Calculating GHG Transport and Logistics Emissions for the European Chemical Industry

**Module 5 of the GLEC Framework**  
*Written in partnership with Cefic*  
*September, 2021*

Suggested Citation

Smart Freight Centre and Cefic. Calculating GHG transport and logistics emissions for the European Chemical Industry. 2021.

Permissions

This publication may be reproduced in whole or in part in any form for educational or non-profit purposes without special permission from the copyright holder, provided acknowledgment of the source is made. Smart Freight Centre would appreciate receiving a copy of any publication that uses these Guidelines as a source. No use of this publication may be made for resale or for any other commercial purpose whatsoever without prior permission in writing from Smart Freight Centre.

Disclaimer

The views expressed in this publication are those of Smart Freight Centre and staff, consultants, and management, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Board of Trustees of Smart Freight Centre. Smart Freight Centre does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this publication and does not accept responsibility for the consequences of their use.

Acknowledgements

This report was written by Alan Lewis, Technical Director, Smart Freight Centre.

About Smart Freight Centre

Smart Freight Centre (SFC) is a global non-profit organization dedicated to an efficient and zero-emission freight sector. We cover all freight and only freight. SFC works with the Global Logistics Emissions Council (GLEC) and other stakeholders to drive transparency and industry action – contributing to Paris Climate Agreement targets and Sustainable Development Goals.

Our role is to guide companies on their journey to zero-emission logistics, advocate for supportive policy and programs, and raise awareness. Our goal is that 100+ multinationals reduce at least 30% of their logistics emissions by 2030 compared to 2015 and reach net-zero emissions by 2050.

Contact

Smart Freight Centre
Keizersgracht 560, 1017 EM, Amsterdam, Netherlands
P.O. Box 11772, 1001 GT, Amsterdam, Netherlands
Tel office: +31 6 4695 4405
www.smartfreightcentre.org
info@smartfreightcentre.org

Introduction
Chemical Industry Specifics
1. Nature of the Cargo Transported
2. Shared Transport – Definitions and Use
3. Dedicated Transport
4. Payloads
5. Empty Running
6. Cleaning Operations
7. Tank Container Transport
8. Pipeline Transport
Impact of Chemical Industry Specifics on Default Values
1. Sector-specific Transport Operation Categories
2. Road Transport
3. Rail Transport
4. Inland Waterways Transport
5. Short and Deep Sea Transport
  1. Sea Container Transport
6. Air Transport
7. Pipeline Transport
8. Intermodal Transport
9. Logistics Sites
10. Cleaning Operations
General guidelines for transport operators and logistics service providers
1. Operational data collection and processing
Guidelines for Chemical Companies Per Mode
1. Chemical Company Calculation
2. Data Checks
3. Alternative Calculation Approaches
  1. Shipment Level Data
  2. Modelled Emissions
Recommendations for Updating the Defaults
Annex:
1. Road Transport: Full Default Table
2. Intermodal GHG Emission Intensity by Distance
3. Example Calculations
  1. Road Transport
  2. Intermodal Transport
4. Partners

Introduction

The members of Cefic, representing the majority of the chemical industry in Europe, recognize the importance of reducing the overall environmental impact of freight transport. Knowledge about the GHG emissions that result from the transport of goods within their supply chain, both inbound to their production plants and outbound to their customers, is important to them. These guidelines support them in gaining this knowledge, enabling them to take steps to reduce their impact.

Cefic and ECTA, representing the specialist transport companies who work on behalf of the chemical producers, published a first guideline for the calculation of tank-to-wheel GHG emissions from freight transport operations applicable to the European chemical sector in March 2011. Since then, there have been many developments in the field of GHG emission accounting, both in general and specifically for freight transport operations, including the EN16258 standard published in 2012 and the GLEC Framework first published in 2016. Nonetheless, the fundamentals of the process remain the same:

Establish the amount and type of fuel used for the transport service in question
Convert the fuel use to a well-to-wheel GHG emission value, expressed as mass of CO2e
Relate the GHG emissions, including those from cleaning and warehousing, to the transport and logistics activity, expressed in tonne-kilometers, provided by the service
Report both the total GHG emissions and the emission intensity, expressed as mass of CO2e per tonne km

This process is set out in more detail in Chapters 1-3 of the GLEC Framework.

