MAC-MME 2016

Multidisciplinary Academic Conference

Online carbon calculators - Corporate carbon footprint

analysis in practice
Cecília Szigeti, Gábor Harangozó
Széchenyi István University
Corvinus University of Budapest
szigetic@sze.hu
gabor.harangozo@uni-corvinus.hu

Abstract

As a yield of efforts in the international climate policy and emerging consumer awareness
there is a growing interest for the quantification of corporate level carbon footprints. As a
consequence, there have been numerous initiatives, guidelines and calculation methods
emerged recently to be able to quantify company level direct and indirect greenhouse gas
emissions. Most of them are based on the philosophy and classification of the Greenhouse
Gas Protocol. This paper intends to provide a comparison of freely available online corporate
level carbon footprint calculators with a novelty value of addressing their validity and
reliability. Validity here refers to the issue whether different calculators cover the same or
similar aspects or scopes of the corporate carbon footprint, while reliability addresses the
question whether different calculators deliver the same or similar result if we use the same
input data. Based on the example of an imaginary enterprise, we argue that validity is partly
achieved, while reliability of the calculators is relatively low. This means that online
corporate carbon calculators can be useful to provide a first insight for companies into their
carbon footprints and they can also be useful for temporal comparisons at the level of one
company (if the activity of the company is not too complex.) However, these calculators do
not seem to be very appropriate for comparisons among different companies or with external
benchmarks.

Keywords: carbon footprint, carbon accounting, corporate sustainability, validity,

reliability

Conference Topic: Natural sciences and business

Introduction

In the last two decades, as a result of efforts in the international climate policy and
emerging consumer awareness there is a growing interest for corporate social responsibility.
The natural environment as stakeholder is especially in the forefront of innovative
organisational practices. (Lazányi, 2016). Recent researches found that it is increasingly
worthwhile for companies to behave responsibly (Szegedi et al., 2016). Even so, by today,
sustainability is a significant source of organizational, product and technology development
(Fülöp and Bereczk, 2015). Hence, the quantification of corporate level carbon footprints has
become relevant and significant. As a consequence, there have been numerous initiatives,
guidelines and calculation methods emerged recently to be able to quantify company level
direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions. Most of them are based on the philosophy and
classification of the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Protocol (WRI and WBCSD, 2004, 2011).

262
 MAC-MME 2016
Multidisciplinary Academic Conference

There is a massive body of literature discussing the conceptual framework of

corporate carbon footprinting (see for example Schaltegger and Csutora, 2012 or Harangozo
et al., 2015). This paper addresses a practical aspect within the field by intending to provide a
comparison of freely available corporate level carbon footprint calculators with a special
focus on their validity and reliability based on the example of an imaginary enterprise. Online
calculators compared in the literature (e.g. Padgett et al., 2008, Birnik, 2013) covered
individual calculators, the novelty value of this paper is to address business calculators.
Validity here refers to the issue whether different calculators cover the same or similar
aspects or scopes of the corporate carbon footprint, while reliability addresses the question
whether different calculators deliver the same or similar result if we use the same input data.
The structure of the paper is as follows: Section 2 provides a literature review of the
background and concept of the corporate carbon footprint. Section 3 gives an insight into the
practical applicability of the concept. Section 4 covers the method used in this paper, Section
5 presents and discusses the results, while Section 6 provides some concluding remarks.

