Members area login

Carbon Footprint Guidance

How should the carbon footprint of PGMs be calculated?

To provide stakeholders involved in the PGM value chain with background information and technical guidance on what the industry perceives as best practice approach regarding the measurement of GHG emissions, the IPA has published a guidance document for the calculation of the carbon footprint of primary produced PGMs, now available in an updated Edition 2 (March 2026).

"The Carbon Footprint of Platinum Group Metals" complements the LCA publications that are made available on the website, and the industry-average life cycle asssessment data that LCA practitioners can source from the IPA or through the LCA for Experts database.
The methodology explained in the document has been applied throughout three industry wide IPA studies.

The second edition enhances transparency, improves partial alignment with evolving PCF frameworks, and integrates stakeholder feedback - while deliberately avoiding prescriptive alignment where cost implications, technical feasibility, or methodological consensus remain unresolved.

IPA’s Guidance continues to:

  • Support robust and scientifically grounded PCF calculation for primary produced PGMs
  • Facilitate interoperability without mandating specific digital ecosystems
  • Minimize additional reporting burden for member companies
  • Preserve methodological neutrality


Establishing a sector guidance

Given the high representation of our LCA data collected and the experience built up in the course of over 15 years working on PGM industry LCAs, it is our aim to establish our methodology through the Carbon Footprint Guidance as sector guidance for all parties performing Product Carbon Footprint (PCF) calculations on primary mined PGMs.

We collaborate with the World Business Council on Sustainable Development (WBCSD) on their Partnership for Carbon Transparency (PACT) framework, and the guidance has been improved to reflect the feedback and assessment of our first (2023) edition against the PACT PCF methodology.


PACT aims to offer a streamlined methodology for calculating and exchanging product carbon footprints to improve accuracy and enable decarbonization across value chains.

Our Edition 2 guidance has also been included in their online library of sector guidance resources. Read their assessment here.

What has changed since our first edition (October 2023)?

While the core Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) architecture of the 2023 Guidance remains intact, Edition 2 introduces targeted refinements in response to:

  • Advancements in external rulebooks and digital exchange frameworks
  • Increased transparency expectations from downstream sectors
  • Feedback from industry associations and technical stakeholders
  • Practical implementation experience within primary PGM production

The most significant updates include:

1. System Boundary Clarifications

The treatment of excluded emissions - particularly transport to customer - has been reassessed in light of alignment discussions with initiatives such as PACT and Catena-X.

While these initiatives require transport emissions to be measured (though not necessarily included in the PCF result), IPA maintains its established boundary definition. Given commodity-sector practice and practical constraints in cases of co-mingled transport, no structural amendment has been introduced.

2. Expanded Secondary Data Guidance

The 2023 document referenced secondary data sources only briefly. The new edition:

  • Introduces a formal definition of secondary data
  • Expands the list of acceptable data sources (industry datasets, LCA databases, literature, regional averages, government statistics)
  • Emphasizes representativeness criteria (temporal, geographic, technological)
  • Requires documentation and verification of sources

Importantly, no prescriptive hierarchy of secondary data sources has been introduced, in order to avoid non-optimal methodological outcomes.

3. Introduction of Data Quality Requirements Section

The original guidance did not contain a dedicated section on data quality assessment. Edition 2 introduces a new section aligned with ISO 14040 series standards and the GHG Protocol.

It clarifies qualitative data quality requirements and introduces the possibility of quantitative assessment through:

  • Primary Data Share (PDS)
  • Data Quality Ratings (DQR)

However, IPA does not mandate the calculation of PDS or DQR, nor does it require adoption of methodologies developed by external frameworks. Their use is presented as an option, not an obligation.

4. Updated IPCC Global Warming Potential (GWP) Values

Edition 2 updates GWP factors to reflect the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (AR6). Use of the latest available IPCC GWP values has been elevated from a recommendation to a requirement. This ensures alignment with current climate science and the GHG Protocol.

5. Validity Period Adjustment

The October 2023 Guidance recommended a five-year update cycle. The revised document introduces a three-to-five-year update interval, balancing:

  • IPA’s established 4-5-year practice
  • The three-year validity expectation in certain PCF exchange frameworks
  • Practical feasibility for contributing companies

6. Interim Updates and Critical Emissions Monitoring

While the 2023 approach already allowed recalculation in case of significant changes, Edition 2 adds explicit reference to interim checks on critical emissions factors (e.g., electricity carbon intensity), reflecting emerging volatility in energy systems.

7. Electricity Modelling Clarification

Given the ongoing divergence in global accounting approaches (location-based vs. market-based), IPA does not introduce a structural methodological shift.

However, the revised text explicitly references the modelling of renewable electricity sources within the existing ISO 14067-based hierarchy, acknowledging increasing renewable integration by PGM producers.

8. Verification and Comparative Assertions

The third-party verification framework remains largely unchanged. Edition 2 introduces a requirement for a review panel where public comparative assertions are made, strengthening governance and credibility safeguards.