Review

Carbon Footprint of Electric Vehicles—Review of Methodologies

and Determinants
Dorota Burchart and Iga Przytuła *

Faculty of Transport and Aviation Engineering, Silesian University of Technology, Krasińskiego 8,

40-019 Katowice, Poland; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: The carbon footprint of a product and organization is one of the most important environ-
mental indicators in many sectors, including transport. Consequently, electric vehicles (EV) are being
introduced as an alternative to achieve decarbonization targets. This article presents an overview of
methodologies for assessing the carbon footprint of electric vehicles, including a review of concepts,
methods, standards, and calculation models based on the life cycle of the carbon footprint. The article
also includes a systematic review of the results of EV carbon footprint analyses. The analysis of cur-
rent knowledge on the carbon footprint focuses on road transport vehicles: Battery Electric Vehicles
(BEV), Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles (FCEV), Hybrid Electric Vehicles (HEV), and Plug-in Hybrid Electric
Vehicles (PHEV). Additionally, a review of factors determining the carbon footprint assessment of
electric vehicles, considering their entire life cycle, has been conducted.

Keywords: carbon footprint; electric vehicles; road transport; life cycle assessment; decarbonization

1. Introduction
Increasing legal requirements and, above all, the growing understanding of the en-
vironmental impact of organizational activities and product usage have led to the devel-
opment of various assessment methods. One such method aimed at documenting the
Citation: Burchart, D.; Przytuła, I. environmental burdens of products, technologies, or enterprises is carbon footprint assess-
Carbon Footprint of Electric ment. Climate change is currently regarded as one of the most significant issues related to
Vehicles—Review of Methodologies sustainable development. To effectively assess the environmental impact of human activi-
and Determinants. Energies 2024, 17, ties, environmental assessment methods, known as environmental footprints, are utilized.
5667. https://doi.org/10.3390/ These footprints are derived from the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) technique. LCA is
en17225667 employed to evaluate the environmental impact of products and services throughout their
life cycle, from raw material extraction and processing for goods production, through the
Academic Editor: José Gabriel
Oliveira Pinto
usage phase, to disposal at the end of their service life. Conducting an environmental
footprint assessment comprises several stages: defining the purpose and scope of the
Received: 17 October 2024 analysis, identifying resources and emissions, assessing environmental impact, interpreting
Revised: 2 November 2024 results, and developing a report. The assessment of environmental footprints for products
Accepted: 8 November 2024 and enterprises should adhere to principles of relevance, completeness, consistency, ac-
Published: 13 November 2024
curacy, and transparency. The carbon footprint is the most widespread among the family
of environmental footprints. Currently, the carbon footprint (CF) is of interest not only
to the scientific community but also to business leaders, who—recognizing its tangible
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
benefits—utilize this tool as a fundamental approach to improving the environmental
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. efficiency of business operations, as evidenced by the adoption of ESG (Environmental,
This article is an open access article social, and governance) reporting.
distributed under the terms and The European Commission has developed documents that outline the path for the
conditions of the Creative Commons European Union (EU) to achieve climate neutrality by 2050. This ambitious goal reflects the
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// EU’s commitment to combating climate change and reducing the environmental impact of
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ various sectors, including energy, industry, transport, and agriculture. Achieving climate
4.0/). neutrality will require significant reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and

Energies 2024, 17, 5667. https://doi.org/10.3390/en17225667 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Energies 2024, 17, 5667 2 of 21

transformative changes across economic sectors. The European Green Deal [1] is a new
growth strategy for the Union, aiming to transform the EU into a modern, resource-
efficient, and competitive economy with net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. This
strategy serves as a roadmap, detailing specific initiatives and actions needed to promote
sustainable practices and encourage innovation in green technologies. The European Green
Deal promotes sustainable development and the transition to a green economy within
the European Union, emphasizing the importance of decoupling economic growth from
resource use and environmental degradation.
The carbon footprint (CF) [2] is currently one of the most widely used environmental
indicators. As a measure of the total greenhouse gas emissions caused by an entity, process,
or product over its life cycle, the carbon footprint provides critical insight into the envi-
ronmental impact of various activities. Numerous approaches, methodologies, and tools
have been developed to assess CF, ranging from simplified calculators to more scientific
and complex methods based on life cycle analysis. These tools enable organizations to
quantify and monitor their carbon emissions, paving the way for targeted actions to reduce
their overall carbon footprint. CF is generally focused on products and organizations, but
the concept of CF can also apply to sectors, countries, individuals, etc., highlighting its
versatility as an indicator for various scales of environmental impact.
One of the key documents introducing new legal obligations for organizations in EU
countries concerning CF analysis within sustainability reporting (ESG) is the Corporate
Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) [3]. The CSRD mandates that companies disclose
standardized information regarding their environmental, social, and governance (ESG)
practices, ensuring greater transparency and accountability. The CSRD introduces a require-
ment to report data in the areas of environment (E), social responsibility (S), and corporate
governance (G)- collectively known as ESG reporting. This directive aims to create a harmo-
nized framework for sustainability reporting across the EU, allowing stakeholders to assess
companies’ ESG performance and make informed decisions. Climate-related issues are one
of the key environmental areas to be reported, with particular emphasis on how companies
are addressing their carbon emissions and contributing to the EU’s climate goals.
ESG is a crucial element of organizational sustainability, including in the transport
sector, making it increasingly important to understand the rules and scopes of mandatory
analyses for both organizations and products in line with the European Commission’s
guidelines. In the transport sector, which is a significant contributor to greenhouse gas
emissions, the adoption of ESG reporting standards can drive improvements in energy
efficiency, the adoption of cleaner technologies, and the optimization of logistics and
supply chain processes. ESG has become a new standard for non-financial reporting on
an organization’s activities and its impact on the environment. By setting clear standards
and guidelines, ESG reporting encourages companies to adopt more responsible practices,
enhancing their corporate reputation and building trust among investors, consumers, and
regulators [4]. ESG reporting is based on the European Sustainability Reporting Standards
(ESRS), which are mandatory for all enterprises subject to the CSRD [3]. These standards
establish a structured approach to disclosing sustainability-related information, covering a
broad range of environmental, social, and governance metrics that reflect the EU’s priorities
for sustainable development.
Non-financial reporting on Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) factors is a
rapidly developing and increasingly important topic that has drawn significant attention
from capital market participants in recent years [5,6]. The environmental aspect of ESG
focuses on an organization’s impact on the environment, encompassing efforts to reduce
its carbon footprint, responsibly manage natural resources, and minimize environmental
damage [7,8]. Therefore, in the transport sector, understanding the carbon footprint is
essential for identifying factors that contribute most significantly to the environmental
impact of both logistics-transport system organizations and the vehicles they operate. This
article aims to review the literature on the carbon footprint of electric vehicles, which
present an alternative to conventional fuel vehicles to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions.
 sent an alternative to conventional fuel vehicles to mitigate greenhouse gas emissio
Additionally, the article characterizes the key methods and standards for calculating t
carbon footprint of organizations and products in the transport sector.
Energies 2024, 17, 5667
2. Carbon Footprint Management in the Logistics and Transport System 3 of 21
The assessment of the carbon footprint (CF) is one of the most critical aspects of e
vironmental
Additionally, theevaluation in the transport
article characterizes the key sector.
methodsCF andisstandards
defined as for the total sum
calculating the of gree
carbongas
house footprint of organizations
emissions generatedand products in the
throughout the transport
life cyclesector.
of a product, either directly
indirectly, by an individual, company, product, or service. The carbon footprint represen
2. Carbon Footprint Management in the Logistics and Transport System
the sum of life cycle greenhouse gas emissions, accounting for both direct and indir
The assessment of the carbon footprint (CF) is one of the most critical aspects of envi-
emissions at each stage
ronmental evaluation in theof the lifesector.
transport cycle.CFCF is expressed
is defined as carbon
as the total dioxide equivale
sum of greenhouse
(CO2e), which
gas emissions incorporates
generated the the
throughout Global Warming
life cycle Potential
of a product, either(GWP)
directly orof indirectly,
individual gree
house gases. It includes
by an individual, company,emissions
product, orofservice.
gases such as carbon
The carbon dioxide,
footprint methane,
represents the sumnitrous
of oxid
life
or cycle greenhouse gas emissions,
chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), amongaccounting for which
others, both direct and indirect
contribute to the emissions at
greenhouse effe
eachAn stage of the life cycle.carbon
organization’s CF is expressed
footprint asencompasses
carbon dioxide bothequivalent
direct(CO 2 e), whichgenerated
emissions in-
corporates the Global Warming Potential (GWP) of individual greenhouse gases. It includes
the organization’s facilities and processes, as well as indirect emissions from supplie
emissions of gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, or chlorofluorocarbons
transportation, energy
(CFCs), among others, consumption,
which contribute toand waste disposal.
the greenhouse effect. Carbon footprint analysis a
assessment is the first carbon
An organization’s step toward decarbonization.
footprint encompasses both The next
direct step is carbon
emissions generated footprint
by ma
agement through facilities
the organization’s the monitoring and reporting
and processes, as well asof environmental
indirect emissions from indicators, which is
suppliers,
transportation,
sential energyenvironmental
for reducing consumption, and waste disposal. Carbon footprint analysis and
impact.
assessment
Climateis change
the first step
and toward decarbonization.
the anthropogenic The next
impact on step is carbon
global warming footprint
are curren
management through the monitoring and reporting of environmental indicators, which is
among the primary topics of scientific debate. Reports from the Intergovernmental Pan
essential for reducing environmental impact.
on Climate
ClimateChange
change and(IPCC) have prompted
the anthropogenic impactgovernments
on global warming worldwide
are currentlyto take
amongaction to
duce greenhouse
the primary topics ofgas emissions.
scientific debate.The result
Reports fromofthe
intergovernmental
Intergovernmental Panel collaboration
on Climate on gree
house gas emission assessments has been the establishment of
Change (IPCC) have prompted governments worldwide to take action to reduce greenhouse mandatory emissions
gas emissions.
porting, The result of intergovernmental
which—depending on the region—has collaboration on greenhouse
taken various forms:gas from emission
emissions tra
assessments has been the establishment of mandatory emissions reporting,
ing systems, such as the European Emission Trading System (EU ETS), to national gree which—depending
on the region—has taken various forms: from emissions trading systems, such as the Euro-
house gas reporting programs. Calculating the carbon footprint offers tangible benefi
pean Emission Trading System (EU ETS), to national greenhouse gas reporting programs.
as illustrated in Figure 1.
Calculating the carbon footprint offers tangible benefits, as illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Main benefits of a carbon footprint assessment.