Background – the concept of the corporate carbon footprint

Following the increasing concern about climate change there is an emerging interest
also in the corporate sphere to provide solutions following a bottom-up approach. The
framework and toolset of corporate carbon accounting and auditing have developed a lot in
the recent years (see for example Schaltegger and Csutora, 2012) and many companies and
other organizations tend to account, control and report their carbon emissions. The carbon
footprint is a concept quantifying the quantity of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that are
linked to a certain activity (directly or indirectly, see Wiedmann et al., 2009 or Song et al.,
2016) or can be attributed to the different lifecycle phases of products (Johnson, 2012,
Johnson and Tschudi, 2012, Galli et al., 2012), influencing also the sustainability of certain
consumption patterns (Kim and Neff, 2009). From this point of view, corporate level carbon
footprints can be defined as the total carbon (or greenhouse gas) emissions related to the
activity or products of a certain company.
The carbon footprint concept can cover carbon-dioxid emissions only or may include
other GHGs as well addressed by the Kyoto Agreement. In the second case the denomination
of carbon footprint might be challenged as also further, even non-carbon greenhouse gases
are included, too. For a solution, Downie and Stubbs (2013) recommends the term
greenhouse gas footprint instead.
Most often carbon footprint is measured in mass units (kilograms or tons) of carbon
dioxid (Vázquez-Rowe et al., 2013). additionally, carbon-dioxide equivalents can be applied
(Panela et al., 2009), in case of other greenhouse gases addressed, too.
The application of carbon footprint at the corporate level can be beneficial for
companies in many different aspects:
• as part of a carbon accounting system, pointing out fields of intervention for
cost savings,
• achieving synergies with other functional areas of the enterprise,
• delivering data for external and internal carbon reporting,
• motivating employees as a climate conscious enterprise,
• improving corporate image etc.
Indeed, carbon footprinting can enable companies to integrate environmental aspects
(through climate policy) into other functional fields of the enterprises (or even link carbon
data with national financial accounts, Koppany, 2016). This process is a very important driver
that environmental protection and sustainability is not only an isolated area within a company
but it should be integrated into other corporate fields as well. A following figure highlights

263
 MAC-MME 2016
Multidisciplinary Academic Conference

some potential functional areas, where the application of the carbon footprint concept can
support other functions.

The application of the carbon footprint concept in practice

There are many different frameworks providing methodology for quantifying

organizational carbon emissions. For addressing the corporate level footprint, the widely used
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Protocol (WRI and WBCSD, 2004) ranks emissions into three
scopes:
• Scope 1: Direct emissions from sources possessed or operated by the
organization (for example own trucks, gas heating systems etc.)
• Scope 2: Electricity indirect GHG emissions based on the generation of power
elsewhere used by the organization. (The GHG protocol addresses only electricity, however
further energy sources of energy generated elsewhere – for example steam or heat – could be
covered within this scope, too.)
• Scope 3: Other indirect GHG emissions as a voluntary category of the
protocol, Scope 3 that allows for treating any further emissions, such as the upstream and
downstream phases of product lifecycles (like emissions related to raw material extraction or
usage of products).
Stein and Khare (2009) claim that usually indirect (Scope 3) emissions account for the
largest share of corporate carbon footprints. Based on a study among companies in the United
States, Matthews et al. (2008) estimated the share of Scope 3 emissions as much as 74% of
the total carbon footprints. In spite of that, these emissions tend to be often disregarded by
companies, as they are less rigorously defined and more difficult to be measured precisely.
This issue raises the question how system boundaries should be properly set. Indeed,
this is a central issue of corporate carbon accounting both from a conceptual and a practical
aspect (Lenzen and Murray, 2010, Lee, 2011). With regard to carbon footprinting, system
boundaries can be defined from different aspects or focal points, like product, process or
supply chain (Harangozo et al., 2015). Diaz et al (2012) stress the importance of different
standards (like the Greenhouse Gas Protocol introduced earlier) as important tools for having
a common approach on system boundaries, as well.
There are many international research projects aiming to quantify, analyze and
communicate corporate carbon footprints. Best Foot Forward (BFF) is a leading sustainability
consultant group specialized in carbon and ecological footprint calculations and aiming to
foster the foundation of a low-carbon economy.
In one study, BFF researchers quantified the carbon footprint (and other elements of
the ecological footprint) of different Guinness Partnership employees (manager, technical
leader, distance working colleague) (BFF, 2007). The whole footprints have been calculated
as the summary of their individual and office footprints, influenced by business travels, paper
consumption, wastes, electricity consumption, heating and food consumption. Results
(diverging significantly by positions) can be interesting for companies planning to introduce
carbon footprinting.
Another study focused to the product level and compared the footprints of two
different packaging forms (plastic and glass bottles) of Australian wines in the United
Kingdom (BFF, 2008), ordered by an Australian company (Artenius PET Packaging) in the
framework of the Waste Resources and Action Programme (WRAP). The calculation focused
on the CO2-emissions at the filling and the waste management phases by differentiating
between two scenarios in linked to the PET-bottles (disposal or recycling after consumption),
however, the full life cycle assessment (LCA) of the product (wine) was not the in the focus

