ISO 14067 vs GHG Protocol Product Standard, Key Differences

ISO 14067 and the GHG Protocol Product Standard both tell you how to calculate a product carbon footprint, and in most cases they lead to similar numbers. The differences sit in boundaries, assurance, public reporting and a handful of methodological rules. This article compares them point by point and explains which one a supplier should follow when a customer asks for a PCF.

The two standards in brief

ISO 14067:2018 is an international standard titled "Greenhouse gases, carbon footprint of products, requirements and guidelines for quantification". It applies the life cycle assessment framework of ISO 14040 and ISO 14044 to climate change only. It replaced the 2013 technical specification ISO/TS 14067, and it is the standard verification bodies usually cite when they verify a product GHG statement under ISO 14064-3.

The GHG Protocol Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting Standard was published in 2011 by the World Resources Institute and WBCSD, alongside the Scope 3 Standard. It was later amended to add NF3 and update the GWP rules. It is written for companies that want to understand and reduce product emissions and report them publicly.

Neither has been replaced. In October 2025 ISO and the GHG Protocol launched a joint working group to develop a harmonised product-level standard built on both documents, and in February 2026 the GHG Protocol named its nominees to that group. No publication date has been confirmed, so current studies should follow the existing editions.

Side by side comparison

System boundary and life cycle stages

ISO 14067 lets you calculate a partial CFP covering selected stages, provided you state the boundary clearly. That is why most B2B PCF requests, PACT data sets and the A1-A3 modules of an EPD fit comfortably within ISO 14067 without extra justification.

The Product Standard starts from the full life cycle, in five stages (material acquisition and pre-processing, production, distribution and storage, use, end of life). A cradle-to-gate result is allowed only for intermediate products whose final function is not known, such as a chemical, a metal sheet or a yarn, and the company must disclose why downstream stages are excluded. For a finished consumer product, the Product Standard expects use and end of life.

In practice, a Turkish supplier of intermediate goods ends up with the same cradle-to-gate boundary under either standard. The difference shows for finished goods, where the Product Standard is stricter.

Allocation and recycling

Both standards want you to avoid allocation where possible, by sub-dividing processes or expanding the system, and then to allocate on physical relationships before economic value. For a plant making several products on shared lines, the result is usually the same.

Recycling is where they diverge. The Product Standard names two methods, the closed loop approximation (credit for recycling at end of life) and the recycled content method (burden of recycled input only, no end-of-life credit). ISO 14067 relies on the ISO 14044 procedures for reuse and recycling and leaves more room for the PCR to decide. For metals, glass and paper, the choice can move the result noticeably, so we always state it and, where a customer or PCR sets a rule, follow that rule.

Biogenic carbon, land use and electricity

ISO 14067 requires the study report to show fossil emissions, biogenic emissions and removals, and direct land use change emissions separately, and to document emissions from aircraft transport separately as well. The Product Standard also requires biogenic emissions and removals and land use change impacts to be reported, with its own rules on when land use change is attributable.

On electricity, ISO 14067 sets out conditions under which supplier-specific electricity, backed by contractual instruments, may be used, with the aim of avoiding double counting. The 2011 Product Standard is less detailed and is usually read together with the 2015 Scope 2 Guidance. For a Turkish plant using YEK-G guarantees of origin, the documentation needed is broadly the same, and the customer's guideline often decides whether the market-based figure is accepted.

Assurance, review and claims

This is the clearest practical difference. To claim conformance with the Product Standard, a company must have its inventory assured, by a first party (internal but independent of the study) or a third party, and must publish an inventory report. ISO 14067 does not require public disclosure or third-party verification. It offers critical review under ISO/TS 14071 and verification under ISO 14064-3 as routes to credibility, and it moved the rules for communicating footprints to ISO 14026.

Buyers rarely accept an unchecked PCF for long. Many now ask for a verification statement or plan to require one, and PACT v3 introduced step-by-step verification pathways. Product claims to consumers in the EU face separate limits. Since 27 September 2026, Directive (EU) 2024/825 prohibits claims of neutral, reduced or positive climate impact based on offsetting.

Where PACT fits

The PACT Methodology, published by WBCSD and previously called the Pathfinder Framework, is not a third standard competing with these two. It builds on ISO 14067 and the GHG Protocol and adds rules for calculating and exchanging cradle-to-gate PCFs between companies, including data quality indicators, a primary data share and a common data model. Version 3 was released on 30 April 2025 and replaces version 2 for new calculations.

Sector programmes add another layer. Together for Sustainability publishes a PCF guideline for chemicals, Catena-X a rulebook for automotive supply chains. If your customer names one of these, follow it, and make sure the underlying study still conforms to ISO 14067.

Which one should a supplier use

For a supplier in Turkey answering EU buyers, our default advice is to calculate to ISO 14067, report the result in the format the customer specifies, and document any additional rule (PCR, PACT or a sector guideline) you applied. That gives you a study a verifier can audit and a data set the customer can use.

1. Use ISO 14067 as the base method for every PCF study.
2. Apply the PCR, PACT version or sector guideline the customer names.
3. Use a cradle-to-gate boundary for intermediate products, cradle-to-grave where the customer or PCR requires it.
4. Add Product Standard conformance only if the customer explicitly asks for it, and plan for assurance and a public report if so.
5. Arrange critical review or verification before the result is used in public claims or tenders.

If you later need an EPD, the same model can be extended to the other impact categories required by EN 15804+A2. Our article LCA vs EPD vs product carbon footprint explains how the three relate, and what is an EPD covers the programme operator side.

How we apply this in a PCF project

Our product carbon footprint assessment work is built on ISO 14067, with a methodology note that records boundary, allocation, recycling method and data sources before any calculation starts. We collect primary data on site in Turkey, request PCFs from your main suppliers and prepare the study for review or verification by an independent body. Corporate inventories and product footprints share the same plant data, which is why we treat them together on our carbon footprint consulting page.