Together for Sustainability (TfS) released version 3.0 of their Product Carbon Footprint Guidelines in December 2024, introducing eight changes to chemical industry PCF methodology. This article examines each change based on the official TfS documentation.
Together for Sustainability (TfS) released version 3.0 of their Product Carbon Footprint Guidelines in December 2024, introducing eight changes to chemical industry PCF methodology. This article examines each change based on the official TfS documentation.
Together for Sustainability (TfS) is a chemical industry initiative bringing together over 40 major chemical companies to standardize environmental reporting practices. The TfS PCF Guidelines provide sector-specific guidance for calculating product carbon footprints that is "fully compliant with ISO 14067 and GHG Protocol accounting standards."
The guidelines address a critical need in the chemical industry: harmonized PCF calculation methods that enable chemical suppliers to provide consistent carbon data to downstream customers. This data supports corporate Scope 3 Category 1 (Purchased Goods and Services) reporting, which "often make up the biggest share of a chemical company's Scope 3" emissions.
Version 3.0, published December 2024, represents the third iteration since the guidelines' 2022 launch. According to TfS, this version was "prepared by experts of the 'Together for Sustainability (TfS)' organization together with testing companies and third-party organizations" and "reviewed by more than 55 companies within the chemical sector and audited by TÜV Rheinland."
What TfS Changed: Chapter 5.2.10.4 (page 85)
TfS Description: "This chapter has been re-written with consideration of more consistent approaches for handling of credits linked to CO2 emissions reduction between CO2 supplier and CO2 user in a consistent way and in alignment with external developments, standards and guidelines."
TfS Justification:
"The approach of use of DAC (Direct Air Capture) to partition the benefits between the CO2 supplier and CO2 user has practical as well as methodological challenges. With DAC not mature yet, this approach for system expansion credit of CO2 using systems is quite challenging. Secondly, when DAC process is used with renewable electricity, which is likely the reality of an implementation scenario, the DAC methodological approach does not partition any credits to the CO2 using system and retains the entire credits of CO2 capture with the CO2 supplier thereby compromising the original intent of the approach. Also, external regulations linked to CO2 capture accounting as well as a reliable certification system may be needed to ensure that CO2 supplier and CO2 user will not create potential situations for double-counting of the CO2 reduction benefits."
What This Means:
The previous version suggested using Direct Air Capture (DAC) as a reference for allocating carbon reduction benefits between the company capturing CO2 and the company using captured CO2 in their products. Version 3.0 removes this approach and provides alternative guidance for preventing double-counting of carbon capture benefits.
This change affects chemical manufacturers who capture CO2 as part of their production processes or who use captured CO2 as a feedstock in chemical synthesis.
What TfS Changed: Chapter 5.3.3 (page 100)
TfS Description: "An additional text that captures a recommendation that PCF calculated using this Guidelines alone can not be used in Comparative assertions on the products."
TfS Justification:
"Since the PCF covers only one of the impact categories that are relevant in an LCA study and the carbon footprint is calculated as Partial PCF (Cradle to Gate), this may miss impacts of carbon footprint arising from other life cycle stages or from other impact categories and thus the Partial PCF may not provide a comprehensive and complete picture for making comparative assertions on such products."
What This Means:
TfS now explicitly states that PCFs calculated using their guidelines should not be used to make comparative claims between products (e.g., "Product A has a lower carbon footprint than Product B"). The guidelines calculate partial PCFs (cradle-to-gate only) covering only climate change impacts, which TfS considers insufficient for product comparisons.
Chemical suppliers can still use TfS PCFs for customer Scope 3.1 reporting, internal decision-making, and tracking progress against their own baselines. For comparative product claims, companies would need to conduct full cradle-to-grave life cycle assessments per ISO 14040/14044.
What TfS Changed: Chapter 5.2.4.1 (page 52)
TfS Description: "Further clarity on the approval process that will be undertaken by TfS Expert Technical Working Group on accepting published Product Category Rules to be listed as 'TfS Accepted PCRs'."
TfS Justification:
"This is intended to improve the transparency to the process that will be adopted by the Technical Working Group towards amending the Accepted PCRs under TfS Guidelines with every subsequent version of the TfS PCF Guidelines."
What This Means:
Product Category Rules (PCRs) are product-specific guidelines that provide additional detail for calculating PCFs of particular product types (such as those published by PlasticsEurope, ISOPA, or other industry associations). Version 3.0 clarifies how TfS's Technical Working Group reviews and accepts PCRs for inclusion in the "TfS Accepted PCRs" list.