264
 MAC-MME 2016
Multidisciplinary Academic Conference

of the analysis. The results suggested that if recycled, PET-bottles deliver lower carbon
footprints. These findings cannot be generalized to the packaging of other products, however,
the issue of the carbon footprint of packaging is the core topic in many studies in the field.
Such an approach can be considered useful and recommended to enterprises, as it clearly
points out that product-based carbon footprint analyses can be very beneficial for companies
even if it is not possible to carry out a full life cycle analysis (just concentrating on some
selected aspects based on ceteris paribus approach).

Method – comparative evaluation of corporate carbon footprint

calculators

Table 1. Overview of the eight selected carbon footprint calculators

N
Website Main characteristics
o.
Simple business level calculator. Calculation
1 http://www.carbonfootprint.com/b and estimation of CO2-emissions is mainly based on
. usinesscalculator.aspx buildings and business travels. Appropriate for small and
medium sized enterprises.

Allows comparison to sectorial benchmarks and

also offers opportunities for decreasing carbon footprint.
2 http://coolclimate.berkeley.edu/bu
High quality graphics and design. Designed to be used in
. siness-calculator
California (industrial benchmarks). Only in imperial
units.

Beyond transportation and infrastructure, it

3 http://www.climatefriendly.com/ covers many aspects of carbon emission sources like
. Business/BusinessCalculators/ waste or paper use. Graphical presentation of averages.
A calculator from Australia. Under construction!

Quantifies the conventional sources of carbon

4 https://www.carbonfund.org/busin
. ess-calculator
emissions except electricity consumption. Additionally,
it covers carbon aspects of business travels (overnights in
hotels, catering) and transportation carried out by
suppliers. Uses imperial units, difficult to adopt to other
conditions.

A spreadsheet based calculator, requires detailed

5 http://www.epa.gov/climateleader information of the production processes of a company.
. ship/inventory/footprint.html Mainly for industrial enterprises and for professional
users.

A simple and easy-to-use calculator supported

by a spreadsheet based appearance. This ‘Quality
6 https://clear-offset.com/quality
Assurance Standard’ is also used by BBC or Apple.
. assured-offset-scheme.php
Results are presented also according to Scopes 1-3 of the
GHG Protocol.

Mainly designed for service enterprises or for

7 http://www.thegreenoffice.com/ca
covering office activities. One of the oldest calculators.
. rboncalculator/calculator
Uses imperial units.

8 http://calculator.environmentalpa Designed to compare carbon emission aspects of

. per.org different paper types.

265
 MAC-MME 2016
Multidisciplinary Academic Conference

There are many different calculation methods, applications and electronic calculators
to quantify the carbon footprint of businesses. Bigger companies usually have the resources
to carry out comprehensive calculations and deliver detailed data on their carbon emissions
(see for example the Carbon Disclosure Project – CDP, 2016 – based on the GHG Protocol).
Beyond these sophisticated methods, there are many simpler and easier-to-use
calculators, designed for providing a rough estimation on their GHG emissions for enterprises
(for the main principles designing a carbon calculator see Rahman et al, 2011). These can be
beneficial especially for smaller enterprises not having sufficient financial and human
resources for detailed individual calculations or hiring external experts, but still interested in
having a view on their carbon emissions. This paper focuses on these freely available online
corporate carbon emission calculators (for a comparison of personal carbon footprint
calculators, see Padgett et al., 2008 or Birnik, 2013). Table 1 provides a summary on eight
calculators available freely on the internet. For a comparison, we created an imaginary
enterprise (in the field of business services) and used its characteristics as input data for the
different calculators. The enterprise has 10 employees working in a 100-square-meter office.
Annual electricity consumption is 10000 kWh (while there is no natural gas consumption).
Employees commute by bus (20000 km annually), the mid-range car of the enterprise is also
running 20000 km a year. Once a year the general manager flies to a business trip (1500 km
one-way) for a week. Suppliers cover 15000 km for satisfying the order of the enterprise.
Annual turnover of the enterprise is 3 million US dollars.
A major focus of our paper is to address validity, reliability and generalizability
aspects of the carbon footprint calculators. Validity refers to the degree how the calculators
measure what they intended to measure. In our case carbon footprint calculators supposed to
measure business level GHG emissions. It is analysed, how different aspects of the total
footprint are covered, based on the scopes of the GHG Protocol (or whether these scopes are
addressed at all). In case of our imaginary enterprise, Scope 1 would include aspects like
emissions of the company owned car, Scope 2 the emissions related to the electricity
consumption while Scope 3 the emissions linked to flight, employee commuting, deliveries
by the suppliers etc. Reliability is stability or internal consistency of results. In our case high
reliability would mean that different calculators would deliver similar results, if input data are
the same (e.g. our imaginary enterprise). Generalizability is the issue whether conclusions on
our imaginary company can be extended to companies with other characteristics.

