smell often present in toilet blocks. Waterless
urinals should be used extensively all across Gits to ensure high degree of potable or
recycled water conservation as well as the associated pumping energy use.
Water Saving Faucets
Water saving faucets for commercial use in kitchens and bathrooms are low-cost
means of achieving significant levels of water conservation. Indian Green Building
Council (IGBC) approved water fixtures with aerators are considered to enable water
savings of about 30%.
Greywater Recycling
Grey Water Recycling (i.e. recycling of bath and wash water, excluding sewage from
toilets) can be mandated at all company locations. The primary benefits from this
intervention are reduced potable water consumption, stemming from reuse of
treated grey water for non-potable uses (flushing, landscaping etc.) and associated
pumping energy conservation.
Rainwater Harvesting / Recycling
Despite the adequate availability of water sources at Gits (both municipal and from
the well), stemming from the artificial reservoirs through damming of rivers, rooftop
rainwater capture, storage and recycling technology must be applied. While water
availability might not be a cause for concern at this time (2014), it may pose a
medium-term risk to the organisation due to the falling water reservoir levels across
India. The primary benefits of the de-centralized system of water self-sufficiency and
Corporate GHG Inventory Product Life Cycle Carbon Footprint Project Report- Gits Food
74
localized management are reduced potable water consumption stemming from reuse
of captured rainwater for non-potable uses (flushing, landscaping etc.) and
associated pumping energy conservation.
13.4 Waste: reduction and management
Although not significant from the carbon footprint share perspective, waste
management can lead to leaner organisational processes and even help contribute
towards lower energy and fertiliser/raw materials costs (e.g. though mechanical
biological treatment, biogas facilities and other techniques).
While for Ready to Cook (RTC) products in review in this report vegetable waste is
largely not applicable, still, Gits produces 260 kg of wet vegetable waste daily, which,
if sent to the landfill, would add 59 tonnes of CO2e to the atmosphere annually due
to highly climate change potent methane emissions produced during the rotting of
organic matter in bacteria-rich environment. Specific recommendations on treatment
of waste are provided below.
One of the simplest solutions is to direct the vegetable waste towards the farms
surrounding Pune- free service provided by the Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC)the garbage is then used to make compost fertilizers, thereby contributing towards
overall lower emissions in the food production cycle.
Mechanical Biological Treatment
Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) systems for treatment of biodegradable
kitchen waste for conversion into compost can be implemented as a waste
management strategy.
Benefit of MBT based waste management is the generation of high-nutrient compost
as the end product of the beneficial-reuse process. Hence, MBT systems also provide
the added benefit of avoided NPK-based or urea-based fertilizer production for local
urban agricultural and greening activities. Estimates indicate that 1 kg of
biodegradable waste can generate a quantity of compost to (which replaces
conventional NPK fertilizers) mitigate 60 grams of CO2e emissions. The generated
compost can be taken by the suppliers (where direct contact with farmers is in place),
thus contributing towards greener supply chain and ultimately reducing the Scope 3
emissions.
Non-Mechanized Aerobic Composting Systems
Mechanized systems might be unavoidable for large volumes of biodegradable
waste. However, small units can be incorporated, such as non-mechanized aerobic
composting units made from low-environmental impact / local materials, for
example, locally sourced clay. Such systems ensure de-centralized waste
management, reducing the need for transport infrastructure for waste management
Corporate GHG Inventory Product Life Cycle Carbon Footprint Project Report- Gits Food
75
as well as leading to direct reduction in methane emissions from landfilling of
domestic solid waste.
Alternative Wastewater Treatment Technology
Wastewater treatment based on engineered ecological systems such as Biotreatment
System (Bacillus Subtilis) and Constructed Wetlands are designed to activate
microbial processes that stimulate the natural breakdown of polluting compounds in
a specific waste water situation. Organic pollutants are broken down as a food source
by the micro-organisms whilst other contaminants, such as metals or PCB‘s are fixed
in humic acid and caution exchange bonds in the soil or mineral substrates in which
these plants are rooted.
Contrary to conventional notions of these systems being fragile, they can provide a
more robust treatment alternative in many wastewater sewage applications.
Furthermore, they are ideally suited for decentralized and localized treatment of
wastewater and/or grey water treatment which further curbs the environmental
impacts related with heavy infrastructure construction related to wastewater
treatment collection networks. Additionally, the system minimizes land-use change
effects.
13.5 Consumable Materials: reduced embodied energy and
carbon, reduced downstream impacts
Biodegradable Detergents
Soap Nuts (fruits of the soap nut tree and contain ‘Saponin’) which is a 100% natural
alternative to chemical laundry detergent and cleansers. When in contact with water,
it creates mild suds, which is similar to soap. Soapnuts are highly-effective as
substitutes to normal detergents which increase the nutrient loading (Phosphates) of
domestic wastewater – thereby increasing treatment capacity at downstream
treatment plants. Soap nuts can be used on a wide scale as laundry detergent, as a
liquid soap, cleaning and shining ornaments, and manufacturing facilities cleaners. If,
however, performance specifications for Commercial operations do not permit the
use of Soap Nuts, an alternative would be to promote use of Alkyl Benzene
Sulfonates (ABS) and phosphate free detergents.
Recycled Paper
All printer and photocopy paper used by Gits operations and offices must be
composed of a high-percentage of post-consumer recycled paper. Switching from
virgin printer / photocopy paper to 100% recycled paper can reduce your paper
footprint by 37%. Recycled printer papers are now manufactured using techniques
that provide finishes nearly equivalent to virgin paper. This material-switch must be
greatly encouraged through effective communication campaigns as well as
encouraging this practice with the suppliers.
Corporate GHG Inventory Product Life Cycle Carbon Footprint Project Report- Gits Food
76
Corporate GHG Inventory Product Life Cycle Carbon Footprint Project Report- Gits Food
77