Energies 2024, 17, 5667 4 of 21

The key advantages of calculating the carbon footprint include minimizing the nega-
tive environmental impact of corporate activities, notably by enabling the quantification
of greenhouse gas emissions throughout each product’s production process [9]. A phased
approach to carbon footprint calculation facilitates the identification of the specific ele-
ment within the process that contributes most significantly to environmental degradation,
known as the “hot spot”. Identifying such critical points, for example, which is a partic-
ular process within the entire supply chain, allows for targeted environmental interven-
tions, with a focused approach yielding optimal outcomes in terms of both environmental
and economic efficiency. This also supports production process optimization. Essen-
tial actions include enhancing the efficiency of resource management, energy utilization,
and waste management practices. Examples of measures to reduce the carbon footprint
in logistics and transport systems include eliminating “empty runs” in transportation
(i.e., underloaded trips), modifying packaging types for transported goods, and utiliz-
ing local suppliers. All environmental improvements stemming from carbon footprint
quantification enable the development of “green” design concepts, reduce resource con-
sumption, lower energy demands, and minimize waste generation, while also promoting
partnerships with low-carbon suppliers, thereby indirectly reducing the footprint of the
evaluated product or organization. Carbon footprint assessment in the transport sector
informs decision-making on climate policy and supports initiatives aimed at reducing
greenhouse gas emissions within logistics and transportation systems.
In recent years, increasing regulatory requirements regarding exhaust emissions, such
as the Euro VI standards, have significantly influenced the development of technologies
used in vehicles with internal combustion engines. The article by Milojevic et al. (2024) [10]
emphasizes that the introduction of advanced technical solutions, such as high-pressure
direct fuel injection systems and exhaust gas recirculation (EGR), has contributed to a signif-
icant reduction in particulate matter (PM) and nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions. Moreover,
the use of selective catalytic reduction (SCR) systems effectively reduces NOx emissions,
which is crucial for meeting strict regulatory requirements.
An important element is the use of real driving emissions (RDE) tests, which are a key
addition to traditional laboratory tests. PEMS (Portable Emissions Measurement Systems) are
devices that allow for the measurement of emissions from vehicles during real road driving.
The introduction of these tests aims to reduce discrepancies between results obtained under
laboratory conditions and actual on-road emissions. This ensures that manufacturers must
guarantee compliance with emission standards even in varying conditions, such as different
speeds, changes in terrain gradients, and varying vehicle loads.
Technological innovations are a direct response to the growing need to reduce the envi-
ronmental impact of transportation and to meet increasingly stringent emission regulations.
In the future, further tightening of regulations and the introduction of even more advanced
technological solutions to further reduce exhaust emissions and pollutants can be expected.
Table 1 presents global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by sector for the period
of 1990–2023, showing changes relative to 1990 and 2005. The data analysis reveals that
the transport sector recorded the third-highest increase in emissions, with a 78% rise
compared to 1990 and a 26% rise compared to 2005. Only the power industry and industrial
combustion and processes sectors showed larger increases. These results highlight the
significant contribution of transport to the global rise in GHG emissions, underscoring the
challenges of decarbonizing this sector. Tables 1 and 2 were developed based on data from
the Joint Research Centre [11].
Table 2 illustrates GHG emissions across sectors in the EU-27 from 1990 to 2023 [10].
Unlike other sectors in the EU, transport is the only sector to have recorded an increase
in emissions over the period, with a 19% rise relative to 1990. This increase indicates that
despite efforts within the EU’s climate policy framework, the transport sector remains a
substantial source of emissions. Compared to 2005, transport emissions decreased by 6%,
which may reflect the initial impact of implemented strategies, though their effectiveness
remains limited in achieving reductions relative to 1990 levels.
Energies 2024, 17, 5667 5 of 21

Table 1. Global greenhouse gas emissions by sector for the period 1990–2023.

Sector 2023 vs. 1990 2023 vs. 2005

Power Industry +96% +36%
Industrial Combustion and Processes +91% +41%
Buildings +1% +3%
Transport +78% +26%
Fuel Exploitation +48% +23%
Agriculture +20% +15%
Waste +56% +37%
All sectors +62% +28%

Table 2. EU-27 greenhouse gas emissions by sector for the period 1990–2023.

Sector 2023 vs. 1990 2023 vs. 2005

Power Industry −51% −50%
Industrial Combustion and Processes −42% −30%
Buildings −37% −31%
Transport +19% −6%
Fuel Exploitation −46% −27%
Agriculture −27% −6%
Waste −35% −26%
All sectors −34% −29%

The interpretation of these results highlights the urgent need to intensify efforts in the
transport sector, especially at the global level, to achieve ambitious climate targets. While
the EU has made substantial progress, with significant emission reductions in other sectors,
transport remains a critical area requiring further action. The EU’s strides toward decar-
bonization demonstrate the potential effectiveness of targeted policies and technological
advancements, setting an example that underscores the necessity for similar commitments
worldwide. On the global scale, stronger initiatives in technological innovation, energy effi-
ciency, and policy implementation are essential to address transport emissions effectively
and support comprehensive climate action.
In this context, the EN 16258 [12] standard, developed by the European Committee for
Standardization (CEN), is also important for accurately measuring and reporting energy
consumption and greenhouse gas emissions in transport. It provides a comprehensive
methodology for assessing emissions at various stages of a vehicle’s life cycle, enabling
detailed environmental analysis. This is particularly significant for Battery Electric Vehicles
(BEVs), as it accounts for emissions not only during operation but throughout the entire
life cycle, including battery production and the energy source, allowing for more precise
comparisons between electric, hybrid, and conventional vehicles. Integrating the EN 16258
standard with carbon footprint calculation methodologies, such as Life Cycle Assessment
(LCA) or GHG protocols, is a valuable addition to existing environmental assessment
tools, enabling result harmonization and improving the quality of reporting in line with
ESG guidelines.
Research, such as the study by Skrúcaný et al. (2019) [13], highlights the environmental
impact of implementing electric vehicles in Central European countries assessed within
the EN 16258 framework. This study points to the variability in greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions associated with electricity production, dependent on the energy mix and effi-
ciency of power generation in individual countries. By applying the well-to-wheel (WtW)
approach, the authors demonstrated that the ecological benefits of using electric vehicles
are highly dependent on the energy source used for charging. For instance, in Austria,
where renewable energy sources dominate, WtW GHG emissions for electric vehicles are
significantly lower, ranging from 19.74 to 29.47 gCO2 e/km. In contrast, in Poland, where
the energy mix is predominantly coal-based, emissions can reach between 114.31 and
Energies 2024, 17, 5667 6 of 21

170.66 gCO2 e/km. These findings emphasize the necessity of full life cycle analysis (LCA)
when assessing the sustainability of electromobility.
These insights underscore the critical need for countries to transition toward cleaner
energy sources and adopt comprehensive Life Cycle Assessments to truly harness the
environmental benefits of electric vehicles.

3. Methodology for Calculating the Carbon Footprint in the Transport Sector

The growing emphasis on reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions worldwide
underscores the importance of accurate measurement and management of the carbon
footprint across various sectors, including transport. Transport is a significant source of
GHG emissions, and the development of effective methodologies for calculating the carbon
footprint is crucial for monitoring and minimizing its environmental impact. This chapter
presents an analysis of available methodologies for calculating the carbon footprint in the
transport sector, highlighting their principles, applications, and relevance to achieving
decarbonization goals. The choice of methodology in the transport sector is determined by
the life cycle of emission sources, from fuel extraction to their final use in vehicles. Table 3
provides an overview of methods and standards for calculating the carbon footprint of
organizations and products that can be applied in the transport sector, taking into account
their characteristics and areas of application.