Results and discussion

For the further calculations, we selected five of the eight calculators. The reasons for
not including three calculators were the followings: No. 3 was not available (under re
construction), No. 5 requires detailed technical knowledge on the company while No. 8
covers specifically the GHG-aspects of different paper types. Table 2 provides some specific
data on the input requirements and output data of the selected calculators.

266
 MAC-MME 2016
Multidisciplinary Academic Conference

Table 2. Input and output data of the selected carbon footprint calculators
N Input characteristics Output characteristics
o.
1  number of employees
 buildings (energy consumption by source)  carbon emissions by
. inputs
factors)  cars
flights
and(by
trucks
airport,
(brand,
withfuel
Defra
type,
correction
usage)
 carbon emissions per
2 employee
 bus and rail (length of journeys)
 annual
numberturnover
sector
buildingsof(area)
employees
transport,air travel,
travel (advanced
commute (without
or simple):
further
public  carbon emissions by
. inputs
 carbon emissions per
employee
 carbon emissions per
turnover
specifying the mode of the latter)
 carbon emissions per
 facilities: energy consumption by source, building area
wastes and recycling rate
 carbon emissions
 procurement: based on turnover relative to similar enterprises
4  fleet (cars, green cars, vans and trucks, big  carbon emissions by
. rigs)
inputs (expressed in monetary
 business travel (flights, train, bus, hotel)
values as a basis for offsetting)
 employee commute (public transport, cars)
 events calculator (multiple, single, travel,
transfer, hotel, paper)
 shipping

6  energy (by source)

 carbon emissions by
.  travel (flights, cab, car – petrol and diesel,
inputs
motorcycle, train)
 carbon emissions by
 vehicles
Scopes 1-3 of the GHG Protocol
 logistics (inbound, outbound) by modes of on diagrams
transportation
 commuting by modes of transportation
 other (cooling system etc.)

7  number of employees
 carbon emissions
.  transportation and commuting by modes
(total, non-electricity and
 facility, energy, waste (age and size of electricity)
buildings, consumption of electricity, natural gas and
water, quantity of wastes and recycling rates)
 products and services (paper, furniture,
equipment, phone calls, soap, coffee, overnights in
hotels etc.)
The categories of input data requested by the different calculators are different to
some extent. This might cause differences in the carbon footprints calculated. Some further
data are estimated by the calculators using industrial averages (again a point when differences
between different calculators/countries may occur). After all, the carbon footprint
calculations have been proceeded by the different calculators for our imaginary enterprise.
Table 2 gives an overview of the results (total footprint and subcategories adjusted according
to the scopes of the GHG Protocol – see earlier).
Regarding the total carbon emissions, they fall between 10,5 and 106 tons, a range of
tenfold, even if the highest value seems to be an outlier. However, comparison seems to be
more informative, if we consider the different scopes of the GHG Protocol.