This updated report reflects changes that have occurred in the past decade and represents an opportunity for the sector to respond to increasing pressure from investors, legislation, and customers to reduce GHG emissions from freight transport activities in particular, given its classification as a 'hard to abate' sector. Implementing this guidance will show that the sector is adopting current best practices, adapted specifically for the chemical industry, and is preparing itself for the decarbonization challenge that will become increasingly apparent in the coming years.

The scope of the GHG emission calculation covered in this report includes the transport and logistics activities directly related to the chemical industry supply chain. The primary focus is on the transport and logistics operations the companies are contractually responsible for, primarily the transport of finished goods to their customers. Estimates may also be made for transport operations within the supply chain that are the responsibility of other entities, for example, inbound transport of raw materials, although any such estimates will inevitably be subject to greater uncertainty due to a lack of knowledge of all parameters and hence greater reliance on estimation and assumptions. Therefore, it is highly recommended to request transport emission data to be included in the emission reporting of the contracting party.

The activities include:

The transport itself, including associated vehicle repositioning needed to fulfill the service
The handling of goods and short-term storage at logistics sites, including energy use associated with the movement of goods within a logistics site or warehouse and the operation of the storage or handling facility
Tank cleaning operations required to make vehicles available for their use in chemical transport
Temperature control (whether heating or cooling) required for conditioning of the product during the transport chain

Items specifically excluded are:

Activities associated with intermediate processing of a product, including where its nature is fundamentally changed
Administrative functions of the transport company, even if they are co-located at a logistics site
Maintenance of site or vehicles
Vehicle or transport infrastructure

Implementing the guidance in a way that informs and drives change in the industry will require a significant amount of interaction between the chemical companies and their logistics service providers (LSPs). This will include interactions between LSPs and subcontracted transport operators, warehouse operators, and cleaning stations. Actions that reduce GHG emissions from chemical transportation will need to be supported by the sharing of GHG information based on primary data, rather than relying on the industry-standard default values that are provided here merely as a starting point for those companies that are only now setting up their emission calculation and reporting processes.

The report is structured as follows:

Section 2: Sets out some of the specific characteristics of chemical industry logistics operations that influence the way GHG emissions are calculated as well as the resulting impacts.
Section 3: Sets out typical or representative values that may be used as default values by European chemical companies in cases where they are beginning to compute GHG emissions or where more specific carrier data is not available, for whatever reason.
Section 4: Provides guidance for carriers and LSPs when interpreting these guidelines.
Section 5: Provides guidance for chemical companies when it comes to implementing the GLEC Framework and the influence of these industry-specific guidelines.
Section 6: Acknowledges that knowledge about GHG emission impacts and calculations is continually evolving, as is the list of potential low emission solutions available to companies, including those in the chemical industry. Section 6 indicates areas where updates are most likely to be needed in the relatively near future and where this would be reflected in future versions of this guidance.
Annexes: Include a summary table of the default GHG emission intensity values for road transport based on knowledge of load and empty running (Annex 1) and additional information about intermodal transport (Annex 2).

Chemical Industry Specifics

This section describes specific characteristics of chemical industry transport and logistics operations that are not set out in detail in the existing GLEC Framework. The approach in terms of core methodology is unaffected, i.e., identify all the individual elements of the transport chain, including any associated empty running, and then collect the information necessary to calculate the emissions.

However, some of these characteristics influence the way in which transport operation categories are defined for use in chemical transport operations. The result is a more detailed and specific set of transport categories than the general set defined in the main body of the GLEC Framework.