Table 3. Methods and Standards for Calculating the Carbon Footprint of Organizations and Products
Applicable in the Transport Sector.

Method/Standard Description
PAS 2050 is a standard developed by the British Standards Institution. It focuses
on calculating the carbon footprint of products and services. This standard
PAS 2050
considers the product life cycle from raw material acquisition, through production,
distribution, and usage, to disposal [14].
IPCC Method—Intergovernmental Panel The IPCC method is used to calculate the carbon footprint, particularly for
on Climate Change products and technologies [15].
The GHG Protocol concerns the assessment and monitoring of the carbon
footprint. It serves for ESG reporting for sustainable development within
GHG Protocol
organizations. According to the GHG Protocol, greenhouse gas emissions are
divided into three scopes [16].
The LCA framework allows for the calculation of CF by applying different
LCA Method—Life Cycle Assessment LCIA (life cycle impact assessment) methods, taking into account the impact
categories [17,18].
The WtW method is dedicated solely to the assessment of transportation fuels. In
WtW—Well-to-Wheel vehicle assessment, it only considers categories related to energy consumption and
greenhouse gas emissions associated with the fuel life cycle [19].
ISO 14067:2018 defines terms related to the carbon footprint and guidelines for
ISO 14067:2018 quantitatively determining the carbon footprint of a product. This international
standard concerns the calculation of product carbon footprints [20].
ISO 14064-1:2018 provides guidelines for reporting greenhouse gas emissions at
ISO 14064-1:2018 the organizational level to enable the quantification and reporting of emissions for
planning, reporting, and management purposes [21].

The first and most widely used method for calculating the carbon footprint (CF) is
the Publicly Available Specification 2050 (PAS 2050) [22] developed by the British Stan-
dards Institute. This specification was created to standardize the methods of calculating
greenhouse gas emissions over the life cycle of products and services. PAS 2050 is utilized
by BSI to update quantitative assessments of greenhouse gas emissions across product
and service life cycles in line with the latest technological advances and accumulated
experience [23]. As it enables the measurement of the environmental impact of products
and services throughout their life cycle, PAS 2050 serves as the foundation for preparing
Energies 2024, 17, 5667 7 of 21

reliable reports necessary for companies to achieve greenhouse gas emission reductions
over the product life cycle.
Currently, one of the most widely adopted carbon footprint calculation methods is the
IPCC method, which serves as a useful tool for calculating the carbon footprint, particularly
at the product and technology level. Developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC), this method considers not only CO2 emissions but also emissions of other
greenhouse gases. If only CO2 emissions are included in the analysis, the results are
presented in units of kg CO2 . However, when other greenhouse gases are included, the
results are expressed in kg CO2 eq, which represents the mass of CO2 equivalents. These
equivalents are calculated by multiplying the actual mass of the gas by its global warming
potential (GWP), allowing for the global warming effects of different greenhouse gases to
be comparable and additive. The recently published sixth IPCC report provides an updated
reference on global warming conditions [15].
The most important document for carbon footprint assessment and monitoring, par-
ticularly for organizations, is currently the Greenhouse Gas Protocol (GHG Protocol). The
GHG Protocol is used for greenhouse gas emissions reporting and is the result of a collabo-
ration between the World Resources Institute (WRI) and the World Business Council for
Sustainable Development (WBCSD). The GHG Protocol includes the following components:
The GHG Protocol Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard, The Scope 2 Guidance,
and The Corporate Value Chain (Scope 3) Accounting and Reporting Standard. Under CF
reporting according to the GHG Protocol, six greenhouse gases are considered.
According to the GHG Protocol, CF reporting should be based on the following
principles: relevance to users, completeness, consistency, transparency, and accuracy. The
GHG Protocol divides the organization’s carbon footprint into three scopes:
• Scope 1—encompasses direct emissions from sources owned and controlled by the
organization, including emissions related to refrigerant leakage from air conditioning
equipment used by the organization;
• Scope 2—includes indirect emissions associated with the organization’s purchased elec-
tricity, heat, steam, and cooling. These are emissions generated outside the organization;
• Scope 3—similar to Scope 2, includes indirect emissions occurring outside the organi-
zation, but excludes those covered in Scope 2. These emissions are associated with
purchased raw materials, services, or products, as well as emissions related to leased
assets, the use of products manufactured by the organization, waste management, and
employee business travel. Scope 3 includes 15 specific categories of emissions.
The introduction of mandatory carbon footprint analyses across all three scopes
is essential for managing the carbon footprint throughout the entire value chain of an
organization, including in the transport sector.
The Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology enables an evaluation of the potential
environmental impact throughout the entire life cycle, starting from the extraction of
raw materials, through the utilization phase, to the final disposal. LCA allows for the
comparison of environmental aspects of both various products and technological solutions,
facilitating the selection of products or solutions with the lowest environmental impact
over their entire life cycle. Life Cycle Assessment is governed by international standards
related to environmental management systems ISO 14040 [17] and ISO 14044 [18].
In the automotive industry, environmental assessment methods that account for the
fuel life cycle (WtW, Well-to-Wheel) are applied, where two phases are analyzed:
• WtT, Well-to-Tank—in this phase, environmental burdens associated with the extrac-
tion of raw materials for fuel production are considered. It also accounts for fuel
production, as well as its transportation and storage;
• TtW, Tank-to-Wheel—in this phase, environmental burdens associated with the uti-
lization of fuel in vehicles are considered, including refueling and fuel combustion
during vehicle operation.
Energies 2024, 17, 5667 8 of 21

Compared to LCA, the WtW method in vehicle assessments considers only impact
categories related to energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions associated with the
fuel life cycle. In the LCA, materials used in the vehicle production process and many other
stages of the vehicle life cycle are also considered, along with environmental impact categories.
The methodology for carbon footprint assessment is also presented in other ISO
standards. Guidelines and requirements related to the design, development, management,
reporting, and verification associated with a company’s GHG inventory are contained
in ISO 14064 [21], which consists of three parts. Meanwhile, the CF calculation proposal
is presented in ISO 14067 [20]. This standard includes requirements and guidelines for
the quantification and communication of the product’s carbon footprint. Similar to PAS
2050, ISO 14067:2018 [20] focuses on the entire life cycle of a product. However, this
standard provides more detailed guidelines regarding individual stages of calculations
and measurement methodologies. Unlike PAS 2050, this standard was developed by an
international team, with members representing various countries around the world. It
was created due to the necessity of establishing clear, consistent, and universal principles
for determining the carbon footprint, as well as defining guidelines for reporting and
making the results of these calculations widely accessible. According to ISO 14067, the
carbon footprint calculation process—similar to PAS 2050—should consider the life cycle
concept. Therefore, greenhouse gas emissions not only from direct business activities but
also indirect emissions are included in the analyses. In ISO 14067, greenhouse gas emissions
are grouped into three levels:
• Scope 1—emissions from greenhouse gas sources owned or controlled by the company
(direct emissions);
• Scope 2—greenhouse gas emissions from the production of electricity, heat, or steam
consumed by the company (indirect energy-related greenhouse gas emissions);
• Scope 3—emissions other than indirect energy-related greenhouse gas emissions that
result from the company’s activities but occur in facilities owned or controlled by
other companies.
This means that calculations take into account not only direct emissions within the
organization but also those occurring within the supply chain, making the data analysis
process time consuming, labor intensive, and requiring specialized expert knowledge. The
CF analysis includes the following scopes:
• From cradle to grave—considering all stages from raw material extraction to disposal;
• From cradle to gate—where the stages from raw material extraction to the delivery of
the finished product to the customer are calculated, including the transport process to
the customer.
Table 4 describes the links between the family ISO 14060 standards for organization
and product carbon footprint analysis. The ISO 14060 series of standards provides a set
of guidelines ensuring a consistent approach to the quantification, monitoring, reporting,
and verification of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. These standards are aimed at sup-
porting sustainable development and the transition to a low-carbon economy, offering
both environmental and organizational benefits. Implementing the ISO 14060 standards
enables companies to manage emissions effectively by precisely determining their levels,
which facilitates more informed strategic planning. Consequently, companies can systemat-
ically monitor their emissions, analyze their sources and environmental impact, and report
progress accurately. These standards also support the achievement of environmental goals,
helping companies to prepare for future legal and societal requirements related to GHG
management, while enhancing their credibility with stakeholders and consumers.
Energies 2024, 17, 5667 9 of 21

Table 4. An overview of the family ISO 14060 standards for organization and product carbon footprint
analysis.

Standard Description
Design and develop GHG inventories for organizations.
ISO 14064-1 [21]
Output: GHG inventory and report.
Quantify, monitor, and report emission reduction and removal
ISO 14064-2 [24]
enhancement. Output: GHG project documentation and reports.
Develop CFP per functional or declared unit.
ISO 14067 [20]
Output: CFP study report.
ISO 14064-3 [25] Provides guidance for the verification and validation of GHG statements.
ISO 14065 [26] Specifies requirements for validation and verification bodies.

