Nanozeo and SSBTi Launch Third-Party LCA and Carbon-Footprint Verification Pathway for Benchmark PDQ Manufacturing

News Release｜Nanozeo × SSBTi

TAIPEI／SHANGHAI — Nanozeo and SSBTi have launched a third-party LCA and product-carbon-footprint verification pathway for a benchmark PDQ（Point-of-Purchase Display）manufacturing case. The initiative will begin with a selected benchmark factory and representative product, establish a traceable life-cycle model, undergo review by an appropriate independent third party and disclose key results in a commercially de-sensitive form.

ZEO PDQ has invested in lower-carbon materials, structural optimization, lightweighting and supply-chain improvement for more than a decade. Customer feedback recognizes Nanozeo as one of China’s representative PDQ design houses with leading scale and design capability. The project therefore goes beyond a single product study: it allows an industry leader to bring both product carbon-footprint and broader environmental-footprint evidence into public market communication.

The objective is not merely to produce another report. It is to turn environmental performance into a management and market tool that customers and suppliers can use. If the model and independent review are completed successfully, the project may become one of the earlier publicly documented PDQ cases in China with verifiable LCA and product-carbon-footprint data. Any final certification or verification claim will remain subject to the formal conclusion of the independent third party.

Starting with the rule of control—not another supplier questionnaire

The initiative extends the control-based approach used by Nanozeo and SSBTi in supply-chain decarbonization. A company first identifies where it truly controls specifications, purchasing, supplier selection and data requirements. It then chooses a product and facility where improvements can be measured, verified and replicated.

Thursday evening’s Climate Leadership Podcast will explore the same question: when a supply chain has no additional sustainability budget, customer specifications are difficult to change and upstream data is incomplete, how can a company start with a controllable cost pool and encourage suppliers to connect environmental improvement with product competitiveness?

For a benchmark factory, participation should create a clear market pathway rather than another documentation burden:

• Credible product-level data: a traceable model covering the relevant material, manufacturing, transport and use boundaries.
• Third-party credibility: review by an independent and competent third party against the agreed scope and applicable standards.
• Market visibility: de-sensitive disclosure of proportional results, hotspots and selected LCIA indicators that customers can use in procurement and supplier assessment.
• Performance-to-growth linkage: feedback from the hotspots into material, structural, weight, logistics and cost design, creating improvements that can be manufactured at scale.

The report must include the model—not only a single carbon number

The pathway will draw on the Footprint Report Model cases already published on the SSBTi website and issued by CCSC. In addition to the result, the report should include the eFootprint model or sufficient model documentation to support it, including the functional unit, system boundary, data sources, allocation methods, scenario assumptions and major emissions hotspots.

Public disclosure will balance commercial confidentiality with verifiability:

1. De-sensitive proportional results: relative contributions or improvement rates for materials, manufacturing, transport and other stages, without disclosing confidential commercial data.
2. Product carbon footprint and key assumptions: enough information for customers to understand the boundary and intended use of the result.
3. Selected LCIA indicators: depending on product relevance, selected indicators may include climate change, resource use, acidification, eutrophication or other decision-useful impacts.
4. Traceable evidence retained for review: the full model, raw data and sensitive supporting records remain available to the verifier but are not published.

This approach follows the transparency and structured-disclosure logic associated with EPD practice. It does not mean the project constitutes a formal EPD before the applicable program and third-party procedures have been completed. Any certification, verification or comparative claim will follow the final standard, scope and independent conclusion.

Why factories will participate: data rules and market incentives must work together

Supply-chain data programs often fail when companies ask for more information but provide no commercial return. Suppliers then learn to complete questionnaires rather than invest in real models and improvements. Nanozeo and SSBTi are therefore designing the initiative around two engines:

• Data engine: common model templates, data-quality requirements, confidentiality rules and an independent verification process.
• Market engine: benchmark-case publication, customer communication, presentation of verified improvements and follow-up procurement dialogue, allowing credible data to become part of market differentiation.

The pathway does not guarantee any particular order or price. It gives a factory stronger evidence for entering customers’ green-procurement, product-design and supplier-assessment processes. For brands and retailers, it creates a practical route from supplier commitments to product-level evidence.

Planned implementation path

1. Select the benchmark factory, representative PDQ product and applicable boundary.
2. Assess the quality of the BOM, activity data and upstream information.
3. Build the eFootprint LCA／carbon-footprint model and complete internal reasonableness checks.
4. Submit the agreed model and evidence to an appropriate independent third party.
5. Publish the carbon footprint, proportional results and selected LCIA indicators under de-sensitization rules.
6. Translate hotspots into material, structural, logistics and commercialization improvements.

Further Reading｜Published SSBTi Footprint Report Model Example

A pair of US6 Women's Trixie Sandals｜Case page

Footprint Report Model _LCA｜English model

• LCA Report｜Full English report
• Footprint Report Model｜Chinese model
• Note: This release describes the project pathway and intended disclosure principles. The final verification scope, data, LCIA indicators and certification terminology will be determined by the product boundary, applicable standards and independent third-party process.