Chemical suppliers using product-specific PCRs should verify whether their PCR has been formally accepted by TfS and understand that accepted PCRs may be updated with each new version of the TfS guidelines.
What TfS Changed: Chapter 5.2.8.4 (page 64)
TfS Description: "Formal definitions of Wastes have been included in this section to ensure a definition of waste in alignment with global practices and guidelines."
TfS Justification:
"This clarity establishes a consistent basis on the definition of waste."
What This Means:
TfS v3.0 adds formal waste definitions aligned with global practices and the EU Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC). The distinction between waste, by-products, and co-products affects carbon accounting because it determines whether allocation methods apply (for co-products) or whether cut-off rules apply (for waste).
Chemical manufacturers with multi-output processes should review their current classification of process outputs against the new formal definitions.
What TfS Changed: Table 5.4 (page 73)
TfS Description: "The reference to 'Reverse Cut-off' and 'Cut-off Plus' approaches has been revised to standardized definitions of such approaches in alignment with GHG Protocol."
TfS Justification:
"This establishes a consistent description for such allocation, partition or crediting approaches in alignment with taxonomy used by global standards and guidelines such as GHG Protocol."
What This Means:
This is primarily a terminology update to ensure TfS uses the same language as the GHG Protocol when describing allocation approaches. The calculation methods themselves have not fundamentally changed, but the descriptions now match standardized terminology used across industries.
Chemical suppliers should update internal documentation and training materials to reflect the standardized terminology.
What TfS Changed: Chapter 5.2.9 (page 76)
TfS Description: "Revisions have been made to ensure aligned representation of the text and relevant tables to ensure Allocation hierarchy is in complete alignment with Catena-X and WBCSD PACT."
TfS Justification:
"This revision to the way the Allocation hierarchy is described is needed to ensure consistency and alignment across Industry and Cross-industry Guidelines."
What This Means:
TfS has revised how it presents allocation hierarchy to match Catena-X and WBCSD Pathfinder (PACT) frameworks exactly. This alignment means PCFs calculated using TfS v3.0 can be shared through Catena-X and PACT data exchange platforms without additional conversion.
The allocation hierarchy itself (physical relationship preferred, then economic value, then other relationships) remains consistent with ISO 14067, but the presentation now matches cross-industry frameworks.
What TfS Changed: Chapter 5.2.10.5 (page 88)
TfS Description: "The procedures of an LCA calculation of mass balance products was introduced including a generic example showing two options of calculation."
TfS Justification:
"This establishes a consistent description for such chain of custody approaches in alignment with current practice and certification schemes."
What This Means:
This is new content in version 3.0. TfS now provides comprehensive procedures for calculating PCFs of products produced using mass balance chain of custody approaches. Mass balance is commonly used when chemical companies replace fossil feedstocks with bio-based or circular feedstocks and need to attribute the sustainability characteristics to specific products.
The guidance includes two calculation methods:
Both methods are demonstrated with worked examples in the guidelines. The guidance aligns with chain of custody certification schemes such as ISCC Plus, RSB, and REDcert.
This change is particularly significant for chemical manufacturers producing bio-based or circular products.
What TfS Changed: Chapter 5.2.11 (page 91)
TfS Description: "New assessment systems and calculation formulas were introduced after harmonization with other standards. Examples were updated."
TfS Justification:
"The revision gives a more in-depth guidance to this important element of assessment and reporting."
What This Means:
Version 3.0 introduces new methodologies for calculating and reporting two metrics:
Primary Data Share (PDS): The percentage of a PCF based on primary data (plant-specific measurements) versus secondary data (database averages). TfS provides a specific calculation formula: PDS = (Sum of |Impact Contribution| × PDS of each input) / Total PCF.
Data Quality Rating (DQR): A three-dimensional assessment of data quality based on:
Critical Timeline: According to TfS, "The calculation and reporting of a DQR will become mandatory for PCFs issued from 2027 onwards, giving companies sufficient time to prepare. Until then it is recommended to do it on a voluntary basis."
This change has been harmonized with Catena-X, Green Business Alliance (GBA), and WBCSD PACT to enable digital PCF data exchange across platforms.
CO2 AI's Product Carbon Footprint platform delivers PCFs conformant with TfS, PACT, PEF, ISO 14067/14044, and GHG Protocol. The platform provides:
Automated Data-to-Footprint Workflow:
Supplier Collaboration:
Compliance-Ready Reporting:
Actionable Decarbonization:
.svg){kind=logo}
.svg){kind=logo}
.svg)
What would you like to read next?