4. Carbon Footprint Analysis of Electric Vehicles—Review of Methods and Determinants

The analysis of the carbon footprint of electric vehicles (EVs) is a vital aspect of
contemporary research on sustainable transportation. In the face of growing demand
for environmentally friendly vehicles and global commitments to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions, EVs are gaining popularity as an alternative to conventional combustion vehicles.
Despite their potential to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2 ) emissions during the usage phase,
a comprehensive assessment of the carbon footprint of EVs requires consideration of the
entire life cycle of these vehicles, from production and raw material acquisition through
usage to recycling and disposal.
In scientific literature, there are various methodologies for analyzing the carbon footprint
of EVs, differing in approach and scope of analysis. The choice of methodology affects the
obtained results, which can vary significantly depending on research assumptions and defined
system boundaries. These differences also arise from considering diverse determinants, such
as regional energy sources (renewable or conventional) used for vehicle charging, charging
infrastructure, and the recycling possibilities for components, including batteries.
This chapter will discuss the classification of methods used for analyzing the carbon
footprint of electric vehicles and present the key determinants that have a significant impact
on the final assessment results.

4.1. A Review of Studies Related to the Carbon Footprint Analysis of Electric Vehicles
Table 5 provides an overview of 24 studies related to the analysis of greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions associated with various types of vehicles, including electric vehicles (Bat-
tery Electric Vehicles—BEV), hybrids (Hybrid Electric Vehicles—HEV), internal combustion
engine vehicles (Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles—ICEV), plug-in hybrids (Plug-in
Hybrid Electric Vehicles—PHEV), and fuel cell vehicles (Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles—FCEV).
The overview includes passenger cars, buses, vans, and trucks. A wide range of method-
ological approaches has been considered, aiming to estimate the total environmental impact
of these vehicles throughout their entire life cycle. These studies highlight the growing
interest not only in passenger vehicles but also in public and freight transport, which play
a crucial role in reducing global emissions and striving toward sustainable transportation.
Each author conducted carbon footprint analyses within the context of specific local
conditions and based on unique methodological assumptions that could significantly im-
pact the obtained results. Local conditions included, among others, the characteristics of
the energy mix, the availability and type of electric vehicle charging infrastructure, local
emission standards, and environmental regulations. For example, in regions where elec-
tricity mainly comes from renewable sources, such as in some Scandinavian countries, the
impact of electric vehicles on GHG emissions will be significantly lower than in countries
that rely on fossil fuels for their energy, such as China. In China, the majority of electricity
production still comes from fossil fuels, primarily coal, which significantly increases the
carbon footprint of electric vehicles. Gao L. et al. (2012) [27] emphasize that the greatest
impact on GHG emissions for ICEVs, HEVs, and PHEVs comes from vehicle operation,
whereas for BEVs and FCEVs, energy supply plays a crucial role. Additionally, Lie K.
Energies 2024, 17, 5667 10 of 21

W. et al. (2021) [28] stated that the carbon footprint of a bus fleet was reduced by 37%
through the introduction of biofuel and electric buses. They also noted that an additional
52% reduction could be achieved with full electrification using the Nordic energy mix,
highlighting the significant environmental benefits of using renewable energy sources for
vehicle charging.
Considering vehicle brands, popular models such as the Toyota Corolla, Toyota Prius,
Nissan Leaf, VW Golf, and Tesla Model 3 are analyzed. It is important to note, however,
that not all authors include specific vehicle brands in their studies, often focusing on
general technological categories instead. These models come from various manufacturers,
indicating that the research aims to represent a broad cross-section of the automotive
market and technological diversity. The analyses are conducted in the context of different
regions, enabling the assessment of the impact of local energy conditions and regulations
on the outcomes of studies related to vehicle emissions and life cycle analyses.
The type of vehicle plays a significant role in carbon footprint analyses, as different
categories of vehicles have varying impacts on GHG emissions. Passenger cars are the most
frequently analyzed, with 17 articles dedicated to these vehicles, due to their widespread
use and substantial share in greenhouse gas emissions. Buses, both electric and combustion-
powered, are a crucial part of public transport systems, especially in cities, making their
environmental impact an important research topic—reflected in six publications. Trucks
and vans, essential for logistics and deliveries, are characterized by a high carbon footprint
due to their heavy fuel consumption. This has also been an area of intensive study, although
only one article has been dedicated to each of these vehicle types.

Table 5. Review of the literature related to carbon footprint analysis from electric passenger cars,
buses, trucks and vans.

Propulsion Functional Assessment

N◦ Authors Vehicle Type Vehicle Models Region
Type Unit Methods
Toyota Corolla, Nissan
ICEV, BEV,
Gao L. et al. Passenger Leaf, GM Volt, Toyota
1 HEV, PHEV, 160,000 miles CML2001 China
(2012) [27] cars Prius, Toyota Prius
FCEV
Plug-in, Honda Clarity
Hawkins T. R.
Passenger Mercedes A-Class, European
2 et al. ICEV, BEV 1 km GREET
cars Nissan Leaf Union
(2012) [29]
1 vehicle-
Cooney G. kilometer
3 et al. Buses - ICEV, BEV over a IMPACT2002 USA
(2013) [30] 12-year
lifetime.
Girardi P.
Passenger Volkswagen Golf,
4 et al. ICEV, BEV 150,000 km IPCC Italy
cars Volkswagen e-Golf
(2015) [31]
Toyota Corolla, Nissan
Onat N. C.
Passenger Leaf, Toyota Prius, Toyota ICEV, BEV,
5 et al. 1 km GREET USA
cars Prius-Plug in, HEV, PHEV
(2015) [32]
Chevrolet Volt
Toyota Yaris, Nissan Leaf,
Tagliaferri C.
Passenger Toyota Yaris Hybrid, ICEV, BEV, European
6 et al. 1 km CML 2001
cars Toyota Prius, Toyota HEV Union
(2016) [33]
Prius Plug-in
Energies 2024, 17, 5667 11 of 21

Table 5. Cont.

Propulsion Functional Assessment

N◦ Authors Vehicle Type Vehicle Models Region
Type Unit Methods
Freightliner P700,
Freightliner P70H,
Zhao Y. et al. Delivery ICEV, HEV, Vehicle Miles
7 Grumman Olson, Navistar Hybrid LCA USA
(2016) [34] trucks CNG, BEV of Travel
E-Star Class 3, Smith
Newton Class 5
Qiao Q. et al. Passenger Mercedes S400, Mercedes
9 ICEV, BEV Per vehicle GREET China
(2017) [35] cars S400 Hybrid
Mierlo J.V. Volkswagen Golf, Fiat
Passenger ICEV, BEV,
8 et al. Punto, Nissan Leaf, Opel 1 km ReCiPe Belgium
cars HEV, PHEV
(2017) [36] Ampera, Toyota Prius
Harris A.
10 et al. Buses - BEV, ICEV 1 km EIO-LCA UK
(2018) [37]
Rosenfeld D. ICEV, BEV,
Passenger European
11 C. et al. - PHEV, HEV, 1 pkm CML 2001
cars Union
(2019) [38] FCEV
Jursova S.
Passenger Czech
12 et al. - ICEV, BEV 100 km IPCC2013
cars Republic
(2019) [9]
Qiao Q. et al. Passenger
13 BAIC EC-Series ICEV, BEV 150,000 km GREET China
(2019) [39] cars
Bekel K. and
Passenger Volkswagen e-Golf,
14 Pauliuk S. BEV, FCEV 1 km ReCiPe Germany
cars Toyota Mirai
(2019) [40]
Chang C. ICEV, LNG, LCA ISO/TS
15 et al. Buses - LPG, FCEV, 1 pkm 14067:2013 Taiwan
(2019) [41] PEV and PAS2050
Petrauskienė
Passenger
16 K. et al. Fiat Tipo, Nissan Leaf ICEV, BEV 1 km ReCiPe Lithuania
cars
(2020) [42]
Tesla Model 3, Toyota
Wong E. Y. C.
Passenger Mirai, Hyundai ix35, Various
17 et al. FCEV, BEV 1 km GREET
cars Honda Clarity Fuel Cell, countries
(2020) [43]
Mercedes GLC F-Cell
FCEV,
H2-ICE, HEV
Candelaresi H2-IC,E
Passenger
18 D. et al. - CNG, HEV 1 km GREET Global
cars
(2021) [44] CNG,
Hythane,
H2-Gasoline
A selection of example
Pipitone E.
Passenger models from the 15 given: ICEV, BEV, ReCiPe,
19 et al. 150,000 km EU
cars Volkswagen Polo, Peugeot HEV GREET
(2021) [45]
e-208, Renault Clio Hybrid
Toyota Corolla, Nissan
Yang L. et al. Passenger ICEV, BEV,
20 Leaf, Toyota Corolla 150,000 km GREET China
(2021) [46] cars PHEV
Plug-in
Energies 2024, 17, 5667 12 of 21

Table 5. Cont.