267
 MAC-MME 2016
Multidisciplinary Academic Conference

Direct GHG emissions (Scope 1) cover here mainly emissions based on the car owned
by the company, where differences mainly occur as a result of differences in the calculation
(consumption – estimated or calculated based on input data). There is no gas consumption or
other direct sources that would fall here. However, in two cases (No. 4 and No. 7) the
calculators do not allow to separate Scope 1 emissions.
Indirect energy emissions (Scope 2) mean here the carbon footprint of electricity
consumption. Compared to other categories, the results here are a little bit more
homogeneous. Differences can have two reasons: i) different emission factors are used (based
on differences in the electricity mix of different countries and because of methodological
differences) and ii) in some cases energy consumption is estimated based on the office
building instead of direct calculations using actual consumption data.
Other indirect GHG emissions (Scope 3) are – as expected – the most complex and
diverse. Based on the data given to our imaginary company, the footprint of the flight,
employee commuting and the emissions related to the suppliers would fall here (with
different results due to different methodologies of calculation). But additionally, some
calculators estimate further emission categories (waste management, maintenance and
construction, hotel overnights and catering, paper and other stationary products) based on
office size, annual turnover, number of employees or industrial standards. These categories
are highly diverse and difficult to quantify in terms of GHG emissions, however they
definitely fall into the carbon footprint of the enterprise (also based on the GHG Protocol)
and neglecting them would mean a zero value for them that does not reflect reality either.
When considering the greenhouse gases covered, it is clear that all the five calculators
focuses on carbon-dioxide only and disregarding further greenhouse gases (e.g. methane
emissions of agricultural activities linked to catering etc.)

Table 2. Comparison of the selected carbon footprint calculators (in terms of the Scopes of
the GHG Protocol) for the selected imaginary enterprise1.
No. (t
emissions
Total
CO2/year) (temissions
Scope
CO2/year)
1 (temissions
Scope
CO2/year)
2 Scope 3
emissions
(t CO2/year)
1. 10,48t (Car and4,58t
Truck: 4,58 t) (Building:
3,54
3,54 t)
t 2,37t
(Flights: 0.19 t,
Bus and Rail: 2,18 t)

2. 106,2 t 7t7t)
(Car: 7t
(Electricity:
7t) 92,2 t
(Commute: 6 t
Waste: 11,2 t
Construction: 1 t
Procurement: 74 t)
4. 18,42 t vehicle
(Business
* shared
falls
with
– Commute
here,
to
Scope
16,32t
Scope
but
*) 3,
commuting
and
*as
3 Scope
Fleet: 16,32
1byown
bust (Energy:
2,59 tt) 2,1 t
Business – Shipping:
1,22 t,
Business – Events:
0,75 t,
Business – Paper:
0,13t
6. 31,8t (Vehicles:
5 t 5 t) (Energy:
4,6t 22,3t
(Commute 5,9t,

1 In some cases there was a need to convert input data in metric units to imperial units (then we used
http://www.convertworld.com).

268
 MAC-MME 2016
Multidisciplinary Academic Conference

4,6 t) Flights 0,3t

Logistics 16,1 t)

7. 37 t (Non-electricity,30,3t
**shared
** with Scope 3) (Electricity)
6,7t 30,3t **
(Non-electricity,
**shared with Scope 1)
Based on the results, validity, reliability and generalizability issues can be addressed.
Regarding validity, the calculators seemed to have the ability to cover all the data related to
carbon emissions that were directly included at our example (own vehicle, electricity
consumption, employee commuting, flight and transportation carried out by the suppliers).
These aspects represent all the three scopes of the GHG Protocol. Furthermore, most
calculators seems to be capable to handle the usage of natural gas (as Scope 1 carbon
emission). On the contrary, Scope 3 emissions seem to be a little bit more problematic, as
some of the calculators can cover them only partly. Only one calculator (No. 6) addressed
GHG Protocol scopes directly. For the other cases, classification happened based on the
content of the sub-categories of the carbon footprint. In one case (No. 7) it was not possible
to differentiate among ‘non-electricity’ carbon emissions, even if the input data contain a lot
of categories that should make such a differentiation at the output side also possible. All in
all, the carbon footprint calculators examined in this example seem to be relatively valid in
the sense of showing capability for quantifying carbon emissions falling in different scopes of
the GHG Protocol, with most shortcomings emerging regarding Scope 3 categories. They did
not seem valid in a sense that are only able to cover carbon emissions (and fail to quantify
GHGs other than carbon-dioxide.)
Our analysis also aimed to address reliability of the calculators (whether they provide
similar results if we apply similar inputs). In this case, reliability cannot be addressed on the
level of individual calculators, only in relationship to each other. Based on the considerable
divergence of results delivered by the different calculators, reliability of these calculators
seem to be relatively low.
Concerning generalizability of the results, we have to consider that our example was a
service company with relatively simple set of emissions. The calculators analysed seem to be
designed for such enterprises. Companies with complex production processes (including
GHG emissions other than carbon-dioxide) or long and diverse supply chains (Scope 3
emissions) may find the coverage of these calculators inadequate for deep analysis (but can
be useful to provide a first idea about the size of their carbon footprint).
Based on these findings, we may argue that freely available carbon footprint
calculators seem to be very useful for raising awareness among enterprises, but the results
cannot really be compared among companies or to other benchmarks. However, as the
calculators seemed to be relatively valid regarding their coverage of important carbon
emission aspects, they can be used as a basis for temporal comparisons and analysing the
achievements of companies between periods. A further question left open (not only related to
calculators but also to carbon accounting in a broader sense) whether further standardization
is feasible or makes sense.