2.1 Nature of the Cargo Transported

The cargo transported for the chemical industry is a mixture of solids, liquids, and gases that are either ingredients for or the result of chemical processes managed by the chemical industry. Consignment sizes tend to be greater than in the wider transport sector, which leads to a greater incidence of bulk transportation, the potential for higher payloads, especially when expressed in terms of cargo mass, and a greater potential for the use of intermodal solutions and high-capacity modes such as rail, inland waterway, and sea transport.

Some cargos have very specific storage or handling requirements that impact upon the way that transport chains in the chemical industry are arranged. This may also impact on the nature of the equipment used and on the business relationship, e.g., greater reliance on tankers or equipment that can withstand high pressures. These issues are reflected in some of the following subsections.

Analysis of data collected by ECTA suggested that the nature of the cargo, when classified as dry bulk, liquid bulk, or cargo packed in smaller containers, does have an impact on both average load and the extent of empty running. This has been combined with information collected from chemical companies (Cefic members) to compile the input parameters used to define the default values presented in section 3 of this report.

2.2 Shared Transport – Definitions and Use

Terminology can vary within the freight transport sector as a whole and even within a segment such as chemical transportation. The following terms have been used to establish the chemical sector default emission intensity values:

Full truckload (FTL): A chemical company has enough product for a consignment to fill a vehicle, by weight or other dimension, close to the vehicle’s legal limits and that vehicle travels from a single point of origin to a single destination to deliver the single consignment.
Less than truckload (LTL): A chemical company has one or more consignments that individually are not big enough to fill a vehicle, by weight or other dimension, to the vehicle’s legal limits. An approximate boundary of 15 tonnes, i.e. ± 60% load by mass, has been used to differentiate full and less than truckload. LTL transport can be split into many different subcategories with widely differing characteristics. For the purposes of this document the following two categories have been used:
1. Partial load: A single LTL consignment, which on its own is not big enough to fill a vehicle, by weight or other dimension, is transported on its own from a single point of origin to a single destination. The reason can be timing (rush order) or incompatibility with other products.
2. Groupage: Multiple LTL consignments, potentially originating from different chemical companies and different origins are consolidated by a logistics service provider to achieve a main haul transport with higher load factors than would otherwise be the case. The consolidated consignments may be delivered to one or several end destinations. Consignment size, operating pattern, and overall load factor can all vary considerably within this broad category of transport.

The use of groupage transport is commonplace, particularly for packed goods. The nature of the cargo may require specialist transport providers who are used, or even licensed, to handle cargos with specific properties. The benefit of groupage services from a GHG emission perspective is that the transport provider should be able to achieve greater overall efficiency by carrying several consignments from different providers in one trip, so maximizing load factors and minimizing empty running. Sharing of operational information and actual GHG emission performance of groupage transport has been relatively uncommon; however, with the increased focus on transparency and reduction of GHG emissions, we expect that may change in the future. The work required of the transport company should not be any greater than for dedicated transport, because all customers would be expected to share a network average emission intensity value that reflects the overall benefit of the shared transport operation and the associated improved efficiency.

2.3 Dedicated Transport

The use of dedicated transport services, where dedicated equipment is provided by the transport company for the use of a specific product (and company), is more common in the chemical sector than in general haulage, particularly due to the specialist nature of the equipment, cargos, and cleaning requirements. This could lead to an increased incidence of empty running. Hence, there is a trade-off between dedicated transport contracts and a lower overall system efficiency / higher GHG emissions.

This places a responsibility on chemical companies and their transport providers to investigate options to reduce the incidence of company-specific dedicated transport wherever the business model will allow it. For example, allowing the transport of compatible loads or using cleaning facilities close to the point of unloading that would allow a backload would both avoid an empty return trip to base and improve overall transport system efficiency.

Data collected by ECTA suggested that there are significant variations reported in terms of average load and particularly empty running from transport operator to transport operator. Unfortunately, it has not been possible to isolate the nature of the transport operation to establish whether dedicated transport contracts were contributing to this variation. The assumption is that dedicated transport would result in a higher level of empty running than for shared transport. However, it is likely that there is also a variation in the operating practices between differing transport companies which is a clear reason to advocate for the use of primary data as the basis for GHG calculations.