Propulsion Functional Assessment

N◦ Authors Vehicle Type Vehicle Models Region
Type Unit Methods
Lie K. W. Input–output
BEV, HEV,
21 et al. Buses Volvo 7900 Electric 1 pkm based Norway
PHEV
(2021) [28] (IO-LCA)
Garcia A. MAN Lion’s City, Volvo
ICEV, BEV,
22 et al. Buses 7900 Hybrid, BYD 1 pkm GREET Spain
HEV
(2021) [47] 12 m Electric
Ellingsen L.
23 et al. Buses - BEV, ICEV 1 km CML-IA Norway
(2022) [48]
Ford Transit, Ford
Farzaneh F. Own
E-Transit, Mercedes
24 and Jung S. Van ICEV, BEV 1 km algorytm USA
Sprinter 2500,
(2023) [49] with CF coef.
Lightning ZEV3

Methodological assumptions also played a crucial role in the study results, as they
included various approaches to defining system boundaries, functional units, and the
life cycle stages of vehicles considered in the analyses. Based on the literature review
presented in Table 5, the most commonly used functional unit in Life Cycle Assessment
(LCA) for passenger vehicles is kilometers traveled or 100 km. For buses, which carry
a larger number of passengers, the unit 1 pkm (passenger-kilometer) is used, reflecting
the distance traveled by a single passenger. This approach allows for a more accurate
estimation of environmental impact by taking into account the efficiency of transporting a
higher number of people. For trucks, various functional units are used depending on the
research purpose, often incorporating both cargo weight and distance traveled.
The most frequently used method was GREET, applied in nine articles. The ReCiPe
and CML2001 methods were each used in four studies. Other methods include IPCC,
IMPACT2002, LCA ISO/TS 14067:2018, and PAS 2050. Each method has specific assump-
tions and approaches to Life Cycle Assessment, which affect the results obtained and their
applicability in different regions.
Studies on vehicle carbon footprint analysis have been conducted in various regions,
taking into account their specific environmental, regulatory, and energy-related conditions.
In China and the USA, countries with high emission levels and intensive use of combustion
vehicles, these studies are often driven by the need to reduce emissions in response to the
growing number of vehicles and their impact on air quality and public health. In contrast,
in the European Union, where detailed regulations on emission reduction and sustainable
development are in place, many studies focus on the electrification of transport and its impact
on GHG emissions. Europe, in particular, emphasizes the implementation of low-emission
transport technologies, which support the objectives of the European Green Deal.

4.2. Determinants for Assessing the Carbon Footprint of Electric Vehicles Considering the Whole
Life Cycle of the Vehicle
Tables 6 and 7 provide a detailed overview of the determinants of the carbon footprint
for electric vehicles and the main results of GHG emission analyses. The division of the tables
into two parts—separately for passenger vehicles and for trucks, buses, and vans—reflects
differences in the usage characteristics, function, and environmental impact of these vehicles.
Table 6 provides a detailed overview of the results of studies on the carbon footprint of
electric passenger vehicles, focusing on the main determinants of greenhouse gas emissions
and the system boundaries considered in the analyses. The findings of these studies
emphasize that the most important factor affecting the total carbon footprint of BEVs is the
vehicle’s use phase, specifically emissions related to battery charging, which depend on the
energy sources used to generate electricity.
Energies 2024, 17, 5667 13 of 21

The charging phase during vehicle use has the greatest impact on the carbon footprint
of BEVs, as emissions are directly tied to the energy mix of the given region. Some studies
(e.g., Girardi P. et al., 2015 [31]) indicate that even with a relatively high share of fossil fuels
in the energy mix, BEVs can still generate a lower carbon footprint than ICEVs.
The production of Battery Electric Vehicles (BEVs), particularly the battery manufac-
turing process, has a significant impact on total greenhouse gas emissions. Production
processes, such as the extraction and processing of metals (e.g., lithium, nickel, cobalt), are
emission-intensive and place a burden on the environment. For instance, in the study by
Qiao Q. et al. (2017) [35], it was shown that the production of electric vehicles with NCM
(nickel-cobalt-manganese) batteries generates approximately 14.6 tons of CO2 , which is
59% higher than that for ICEVs. This higher footprint is mainly due to the energy-intensive
processes involved in mining and refining these metals. Additionally, as battery capacity
increases to extend the vehicle’s range, the demand for raw materials and energy during
production rises, further elevating emissions. Reducing these emissions would require both
advancements in battery recycling to reuse critical metals and a shift toward renewable
energy sources in the manufacturing process.
Most studies in the table include a full life cycle analysis of the vehicle, which al-
lows for consideration of all stages—from production through use to end-of-life disposal.
Additionally, seven publications focus on the well-to-wheel approach, highlighting the
importance of analyzing the entire fuel life cycle.
Table 7 describes the determinants of the carbon footprint and the main results of
greenhouse gas emission analyses for commercial vehicles, such as trucks, buses, and
vans. For these vehicles, the main factors influencing total emissions differ from passenger
vehicles due to their specific usage characteristics and higher environmental load.
For buses, particularly electric ones, the charging phase and electricity sources are
crucial for the total carbon footprint. For instance, in the study by Harris A. et al. (2018) [37],
it was shown that electric buses can reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 10–58% compared
to traditional diesel buses, depending on the energy mix of the region. Regions with a
higher share of renewable energy in their grid see the greatest reductions, as the emissions
from electricity generation are significantly lower. However, the life cycle costs for electric
buses can be significantly higher due to the expensive battery production and infrastructure
requirements, which becomes an important economic factor in assessing their sustainability
and feasibility for large-scale adoption.

Table 6. Determinants of the carbon footprint assessment of electric passenger vehicles.

Carbon Footprint
N◦ Authors Propulsion Type Analysis Results System Boundary
Determinants
Electric vehicles (EVs), hybrid The greatest impact on
electric vehicles (HEVs), and GHG emissions for ICEVs,
fuel cell electric vehicles HEVs, and PHEVs comes
Gao L. et al. ICEV, BEV, HEV, Well-to-wheel,
1 (FCEVs) enable a reduction in from vehicle operation,
(2012) [27] PHEV, FCEV Cradle to grave
energy consumption and while for BEVs and
emissions throughout their FCEVs, fuel supply plays
entire life cycle. a significant role.
BEVs reduce GWP by 20–24%
Use phase directly
compared to gasoline (ICEVs)
Hawkins T. R. through fuel combustion
2 ICEV, BEV and by 10–14% compared to Cradle to grave
et al. (2012) [29] or indirectly during
diesel ICEVs, assuming a
electricity production.
vehicle lifetime of 150,000 km.
Energies 2024, 17, 5667 14 of 21

Table 6. Cont.

Carbon Footprint
N◦ Authors Propulsion Type Analysis Results System Boundary
Determinants
Battery manufacturing for
Although electricity in Italy
Girardi P. et al. BEVs is a major
3 ICEV, BEV comes from fossil fuels, BEVs Cradle to grave
(2015) [31] contributor to their
are able to reduce GHG.
GHG emissions.
In a scenario based on the
average energy mix, EVs are the The operation phase had
Onat N. C. et al. ICEV, BEV, HEV, least carbon-intensive vehicle the greatest impact on
4 Cradle to grave
(2015) [32] PHEV option in 24 states, while HEVs GHG emissions among all
are the most energy-efficient in vehicles studied.
45 states.
Use phase, exploitation of
The ICEVs’ use phase precious metals and
Tagliaferri C.
5 ICEV, BEV, HEV greenhouse gas emissions are production of chemical Cradle to grave
et al. (2016) [33]
50% higher than those of BEVs. used in the battery
manufacturing phase.
CO2 emissions from vehicle
production for an EV with an
NCM battery are around CO2 emissions from active
14.6 tons, which is 59% higher material production are
Qiao Q. et al.
6 ICEV, BEV than the 9.2 tons for an ICEV. the most influential Cradle to grave
(2017) [35]
For an EV with an LFP battery, variable for both LFP and
emissions are slightly higher at NCM batteries.
14.7 tons, marking a 60%
increase compared to an ICEV.
As the level of electrification
increases—from hybrids (HEVs)
Manufacturing for electric
to plug-in hybrids (PHEVs),
vehicles. For PHEV, the
Mierlo J.V. et al. BEV, HEV, extended-range electric vehicles
7 mining of nuclear, coal, Cradle to grave
(2017) [36] PHEV, EREV (EREVs), and fully electric
and fossil fuels in the fuel
vehicles (BEVs)—the life cycle
supply chains.
CO2 emissions of these vehicles
systematically decrease.
The production process of For HEVs and gasoline
FCEVs and EVs can have a ICEVs, the use phase has
ICEV, BEV, GWP as high as 50%, but over a the highest GHG impact;
Rosenfeld D. C.
8 PHEV, HEV, 200,000 km lifetime, their GWP for FCEVs, it’s fuel Well-to-wheel
et al. (2019) [38]
FCEV is 45% lower for EVs and production, and for
35% lower for FCEVs PHEVs, vehicle
compared to ICEVs. production dominates.
The value of carbon footprints
of electric vehicles in the Czech
Republic is expected to decrease
between 2015 and 2050. Electric
Jursova S. et al.
9 ICEV, BEV vehicle charging from mixed Electricity for BEV. Cradle to grave
(2019) [9]
electricity sources in the Czech
Republic resulted in reductions
in carbon footprints and
increases in water footprints.
Energies 2024, 17, 5667 15 of 21

Table 6. Cont.

