Industry background and topic description
The requirements for the automobile industry from OEMs, component suppliers, regulatory agencies, consumers and international evaluation platforms are gradually moving from policy commitments to specific data, calculation basis and improvement records. In terms of product carbon footprint, companies must not only hand over results, but also explain data boundaries, methods, division of responsibilities and evidence.
Common pain points in management
[Pain Point 1｜Life cycle data is scattered in different units]
In the past, when the automobile industry dealt with product carbon footprints, each unit usually collected the bill of materials, process energy, logistics, supplier questionnaires, and mineral source information based on their own forms and understandings. When customers, competent authorities, or inspections required it, a small number of people would compile it together. This method is prone to problems such as different scopes, misplaced units, inconsistent periods, and lack of supporting evidence. Product carbon footprint needs to define functional units and life cycle boundaries, and convert activity data in raw material, manufacturing, transportation, use and disposal stages into carbon dioxide equivalents. Without a common definition, even if the figures are completed, it will be difficult to explain the reasons for the changes, let alone determine whether the differences come from real improvements or changes in calculation caliber. When OEMs, component suppliers, regulatory authorities, consumers and international rating platforms raise further inquiries, the team often has to reconfirm, increase communication and redo work.
[Pain Point 2 | Lack of consistent rules for product allocation and version management]
The product carbon footprint of the automotive industry involves multiple departments and external partners, and the update frequency, audit authority, and delivery time of each unit are different. If it is still transmitted through emails, shared folders and multiple Excels, it is difficult for the person in charge to know in real time which data has not been responded to, what content has been modified, and whether the deficiencies have been corrected. Manpower will be spent for a long time on collection, copying and pasting, and comparing versions instead of analyzing the reasons. Once personnel change or face multiple demands at the same time, work quality may also decline significantly. It is usually easier to maintain data quality if this work can be completed during normal times, rather than waiting until declarations, verifications or customer reminders are required. The management system also needs to clearly define the responsible person, update frequency and exception handling methods to avoid re-exploring after personnel changes.
[Pain Point 3｜The data is completed, but it cannot support management decisions]
Much of the automotive industry treats product carbon footprints as annual declarations, customer questionnaires or pre-validation work, and once completed the information remains in reports or personal files. Managers are unable to continuously compare differences across locations, products, periods, or partners, and it is difficult to identify areas that truly need improvement as a priority. In particular, multi-layer supply chains have large amounts of data and frequent version updates, making it difficult to track missing improvements layer by layer. Without consistent classification and comparison benchmarks, a single total can easily cover up efficiency declines or local anomalies. The result is that even though companies spend a lot of time getting the numbers, they still lack the information to use for budgeting, targeting, and resource allocation. It is usually easier to maintain data quality if this work can be completed during normal times, rather than waiting until declarations, verifications or customer reminders are required.
[Pain Point Four | External requirements are becoming more and more detailed, and evidence preparation cannot keep up]
OEMs, component suppliers, regulatory agencies, consumers and international evaluation platforms are not only concerned about whether companies propose policies, but will also further inquire about data boundaries, methods, responsible persons, evidence and improvement records. If the product carbon footprint process does not retain coefficient versions, audit comments, modification reasons, and attachment links, the organizer must reassemble the evidence in a short period of time. Although the formats used by different customers or auditing units are not exactly the same, the core data is often repeated. The lack of a shared data base will result in the same question being filled in repeatedly, and there may even be a risk of inconsistent external responses in different versions. It is usually easier to maintain data quality if this work can be completed during normal times, rather than waiting until declarations, verifications or customer reminders are required.
How to improve the management process and what benefits will it bring?