269
 MAC-MME 2016
Multidisciplinary Academic Conference

Conclusions

This paper intended to provide i) an overview of the corporate carbon footprint

concept and ii) an analysis of freely available corporate level carbon footprint calculators
with a special focus on validity and reliability issues. Validity here referred to the issue
whether different calculators cover the same or similar aspects or scopes of the corporate
carbon footprint (using Scopes 1-3 of the GHG Protocol as a benchmark), while reliability
addressed the question whether different calculators deliver the same or similar result if we
use the same input data. Based on the example of an imaginary enterprise, we argued that
validity could partly be achieved, while reliability of the calculators was relatively low. This
means that free corporate carbon calculators can be useful to provide a first insight for
companies in their carbon footprints and they can also be useful for temporal comparisons at
the level of one company (if the activity of the company is not too complex.) However, these
calculators do not seem to be very appropriate for comparisons among different companies or
with external benchmarks.

References

[1] Best Foot Forward (2007). A carbon footprint analysis of three Guinness Partnership
employees.
http://s3.amazonaws.com/zanran_storage/www.bestfootforward.com/ContentPages/11553
23547.pdf, accessed at 15thApril 2016.
[2] Best Foot Forward (2008). The carbon impact of bottling Australian wine in the UK: PET
and glass bottles
http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/Carbon%20Impact%20of%20Bottling%20Austra
lian%20Wine%20in%20the%20UK-%20PET%20and%20Glass%20Bottles.pdf. accessed
at 15th April 2016.
[3] Birnik, A. (2013). An evidence-based assessment of online carbon calculators.
International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 17, 280-293.
[4] Carbon Disclosure Project, CDP (2016): www.cdp.net, accessed at 25th April 2016.
[5] Diaz, E, Fernández, J, Ordóñez, S, Canto, N, González, A (2012). Carbon and ecological
footprints as tools for evaluating the environmental impact of coal mine ventilation air.
Ecological Indicators, 18, pp. 126-130.
[6] Downie, J.; Stubbs, W. (2013). Evaluation of Australian companies’ Scope 3 greenhouse
gas emissions assessments. Journal of Cleaner Production, Volume 56, 1 October 2013,
Pages 156-163.
[7] Fülöp, Gy., Bereczk, Á. (2015). Sustainability Evidence from the Hungarian Chemical
Industry. In: Jiri Vopava; Radek Kratochvil; Vladimi Douda (ed.) Proceedings of MAC
EMM 2015: Multidisciplinary Academic Conference on Economics, Management and
Marketing in Prague, pp. 12.
[8] Galli, A., Wiedmann, T., Ercin, E., Knoblauch, D., Ewing, B., Giljum, S. (2012).
Integrating ecological, carbon and water footprint into a “Footprint Family” of indicators:
definition and role in tracking human pressure on the planet. Ecological Indicators, 16, p.
100-112.
[9] Johnson, E. (2012). Carbon footprints of heating oil and LPG heating systems.
Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 35, 11-22.
[10] Johnson, E., Tschudi, D. (2012). Baseline effects on carbon footprints of biofuels: The
case of wood. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 37, 12-17.