Carbon Footprint
N◦ Authors Propulsion Type Analysis Results System Boundary
Determinants
In 2015, an EV’s life cycle GHG
emissions were about 41.0 t The largest impact on
Qiao. et al. CO2 eq, 18% lower than an ICEV. GHG emissions for EVs Well-to-wheel,
10 ICEV, BEV
(2019) [39] This is expected to drop to 34.1 t comes from the electricity Cradle to grave
CO2 eq by 2020 due to lower generation phase (WtW).
GHG emissions from electricity.
BEVs achieve lower GWP than
Bekel K. and
FCEVs (e.g., BEV: Fuel supply infrastructure Well-to-wheel,
11 Pauliuk S. ICEV, BEV, FCEV
1.40E−01 kg CO2 -eq/km, FCEV: for BEV and FCEV. Cradle to grave
(2019) [40]
1.68E−01 kg CO2 -eq/km)
In 2015, BEVs powered by the
existing electricity mix
Petrauskienė K. produced 26% more GHG Well-to-wheel,
12 ICEV, BEV Use phase for BEV.
et al. (2020) [42] emissions than gasoline ICEVs Cradle to grave
and 47% more than
diesel ICEVs.
The most carbon-intensive
method is hydrogen produced
from distributed grid electricity,
while the least carbon-intensive
method is hydrogen from
Wong E. Y. C. central biomass with liquid Fuel consumption phase
13 ICEV, FCEV, BEV Well-to-wheel
et al. (2020) [43] truck delivery and gaseous for ICEV.
dispensing. Centralized wind
electrolysis also offers low
emissions, making it a more
sustainable option compared to
grid electricity.
Hydrogen-powered vehicles
FCEV, H2-ICE,
contribute the most to the For hydrogen-powered
HEV H2-IC,E
Candelaresi D. decarbonization process, but vehicles, the vehicle
14 CNG, HEV CNG, Well-to-wheel
et al. (2021) [44] vehicle infrastructure was infrastructure had the
Hythane, H2-
highlighted as the primary greatest impact.
Gasoline
source of environmental impact.
For ICEVs and HEVs, the
Throughout its life cycle, a BEV
use phase has the highest
generates about 60% of global
GHG impact due to fuel
warming emissions compared
Pipitone E. et al. combustion. For BEVs,
15 ICEV, BEV, HEV to an equivalent ICEV, but its Cradle to grave
(2021) [45] production, especially
acidifying and particulate
battery manufacturing,
matter emissions are
dominates
twice as high.
GHG emissions.
Compared to internal
combustion engine vehicles
(ICEVs), battery electric vehicles Fuel production for ICEV
Yang L. et al. ICEV, BEV,
16 (BEVs) and plug-in hybrid and PHEV. Electricity Cradle to grave
(2021) [46] PHEV
electric vehicles (PHEVs) have generation for BEV.
the potential to reduce
CO2 emissions.
Energies 2024, 17, 5667 16 of 21

Table 7. Determinants of carbon footprint assessment of electric buses, trucks and vans.

Propulsion Carbon Footprint System

N◦ Authors Analysis Results
Type Determinants Boundary
The study shows that the use phase,
involving diesel combustion for
conventional buses and electricity
production for electric buses,
Cooney G. et al. Use phase for ICEV and
1 ICEV, BEV dominates most impact categories, Cradle to grave
(2013) [30] electricity for BEV.
while battery production significantly
contributes to global warming,
carcinogenic emissions, ozone
depletion, and ecotoxicity.
Based on the national average
electricity mix, battery electric trucks
generate more GHG emissions over
Zhao Y. et al. ICEV, HEV, their life cycle than other trucks, Fuel Consumption for
2 Well-to-wheel
(2016) [34] CNG, BEV despite having no tailpipe emissions. BEV.
Among diesel, hybrid, CNG, and
electric vehicles, hybrid trucks
produce the least GHG emissions.
In a scenario involving battery
electric buses, there is an 80%
likelihood that life cycle greenhouse GHG emission is
Harris A. et al. gas (GHG) emissions decrease by dependent on the
3 BEV, ICEV Cradle to grave
(2018) [37] 10–58% when compared to traditional electricity generation
diesel buses. Nonetheless, life cycle source.
costs are projected to be
129–247% higher.
Replacing diesel buses with LNG
increases the carbon footprint by 16%,
while using liquefied petroleum gas
reduces it by 13%. Hydrogen fuel cell
Fuel manufacturing
buses cut the carbon footprint by 47%,
ICEV, LNG, stage for FCEV and
Chang C. et al. and plug-in electric buses by 31%.
4 LPG, FCEV, PHEV. Bus service stage Cradle to grave
(2019) [41] Only hydrogen and plug-in electric
PHEV for ICEV, LNG buses
buses align with greenhouse gas
and LPG buses.
reduction goals. Switching all
Taiwan’s city buses to hydrogen fuel
could reduce emissions by
227,832 tons CO2 e annually.
The carbon footprint of a bus fleet
was reduced by 37% through the
GHG emission is
introduction of biofuel and electric
Lie K. W. et al. BEV, HEV, dependent on the
5 buses. An additional 52% reduction Well-to-wheel
(2021) [28] PHEV electricity generation
can be achieved with full
source.
electrification using the Nordic
charging energy mix.
Hybrid buses reduce CO2 emissions TtW (tank-to-wheel)
Garcia A. et al. ICEV, BEV, by 40%, while electric buses achieve a phase for ICEV and HEV.
6 Cradle to grave
(2021) [47] HEV 60% reduction, both measured WtT (well-to-tank)
per passenger-kilometer traveled. phase for BEV.
Energies 2024, 17, 5667 17 of 21

Table 7. Cont.

Propulsion Carbon Footprint System

N◦ Authors Analysis Results
Type Determinants Boundary
The highest emissions
The plug-in bus with a 400 kWh
are for buses with large
lithium iron phosphate (LFP) battery
batteries (lithium iron
exhibits the highest impact across all
phosphate 400 kWh),
categories, including the bus itself,
Ellingsen L. et al. and the phases with the
7 BEV, ICEV battery, maintenance, battery Cradle to grave
(2022) [48] highest emissions are
replacement, electricity, and
the use and replacement
end-of-life stages. Extending the BEV
of batteries, especially
lifespan from 10 to 20 years alters
with extended
both environmental performances.
life cycles.
The analysis for vans shows that
electrification in Florida reduces the
carbon footprint per vehicle by 22.6%.
For EVs, raw material production is
Farzaneh F. and
the major emitter, while for ICEVs, Raw material to virgin
8 Jung S. ICEV, BEV Cradle to grave
it’s the operation phase. A lifespan input for BEV.
(2023) [49]
sensitivity study found that with a
350,000 km lifespan, EVs become
48.1% more efficient
compared to ICEVs.

Trucks also generate significant emissions, especially during the use phase, where fuel
consumption is the main source of emissions. The study by Zhao Y. et al. (2016) [34] found
that electric trucks, despite having no tailpipe emissions, may have a higher total carbon
footprint than their combustion counterparts due to the high carbon footprint associated
with battery production and electricity generation in some energy mixes.
For vans, as highlighted in the study by Farzaneh F. and Jung S. (2023) [49], emission
analysis showed that electrification in the state of Florida reduces the carbon footprint per
vehicle by 22.6%. This reduction is influenced by Florida’s evolving energy mix, which
includes an increasing portion of renewables, helping to decrease emissions from electricity
generation used for vehicle charging. In electric vehicles, the greatest impact on emissions
comes from the production of raw materials for batteries, particularly due to the mining
and processing of metals like lithium, nickel, and cobalt, which are both resource- and
energy-intensive. Meanwhile, in combustion vehicles, the dominant emission phase is
the use phase, where continuous burning of fossil fuels contributes directly to CO2 and
other greenhouse gas emissions. This difference underscores the potential benefits of
transitioning to electric vans, especially in regions that continue to expand their renewable
energy infrastructure.
The battery recycling process plays a crucial role in reducing the carbon footprint
(CF) at the end of the life cycle of electric vehicles (EVs). According to Li et al. (2022) [50],
the choice of recycling method significantly impacts the overall CF. Hydrometallurgi-
cal processes, with lower energy demands, offer significant environmental benefits over
pyrometallurgical methods, which produce higher emissions due to high-temperature
requirements. Efficient recycling methods, such as hydrometallurgy, can greatly reduce the
overall CF of EVs and enhance sustainability.
Shah and Kaka (2022) [51] highlight that alternative battery technologies, such as
sodium-ion and redox flow (RF) batteries, can further lower the carbon footprint due to
their more sustainable production and resource availability. Combining innovative battery
technologies with advanced recycling methods can substantially reduce the CF of EVs
throughout their life cycle.
Energies 2024, 17, 5667 18 of 21