2.4 Payloads

As mentioned previously, the cargo tends to be relatively dense and consignments are larger, leading to payloads that are typically much closer to vehicle payload limits than the overall sector average. Nonetheless, consultation with individual chemical companies revealed significant variations from company to company, around a relatively high average payload figure.

Although high payload does slightly increase vehicle fuel consumption and emissions when expressed on a per vehicle kilometer basis, the benefit of transporting more cargo in a single trip significantly outweighs this effect and leads to a much lower emission intensity value, expressed in emissions per unit of transport activity (mass CO2e / tonne km).

The variation from company to company emphasizes the importance of using primary data for the calculation of emissions at a company or even better at product level, and of monitoring factors such as the load factor and extent of empty running within a supply chain:

To adhere to the basic principle of accuracy
To help identify where efficiency improvements and hence emission reductions can be achieved

It is through simple steps like these that short-term emission reductions can be easily achieved at relatively low cost and to the benefit of all parties involved and wider society.

The typical payloads used in generating the road transport default GHG emission intensity values for chemical transport are as follows:

Market Segment	Data Source	Value (tonnes)
Overall sector average	Inferred from more detailed segments below	18
Packed goods transport	Packed goods average	Inferred from more detailed segments below
Packed goods: FTL	Cefic project member data; confirmed ECTA member survey	21
Packed goods: part load	Cefic project member data	8
Packed goods: groupage	ECTA secretariat	15
Bulk transport	Bulk goods average	ECTA member survey; confirmed Cefic project member data
Bulk goods: tank truck	ECTA member survey; confirmed Cefic project member data	21
Bulk goods: hopper/silo	ECTA member survey; confirmed Cefic project member data	26
Bulk goods: tank container	ECTA member survey; confirmed Cefic project member data	24

2.5 Empty Running

Minimizing the extent of empty running is a way for all parties with an interest in freight transport to improve efficiency. At the same time, a certain level of empty running is inevitable, especially for FTL transport, as it is unlikely that the next consignment will always be available at the point of unloading the previous one. Groupage allows an LSP to minimize empty running within the constraints of their network and the amount of business they can generate. The extent of empty running is an important influencing factor on GHG emission intensity values. The following values have been used in this document:

Market Segment	Data Source	Value (% of total distance)
Overall sector average	Inferred from more detailed segments below	22
Packed goods transport	Packed goods average	Inferred from more detailed segments below
Packed goods: FTL	ECTA member survey	22
Packed goods: part load	ECTA member survey	22
Packed goods: groupage	GLEC LTL average	17
Bulk transport	Bulk goods average	Inferred from more detailed segments below
Bulk goods: tank truck	ECTA member survey	19
Bulk goods: hopper/silo	ECTA member survey	22
Bulk goods: tank container	ECTA member survey (assumed same as tank truck)	19

Higher values of empty running have been assumed for dedicated transport services based on discussions with Cefic members that are within the range reported in the ECTA survey.

2.6 Cleaning Operations

In many cases, the purity of the cargo is important to meet strict product standards. Where such a restriction applies it is essential that the transport equipment is thoroughly cleaned between the successive transport operations conducted by a vehicle to avoid cross-contamination. The required cleaning operations are carried out to industry standards at facilities that may or may not be present at, or close to, the location where a particular cargo is unloaded or the next cargo is to be loaded. If no cleaning station is present the result may be additional empty running between point of unloading and the next loaded journey. In extreme cases, if a cleaning facility is not available in the locality of the unloading location, this may necessitate a return to base for cleaning before the next journey can be undertaken.

The impact of cleaning on empty running has been factored into the default values based on feedback and data received from Cefic and ECTA members.

Where a cleaning operation is known to take place the calculation of transport GHG emissions should be based on a combination of the transport emissions and the G