Last year, my Mission Measurement compatriots blogged about the development of metrics for use on all foods to indicate the carbon footprint for individual products. Environmentalists (and other invested parties) would like to place a “Carbon Label” on all products, similar to the nutritional labels currently required. My colleagues have made unique observations about how and why industries are finally beginning to measure the nutritional value, social impact, and business value of what seems intangible and too complicated to measure. They aptly point out that it’s important to use credible and practical scales to measure.

The excerpts below are from a New York Times article, “How Green Is My Orange?” published January 21, 2009. The article showcases PepsiCo’s attempt to provide its consumers with “an absolute number for a product’s carbon footprint.” The fact that a large multinational corporation such as PepsiCo is taking this environmentally sustainable leap has real implications for all socially responsible corporations and initiatives. Before we run out and buy our cartons of Tropicana and Diet Pepsi, consumers should consider that “standards exist for determining a carbon footprint, but companies can apply them in different ways…and can decide how rigorous they want to be…” PepsiCo has taken a great first step, but prior to standardization and regulation of these metrics (and the claims made based on the data), consumers should be sure to read the fine print!

PepsiCo is among the first that will provide consumers with an absolute number for a product’s carbon footprint, which many expect to be a trend. The information will be posted on Tropicana’s Web site. The company has not yet decided if it will eventually put it on the package.

While carbon reduction efforts are generally welcomed by environmentalists, some complain that the marketing claims are backed by fuzzy numbers and dubious assumptions.

Standards exist for determining a carbon footprint, but companies can apply them in different ways. They can decide how rigorous they want to be in counting emissions in the supply chain, and what data sources they should use in the process.

“Any time people are making a legitimate effort to reduce emissions directly or indirectly with their product and services, most of us would think that is a good thing,” said Michael Gillenwater, dean of the Greenhouse Gas Management Institute, a nonprofit organization that teaches greenhouse gas management and accounting.

“The trick is when you try to put a strict label that has implications for comparing your product to another product, or implying that you have no climate change impact,” he said.