5. Conclusions
This study presents an overview of methodologies for carbon footprint assessment, in-
cluding a review of concepts, methods, and standards based on the life cycle approach. The
review highlights that various carbon footprint assessment methods have been developed
to date, making it challenging to standardize the results obtained by different methods.
Currently, from the perspective of ESG reporting guidelines, also in the transport sector,
the primary method for carbon footprint assessment is the GHG Protocol.
In many countries, alternative fuels are being introduced to mitigate climate change
impacts. This study reviews literature on the life cycle carbon footprint of various electric
vehicles, showing that the primary factor influencing the carbon footprint of electric ve-
hicles is the production of electricity used to charge vehicle batteries. In countries where
renewable energy sources make up a significant share of electricity, the environmental
impact of electric vehicles is substantially lower. In such countries, the carbon footprint de-
terminant for electric vehicles is the production of the battery and the vehicle itself. Battery
production, particularly for larger vehicles including buses and trucks, generates consid-
erable CO2 emissions due to the energy-intensive processes of extracting and processing
metals, making the production phase a critical stage for these vehicles.
For commercial vehicles, such as buses, different functional units, such as “passenger-
kilometer” or “kilometer”, are used to accurately estimate their environmental impact
based on their specific functions. Despite ecological benefits, the life cycle costs of electric
vehicles can be higher than those of combustion vehicles, which necessitates a cost-benefit
analysis in assessing their sustainability.
This review highlights the need to consider the full life cycle and usage specifics
when assessing the actual environmental impact, indicating the necessity of standardized
analytical methods in the transport sector. Based on the conducted review, it is suggested
that, to achieve full environmental benefits, efforts should focus on decarbonizing the
energy sector, including increasing the share of renewable energy sources used for charging
electric vehicles. Based on the analysis conducted by Burchart-Korol et al. (2018) [52], it
can be stated that the source of electricity used for charging electric vehicles has a crucial
impact on their total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The study showed that in Poland,
where 84.76% of electricity in 2015 came from fossil fuels, the carbon footprint of electric
vehicles was significantly higher than in regions using renewable energy sources. These
results indicate that decarbonizing the energy sector and increasing the share of renewable
energy sources are essential to achieving the full environmental benefits of electric vehicle
usage. By transitioning to renewable energy sources, such as wind or solar power, it is
possible to significantly reduce CO2 emissions associated with the operation of electric
vehicles. Therefore, changing the energy mix towards renewable sources can be one of the
most effective ways to lower the carbon footprint of electric transport.
There are also solutions that can reduce energy consumption in electric vehicles, such as
vehicle lightweighting and strategies for optimizing energy management on board the vehicle.
Sandrini et al. (2023) [53] analyzed the impact of lightweighting on energy consumption and
found that reducing the vehicle’s mass significantly improves energy efficiency, particularly
in the context of limiting energy consumption in electric vehicles. Candela et al. (2024) [54]
emphasized that using lighter materials and structures reduces the overall carbon footprint of
vehicles by lowering energy consumption during the operational phase.
Moreover, the application of regenerative braking strategies can significantly enhance
energy recovery, contributing to more efficient energy management in vehicles. Sandrini
et al. (2023) [55] presented a regenerative braking logic which, when properly implemented,
allows for up to 30% energy recovery during the WLTC driving cycle compared to a vehicle
without this system, while also increasing vehicle stability during braking, which is crucial
for safety.
The carbon footprint (CF) of fuel station infrastructure for conventional vehicles and
charging stations for electric vehicles (EVs) is an essential element of life cycle analysis.
Beloev et al. (2017) [56] demonstrated that the use of photovoltaic parks at fuel stations
Energies 2024, 17, 5667 19 of 21

can reduce CO2 emissions by up to 37%, depending on the scenario adopted. Similarly, as
shown in the study by Faisal et al. (2024) [57], the use of renewable energy systems, such as
photovoltaic or hybrid installations, to power EV charging stations can reduce the carbon
footprint by 89.8%.
Integrating renewable energy sources into charging station infrastructure not only sig-
nificantly minimizes environmental impact but also lowers operational costs, making this
solution more economically viable in the long term. Findings highlight the necessity for further
investment in sustainable energy technologies to reduce emissions associated with energy
infrastructure. Increasing the share of clean energy sources and improving charging infras-
tructure will be crucial for promoting transport electrification and achieving decarbonization
goals in the transport sector, bringing both environmental and economic benefits.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, D.B. and I.P.; methodology, D.B.; formal analysis, D.B.;
investigation, I.P.; resources, D.B. and I.P.; writing—original draft preparation, D.B. and I.P.; writing—
review and editing, D.B.; visualization, I.P.; supervision, D.B. All authors have read and agreed to the
published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Data Availability Statement: All data are included in the article.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References
1. European Commission. The European Green Deal. European Commission. Available online: https://commission.europa.eu/
strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal_en (accessed on 29 August 2024).
2. Scrucca, F.; Barberio, G.; Fantin, V.; Porta, P.L.; Barbanera, M. Carbon Footprint: Concept, Methodology and Calculation. In
Environmental Footprints and Eco-Design of Products and Processes; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020; pp. 1–31. [CrossRef]
3. Directive (EU) 2022/2464 of the European Parliament and of the Council Amending Regulation (EU) No 537/2014, Directive
2004/109/EC, Directive 2006/43/EC and Directive 2013/34/EU, as Regards Corporate Sustainability Reporting. 2022. Available
online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32022L2464 (accessed on 2 September 2024).
4. Nenavani, J.; Prasuna, A.; Siva Kumar, S.N.V.; Kasturi, A. ESG Measures and Financial Performance of Logistics Companies.
Lett. Spat. Resour. Sci. 2024, 17, 5. [CrossRef]
5. Tsang, A.; Frost, T.; Cao, H. Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) Disclosure: A Literature Review. Br. Account. Rev.
2022, 55, 101149. [CrossRef]
6. Pinheiro, A.B.; Panza, G.B.; Berhorst, N.L.; Toaldo, A.M.M.; Segatto, A.P. Exploring the Relationship among ESG, Innovation, and
Economic and Financial Performance: Evidence from the Energy Sector. Int. J. Energy Sect. Manag. 2023, ahead-of-print. [CrossRef]
7. Khaw, T.Y.; Azlan, A.; Teoh, A.P. Factors Influencing ESG Performance: A Bibliometric Analysis, Systematic Literature Review,
and Future Research Directions. J. Clean. Prod. 2024, 448, 141430. [CrossRef]
8. Senadheera, S.S.; Withana, P.A.; Dissanayake, P.D.; Sarkar, B.; Chopra, S.S.; Rhee, J.H.; Ok, Y.S. Scoring Environment Pillar in
Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) Assessment. Sustain. Environ. 2021, 7, 1960097. [CrossRef]
9. Jursova, S.; Burchart-Korol, D.; Pustejovska, P. Carbon Footprint and Water Footprint of Electric Vehicles and Batteries Charging
in View of Various Sources of Power Supply in the Czech Republic. Environments 2019, 6, 38. [CrossRef]
10. Milojević, S.; Glišović, J.; Savić, S.; Bošković, G.; Bukvić, M.; Stojanović, B. Particulate Matter Emission and Air Pollution Reduction
by Applying Variable Systems in Tribologically Optimized Diesel Engines for Vehicles in Road Traffic. ProQuest 2024, 15, 184.
[CrossRef]
11. Crippa, M.; Guizzardi, D.; Banja, F.; Schaaf, M.; Becker, E.; Ferrario, M.; Quadrelli, F.; Martin, R.; Grassi, J.; Rossi, G.; et al.
GHG Emissions of All World Countries JRC Science for Policy Report; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2023.
12. UNE EN 16258:2013; Methodology for Calculation and Declaration of Energy Consumption and GHG Emissions of Transport
Services (Freight and Passengers). UNE, Asociación Española de Normalización: Madrid, Spain, 2013.
13. Skrúcaný, T.; Kendra, M.; Stopka, O.; Milojević, S.; Figlus, T.; Csiszár, C. Impact of the Electric Mobility Implementation on the
Greenhouse Gases Production in Central European Countries. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4948. [CrossRef]
14. British Standards Institution. Guide to PAS 2050. How to Assess the Carbon Footprint of Goods and Services; British Standards Institute,
BSI: London, UK, 2008.
15. IPCC. Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Core Writing Team, Lee, H., Romero, J., Eds.; Climate Change 2023 Synthesis Report;
IPCC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2023; pp. 35–115. [CrossRef]
16. Filonchyk, M.; Peterson, M.P.; Yan, H.; Gusev, A.; Zhang, L.; He, Y.; Yang, S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Reduction Strategies
for the World’s Largest Greenhouse Gas Emitters. Sci. Total Environ. 2024, 944, 173895. [CrossRef]
Energies 2024, 17, 5667 20 of 21