270
 MAC-MME 2016
Multidisciplinary Academic Conference

[11] Kim, B., Neff, R. (2009). Measurement and communication of greenhouse gas
emissions from US food consumption via carbon calculators. Ecological Economics, 69(1),
186-196.
[12] Koppany K. (2016). Gazdasági hatáselemzés a győri régióban: A SZEconomy portál
és a GyőRIO modell. TÉR-GAZDASÁG-EMBER 2: pp. 31-57. (2016)
[13] Lazányi, K, (2016): Innovation – the role of trust. Serbian Journal of Management, in
press.
[14] Lee, K.H. (2011). Integrating carbon footprint into supply chain management: The
case of Hyundai Motor Company (HMC) in the automobile industry. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 19, pp. 1216-1223.
[15] Lenzen, M, Murray, J (2010). Conceptualising Environmental Responsibility.
Ecological Economics, 70, 2, pp. 261-270.
[16] Matthews, H. S., Hendrickson, C. T., Weber, C. L. (2008). The importance of carbon
footprint estimation boundaries. Environmental Science & Technology, Vol. 42, No. 16,
p.5839-5842.
[17] Padgett, J. P., Steinemann, A. C., Clarke, J. H., Vandenbergh, M. P. (2008). A
comparison of carbon calculators. Environmental impact assessment review, 28(2), 106-115.
[18] Penela, A.C., García-Negro, M.C., Quesada, J.L.D. (2009). A methodological
proposal for corporate carbon footprint and its application to a wine-producing company in
Galicia, Spain. Sustainability, 1 (2), pp. 302-318.
[19] Rahman, F., O’Brien, C., Ahamed, S. I., Zhang, H., Liu, L. (2011). Design and
implementation of an open framework for ubiquitous carbon footprint calculator applications.
Sustainable Computing: Informatics and Systems, 1(4), 257-274.
[20] Schaltegger, S; Csutora, M. (2012). Carbon accounting for sustainability and
Management. Status quo and challenges. Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol 36, pp. 1-16.
[21] Song, G., Che, L., Zhang, S. (2016). Carbon footprint of a scientific publication: A
case study at Dalian University of Technology, China. Ecological Indicators, 60, 275-282.
[22] Stein, M.; Khare, A. (2009). Calculating the carbon footprint of a chemical plant: A
case study of Akzonobel. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy & Management, 11, 3,
pp. 291-310.
[23] Szegedi, K., Fülöp, Gy., Bereczk, Á. (2016). Relationships between Social
Entrepreneurship, CSR and Social Innovation: In Theory and Practice. International Journal
of Social, Behavioral, Educational, Economic, Business and Industrial Engineering, 10(5),
pp. 1402-1407.
[24] Vázquez-Rowe, I, Villanueva-Rey, P, Mallo, J, De la Cerda, J, Moreira, T, Feijoo, G
(2013). Carbon footprint of a multi-ingredient seafood product from a business-to-business
perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production, 44, pp. 200-210.
[25] WRI and WBCSD (2004). The Greenhouse Gas Protocol – A Corporate Accounting
and Reporting Standard. World Resources Institute and World Business Council for
Sustainable Development. Geneva, pp. 116.
[26] WRI and WBCSD (2011). The Greenhouse Gas Protocol – Corporate Value Chain
(Scope 3) Accounting and Reporting Standard. Supplement to the GHG Protocol Corporate
Accounting and Reporting Standard. World Resources Institute and World Business Council
for Sustainable Development. Geneva, pp. 152.
[27] Wiedmann, T.O., Lenzen, M., Barrett, J.R. (2009). Companies on the scale comparing
and benchmarking the sustainability performance of businesses. Journal of Industrial
Ecology, 13 (3), pp. 361-383.

271
 MAC-MME 2016
Multidisciplinary Academic Conference

Brief biography of authors

Author 1.
Cecília Szigeti is Associate Professor of Ecological Economics at Széchenyi
University in Hungary. Dr. Szigeti’s research interests are in the ecological and carbon
footprint and alternative composite indicators.

Author 2.
Gábor Harangozó is Associate Professor and environmental economist at Corvinus
University of Budapest. His research focus covers the evaluation of corporate sustainability
performance and corporate environmental management.

272