LCA and Product Footprinting for Procurement: Select Suppliers With Defensible Scope 3 Data

Procurement teams are being asked to do something that finance and sustainability teams cannot do alone: turn Scope 3 ambition into supplier selection decisions. That shift is being driven as much by policy as by customer pressure. If you import emissions-intensive goods covered by the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, the policy already pushes buyers toward credible embedded emissions data at the product level, not marketing claims. The European Commission’s CBAM overview makes the logic plain: embedded emissions and carbon pricing are becoming part of market access for certain categories.

At the same time, due diligence expectations are landing directly in the value chain. The EU’s Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive entered into force on 25 July 2024, with explicit expectations to identify and address environmental impacts across global value chains.

Why LCA is becoming a procurement tool, not just a reporting exercise

First, companies should treat life cycle assessment (LCA) and product footprinting as decision infrastructure for procurement, because regulation and scrutiny are moving faster than internal data maturity. Consider the current European debate: in 2025, EU lawmakers and negotiators moved to weaken parts of sustainability reporting and due diligence rules, with critics arguing the rollback reduces transparency while proponents argue it reduces burden. Reporting on the scaling back of CSRD and CSDDD underscores the uncertainty procurement teams now have to plan through.

Separately, the EU paused negotiations on its proposed Green Claims rules in June 2025, after the Commission signaled it may withdraw the proposal, a reminder that enforcement pathways can change midstream even when the underlying expectation for substantiated claims does not disappear. The practical implication is that buyers who rely on loosely comparable supplier questionnaires are taking on avoidable risk.

This is also where many programs fail. In our experience, we’ve found that supplier carbon initiatives often fail without a procurement owned mechanism that ties data quality and footprint performance to award decisions and contract terms.

LCA vs product footprinting: what procurement needs to get right

Second, procurement leaders should be explicit about which tool they need for which decision. LCA is the broader discipline for assessing environmental impacts across a product’s life cycle, while product carbon footprinting is a narrower greenhouse gas view that is often more operational for sourcing. ISO 14067 sets requirements and guidance for quantifying and reporting the carbon footprint of a product, aligned with ISO LCA principles. The GHG Protocol Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting Standard similarly provides a widely used framework to quantify and publicly report product life cycle greenhouse gas inventories.

For procurement, the make or break issue is comparability. Two suppliers can each present a “footprint” that is technically correct but not comparable if boundaries, allocation, electricity factors, or data quality rules differ. That is why it is worth anchoring internally on a short list of non negotiables: functional unit, system boundary (often cradle to gate for purchased goods), primary data thresholds for hotspot processes, and a verification posture.

To show what “supplier enablement” can look like at scale without implying a consulting relationship, Apple’s public reporting is instructive. In April 2025, Apple reported that there are 17.8 gigawatts of renewable electricity online in its supply chain and that supplier procured renewable energy avoided 21.8 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions in 2024, with the company attributing this to long running supplier collaboration and procurement expectations tied to Apple production. Apple’s 2024 supply chain progress reporting also states that more than 320 suppliers have committed to transitioning to 100 percent renewable energy for Apple production. The takeaway is not to copy Apple’s targets, but to notice the operating model: supplier specific actions, tracked outcomes, and a buyer that can set requirements consistently.

A practical way to make footprints usable in sourcing decisions

Third, companies should build a simple internal “decision scorecard” structure before they expand footprint coverage, because procurement needs outputs that map to award logic. A decision grade scorecard (by which we mean defined boundaries, consistent methods, and documented data quality thresholds) usually balances traditional criteria with two footprint oriented dimensions:

• Product footprint performance (directionally lower for the same specification, with a documented method)

• Data credibility (primary data coverage, boundary clarity, and verification readiness)

That structure keeps teams from rewarding suppliers who are simply better at storytelling. It also sets up the harder part, translating footprints into RFQs, bid normalization, and negotiation levers, which is where many organizations need a structured way to quantify where emissions and cost move together, and where tradeoffs are real.

Once the scorecard exists, the next question is where the numbers come from, and whether you can defend them under scrutiny. Procurement does not need perfect data everywhere, but it does need a repeatable method for moving suppliers from estimates to decision grade footprints without stalling sourcing cycles.

Build a footprint data pathway suppliers can actually follow

First, companies should publish a clear pathway that tells suppliers what “good” looks like in year one, year two, and beyond, because the fastest way to lose supplier participation is to demand full primary data and third party verification on day one. Standards already give you the backbone: the GHG Protocol Product Life Cycle Standard defines core requirements for product inventories, and ISO 14067:2018 clarifies principles for quantifying and reporting product carbon footprints.

A simple maturity ladder helps procurement teams avoid overengineering:

Supplier PCF maturity	What you can accept	How procurement should use it
Tier 1, estimated	Secondary data plus transparent assumptions	Screening and hotspot identification, not award decisions
Tier 2, hybrid	Primary data for hotspot processes	Bid normalization and supplier development plans
Tier 3, decision grade	Defined boundary, high primary data share, consistent method	Award decisions, contractual KPIs, customer claims support
Tier 4, assured	Independent verification for material products	High risk claims and regulated contexts

This structure matters because procurement needs to know not just what data exists, but what decisions that data can credibly support.