17. ISO 14040:2006; Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Principles and Framework. International Organization
for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006.
18. ISO 14044:2006; Environmental Management-Life Cycle Assessment-Requirements and Guidelines. International Oganization for
Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006.
19. Krause, J.; Yugo, M.; Samaras, Z.; Edwards, S.; Fontaras, G.; Dauphin, R.; Prenninger, P.; Neugebauer, S. Well-To-Wheels Scenarios
for 2050 Carbon-Neutral Road Transport in the EU. J. Clean. Prod. 2024, 443, 141084. [CrossRef]
20. ISO 14067:2018; Greenhouse Gases—Carbon Footprint of Products—Requirements and Guidelines for Quantification. International
Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2018.
21. ISO 14064-1:2018; Greenhouse Gases—Part 1: Specification with Guidance at the Organization Level for Quantification and Reporting
of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Removals. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2018.
22. PAS 2050:2011; Specification for the assessment of the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of goods and services. British Standards
Institution: London, UK, 2011.
23. Sinden, G. The Contribution of PAS 2050 to the Evolution of International Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards. Int. J. Life Cycle
Assess. 2009, 14, 195–203. [CrossRef]
24. ISO 14064-2:2019; Greenhouse Gases—Part 2: Specification with Guidance at the Project Level for Quantification, Monitoring and
Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions or Removal Enhancements. International Organization for Standardization:
Geneva, Switzerland, 2018.
25. ISO 14064-3:2019; Greenhouse Gases—Part 3: Specification with Guidance for the Verification and Validation of Greenhouse Gas
Statements. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2018.
26. ISO 14065:2020; General Principles and Requirements for Bodies Validating and Verifying Environmental Information.
International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2018.
27. Gao, L.; Winfield, Z.C. Life Cycle Assessment of Environmental and Economic Impacts of Advanced Vehicles. Energies 2012,
5, 605–620. [CrossRef]
28. Lie, K.W.; Synnevåg, T.A.; Lamb, J.J.; Lien, K.M. The Carbon Footprint of Electrified City Buses: A Case Study in Trondheim,
Norway. Energies 2021, 14, 770. [CrossRef]
29. Hawkins, T.R.; Singh, B.; Majeau-Bettez, G.; Strømman, A.H. Comparative Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Conventional
and Electric Vehicles. J. Ind. Ecol. 2012, 17, 53–64. [CrossRef]
30. Cooney, G.; Hawkins, T.R.; Marriott, J. Life Cycle Assessment of Diesel and Electric Public Transportation Buses. J. Ind. Ecol.
2013, 17, 689–699. [CrossRef]
31. Girardi, P.; Gargiulo, A.; Brambilla, P.C. A Comparative LCA of an Electric Vehicle and an Internal Combustion Engine Vehicle
Using the Appropriate Power Mix: The Italian Case Study. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2015, 20, 1127–1142. [CrossRef]
32. Onat, N.C.; Kucukvar, M.; Tatari, O. Conventional, Hybrid, Plug-in Hybrid or Electric Vehicles? State-Based Comparative Carbon
and Energy Footprint Analysis in the United States. Appl. Energy 2015, 150, 36–49. [CrossRef]
33. Tagliaferri, C.; Evangelisti, S.; Acconcia, F.; Domenech, T.; Ekins, P.; Barletta, D.; Lettieri, P. Life Cycle Assessment of Future
Electric and Hybrid Vehicles: A Cradle-To-Grave Systems Engineering Approach. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 2016, 112, 298–309.
[CrossRef]
34. Zhao, Y.; Onat, N.C.; Kucukvar, M.; Tatari, O. Carbon and Energy Footprints of Electric Delivery Trucks: A Hybrid Multi-Regional
Input-Output Life Cycle Assessment. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2016, 47, 195–207. [CrossRef]
35. Qiao, Q.; Zhao, F.; Liu, Z.; Jiang, S.; Hao, H. Comparative Study on Life Cycle CO2 Emissions from the Production of Electric and
Conventional Vehicles in China. Energy Procedia 2017, 105, 3584–3595. [CrossRef]
36. Van Mierlo, J.; Messagie, M.; Rangaraju, S. Comparative Environmental Assessment of Alternative Fueled Vehicles Using a Life
Cycle Assessment. Transp. Res. Procedia 2017, 25, 3435–3445. [CrossRef]
37. Harris, A.; Soban, D.; Smyth, B.M.; Best, R. Assessing Life Cycle Impacts and the Risk and Uncertainty of Alternative Bus
Technologies. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 97, 569–579. [CrossRef]
38. Rosenfeld, D.C.; Lindorfer, J.; Fazeni-Fraisl, K. Comparison of Advanced Fuels—Which Technology Can Win from the Life Cycle
Perspective? J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 238, 117879. [CrossRef]
39. Qiao, Q.; Zhao, F.; Liu, Z.; He, X.; Hao, H. Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Electric Vehicles in China: Combining the
Vehicle Cycle and Fuel Cycle. Energy 2019, 177, 222–233. [CrossRef]
40. Bekel, K.; Pauliuk, S. Prospective Cost and Environmental Impact Assessment of Battery and Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles in
Germany. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2019, 24, 2220–2237. [CrossRef]
41. Chang, C.-C.; Liao, Y.-T.; Chang, Y.-W. Life Cycle Assessment of Alternative Energy Types—Including Hydrogen—For Public
City Buses in Taiwan. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2019, 44, 18472–18482. [CrossRef]
42. Petrauskienė, K.; Skvarnavičiūtė, M.; Dvarionienė, J. Comparative Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Electric and Conven-
tional Vehicles in Lithuania. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 246, 119042. [CrossRef]
43. Wong, E.Y.C.; Ho, D.C.K.; So, S.; Tsang, C.-W.; Hin Chan, E.M. Comparative Analysis on Carbon Footprint of Hydrogen Fuel Cell
and Battery Electric Vehicles Based on the GREET Model. In Proceedings of the 2020 International Conference on Decision Aid
Sciences and Application (DASA), Sakheer, Bahrain, 8–9 November 2020. [CrossRef]
44. Candelaresi, D.; Valente, A.; Iribarren, D.; Dufour, J.; Spazzafumo, G. Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Hydrogen-Fuelled
Passenger Cars. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2021, 46, 35961–35973. [CrossRef]
Energies 2024, 17, 5667 21 of 21

45. Pipitone, E.; Caltabellotta, S.; Occhipinti, L. A Life Cycle Environmental Impact Comparison between Traditional, Hybrid, and
Electric Vehicles in the European Context. Sustainability 2021, 13, 10992. [CrossRef]
46. Yang, L.; Yu, B.; Yang, B.; Chen, H.; Malima, G.; Wei, Y.-M. Life Cycle Environmental Assessment of Electric and Internal
Combustion Engine Vehicles in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 285, 124899. [CrossRef]
47. García, A.; Monsalve-Serrano, J.; Lago Sari, R.; Tripathi, S. Life Cycle CO2 Footprint Reduction Comparison of Hybrid and Electric
Buses for Bus Transit Networks. Appl. Energy 2022, 308, 118354. [CrossRef]
48. Ager-Wick Ellingsen, L.; Jayne Thorne, R.; Wind, J.; Figenbaum, E.; Romare, M.; Nordelöf, A. Life Cycle Assessment of Battery
Electric Buses. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2022, 112, 103498. [CrossRef]
49. Farzaneh, F.; Jung, S. Lifecycle Carbon Footprint Comparison between Internal Combustion Engine versus Electric Transit Vehicle:
A Case Study in the U.S. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 390, 136111. [CrossRef]
50. Li, P.; Xia, X.; Guo, J. A Review of the Life Cycle Carbon Footprint of Electric Vehicle Batteries. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2022, 296, 121389.
[CrossRef]
51. Shah, K.; Kaka, F. Reduction of Carbon Footprint of Electric Vehicles by Using Battery Alternatives and Integrated Photovoltaics.
Mater. Today Proc. 2022, 57, 106–111. [CrossRef]
52. Burchart-Korol, D.; Jursova, S.; Fol˛ega, P.; Korol, J.; Pustejovska, P.; Blaut, A. Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Electric
Vehicles in Poland and the Czech Republic. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 202, 476–487. [CrossRef]
53. Sandrini, G.; Gadola, M.; Chindamo, D.; Candela, A.; Magri, P. Exploring the Impact of Vehicle Lightweighting in Terms of
Energy Consumption: Analysis and Simulation. Energies 2023, 16, 5157. [CrossRef]
54. Candela, A.; Sandrini, G.; Gadola, M.; Chindamo, D.; Magri, P. Lightweighting in the Automotive Industry as a Measure for
Energy Efficiency: Review of the Main Materials and Methods. Heliyon 2024, 10, e29728. [CrossRef]
55. Sandrini, G.; Gadola, M.; Chindamo, D.; Magri, P. Efficient Regenerative Braking Strategy Aimed at Preserving Vehicle Stability
by Preventing Wheel Locking. Transp. Res. Procedia 2023, 70, 28–35. [CrossRef]
56. Beloev, I.; Gabrovska-Evstatieva, K.; Evstatiev, B. Compensation of CO2 Emissions from Petrol Stations with Photovoltaic Parks:
Cost-Benefit and Risk Analysis. Acta Technol. Agric. 2017, 20, 85–90. [CrossRef]
57. Faisal, S.; Soni, B.P.; Goyal, G.R.; Bakhsh, F.I.; Husain, D.; Ahmad, A. Reducing the Ecological Footprint and Charging Cost of
Electric Vehicle Charging Station Using Renewable Energy Based Power System. e-Prime 2024, 7, 100398. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.