[Core Benefit 1 | Improve computing efficiency and support customer and verification needs]
Originally, each unit used its own form to organize the data, and then the person in charge checked, merged and questioned each item one by one. The progress of the work was highly dependent on personal experience. After the product carbon footprint management system is introduced and combined with ISO 14067 guidance and DPP, the correlation and version control of materials, processes, energy, transportation and emission coefficients can be established according to the actual process of the automobile industry, so that the data can be logged in a common format when it is generated, and the source, period, coefficient, attachments and modification records can be retained. Users can quickly identify gaps and anomalies without retrieving data from different files every time; managers can understand the completion status and reasons for differences. This can turn one-time delivery work into daily management, and existing records can also be used to respond to audits or customer requests. It is usually easier to maintain data quality if this work can be completed during normal times, rather than waiting until declarations, verifications or customer reminders are required.
[Core Benefit 2 | Reduce the burden of cross-department collaboration and version management]
Originally, product carbon footprints needed to be collected repeatedly through emails, meetings, and shared files, making it difficult for the organizer to confirm the latest version and responsibility. After introducing the product carbon footprint management system, you can set up the filling, return, replacement, review and approval processes, and manage permissions and deadlines based on roles. Consulting services can help companies clarify processes, definitions and necessary evidence first, to avoid just moving confusing forms online. For those who fill in the form, the system can clearly display the work that needs to be completed and the gaps; for the coordinator, the progress can be viewed centrally without having to track each letter one by one. Cross-department collaboration is therefore more transparent, and existing records and rules can be used when personnel changes. It is usually easier to maintain data quality if this work can be completed during normal times, rather than waiting until declarations, verifications or customer reminders are required. The management system also needs to clearly define the responsible person, update frequency and exception handling methods to avoid re-exploring after personnel changes.
[Core Benefit Three | Detect abnormalities early and focus on high-risk projects]
The original team usually waits until the annual compilation or external audit to discover data anomalies, missing data or overdue improvements, leaving limited time for on-site corrections. Through the product carbon footprint management system, companies can set reasonable ranges, necessary fields, risk classifications and overdue reminders based on product carbon footprints, and link exceptions to responsible units and improve records. Users can receive prompts during the data entry stage to reduce redoing afterwards; managers can also deal with projects with greater impact or risk first from a large number of projects. This shift from post-remedial to proactive prevention helps reduce the risk of missing checks, customer returns, and operational interruptions. It is usually easier to maintain data quality if this work can be completed during normal times, rather than waiting until declarations, verifications or customer reminders are required. The management system also needs to clearly define the responsible person, update frequency and exception handling methods to avoid re-exploring after personnel changes.
[Core Benefit Four | Let data become the basis for improvement and resource allocation]
Originally, product carbon footprint results were mostly limited to annual figures or report chapters, and were not necessarily returned to the operating units after completion. It was difficult for managers to judge which base, process or partner resources should be invested in. After introducing the product carbon footprint management system, coupled with ISO 14067 coaching and DPP, consistent classification, comparison benchmarks and improvement tracking methods can be established, and the bill of materials, process energy, logistics, supplier questionnaires and mineral source data can be converted into comparable management information. Users can reduce duplicate spreadsheets and shift time to cause analysis; supervisors can prioritize based on risk, cost and improvement potential. After long-term accumulation of data, companies can not only respond to OEMs, component suppliers, regulatory agencies, consumers and international evaluation platforms, but also observe trends, check whether goals are effective, and provide a basis for next year’s budget, procurement or investment plans. It is usually easier to maintain data quality if this work can be completed during normal times, rather than waiting until declarations, verifications or customer reminders are required.
Which enterprises or usage scenarios is it suitable for?
- Automotive industry that needs to manage product carbon footprint but currently mainly uses Excel, Email or shared folders
- Having multiple locations, factories, projects, products or suppliers requires unified data caliber
- Frequently face information, verification or disclosure requirements from OEMs, component suppliers, regulatory agencies, consumers and international comparison platforms
- Hope to reduce the burden of manual compilation, version comparison and collection
- There is a management system in place, but there is a lack of continuous tracking and cross-department collaboration tools
- Enterprises preparing to introduce relevant standards, third-party verification or customer supply chain projects