We’ve seen that the program often breaks when buyers skip the middle tiers and then wonder why suppliers either drop out or send incomparable spreadsheets. The fix is governance: define the tiers, publish a template, and align internal stakeholders on what each tier can and cannot be used for.

Translate LCA results into RFQs and contracts without turning them into paperwork

Second, companies should embed footprinting into sourcing in ways that change behavior. The most effective RFQs ask for a small set of fields that drive comparability, then treat everything else as supporting evidence. Before listing requirements, it helps to state the why in plain language: procurement is trying to reduce embedded emissions while maintaining specification, delivery, and total cost, and it needs footprints that can be compared across bids.

In practice, that discipline translates into a short set of RFQ clauses that enable comparison without overburdening suppliers, such as:

• A defined functional unit and boundary, typically cradle-to-gate for purchased goods when the buyer controls downstream use

• Disclosure of allocation approach and electricity data, with location based and market based factors stated when relevant

• Primary data coverage for hotspot processes, with supplier attestation on data sources

• Rights to request supporting documentation for material categories, and a correction process if errors are found

If your legal team worries this becomes “another ESG clause,” connect it to commercial risk. The European Commission describes CBAM as a tool to align the carbon price of imports with domestic production by accounting for embedded emissions. Even if your category is not directly in scope, the logic of embedded emissions data is spreading across buyer expectations, and contract language is how you keep the program from being optional.

Treat claims and disclosures as a procurement risk, not only a marketing problem

Third, companies should set up claims governance alongside footprinting, because better data increases the temptation to communicate faster than controls mature. The EU’s Green Claims negotiations were halted in June 2025, with the Commission signaling it may withdraw the proposal, according to Reuters. The pause is politically revealing, but it does not remove the underlying risk: regulators, customers, and litigators still expect substantiation, especially for labels like “carbon neutral” or broad comparative claims.

You do not need a massive committee. You do need decision rights, documentation standards, and a way to prevent sales collateral from outpacing what procurement can defend.

A concrete next step that does not require a full program launch

A practical entry point is a two to three week procurement footprint diagnostic on one category, focused on comparability rules, supplier data readiness, and where LCA results would change award decisions. From there, targeted analysis can clarify where emissions reduction aligns with cost reduction, and where tradeoffs are real. If you want this done quickly and defensibly, contact Gasilov Group to design the diagnostic, build the scorecard, and translate results into RFQs, contracts, and claims controls.

Get In Touch

Written by: Gasilov Group Editorial Team

Reviewed by: Seyfi Gasilov, Partner – Corporate Strategy & Regulatory Governance

Brings more than twenty years guiding organizations through strategic growth, governance challenges, and cross border compliance with a combined legal and operational lens.

Meet Our Team →

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ): LCA and Carbon Footprint

How do I write an RFQ requirement for product carbon footprints that suppliers can meet without gaming the numbers?

Use a tiered requirement. Ask all bidders for a cradle-to-gate PCF with boundary, functional unit, and allocation disclosed, then require primary data only for hotspot processes in year one. Anchor the method to a recognized standard like the GHG Protocol Product Standard (2011) and ISO 14067:2018, and score data quality separately from footprint magnitude so suppliers are not rewarded for opaque assumptions.

What is the difference between a cradle-to-gate PCF and a full life cycle LCA for procurement decisions?

Cradle-to-gate focuses on emissions from raw material extraction through manufacturing up to the supplier’s gate, which is usually the controllable portion for sourcing decisions. Full life cycle LCA extends into use and end of life, which is often better for product design and customer disclosure. Procurement typically starts with cradle-to-gate for comparability, then expands where downstream impacts are material. ISO 14067:2018 explicitly supports partial CFP studies when boundaries are clearly defined.

How does EU CBAM affect supplier selection for steel, aluminum, cement, fertilizer, electricity, or hydrogen imported into Europe?

CBAM is designed to account for embedded emissions in certain imported goods so imported products face a carbon cost aligned with EU production. Procurement teams buying into the EU should prioritize suppliers who can provide credible embedded emissions data and withstand verification, because default values and weak documentation can raise compliance and cost risk over time. See the European Commission’s CBAM overview for scope and intent.

What verification level should I require before using supplier PCFs in marketing claims in the EU?

Treat this as a risk based decision. The EU paused Green Claims negotiations in June 2025, but the scrutiny behind that proposal remains, and Reuters noted the initiative was intended to ensure environmental labels are backed by evidence. For high exposure claims, request independent assurance or a recognized verification framework, plus internal claims governance that documents boundary, method, and data quality before release.

How do SBTi supplier engagement targets connect to procurement scorecards and supplier selection?

SBTi guidance explains how companies can set supplier engagement targets for Scope 3 and implement initiatives to drive reductions through the supply chain. Procurement scorecards are the operational lever: they convert engagement into expectations, timelines, and consequences in sourcing and contract management. Use SBTi’s supplier engagement guidance to shape the engagement plan, then translate it into measurable supplier requirements by category