Measuring what’s inside: calculating the carbon footprint of our products
Understanding the emissions embodied in a product is one of the trickiest parts of carbon reporting. For a hardware company like Raspberry Pi, the bulk of our environmental impact doesn’t come from the electricity we use in our facilities — it comes from the products themselves. In carbon accounting terms, that falls under Scope 3: the indirect emissions spread across our value chain, from raw material extraction through to manufacturing and transport.

Scope 3 is notoriously difficult to quantify. Unlike the energy bill for a building, there’s no single meter reading that tells you the carbon cost of a circuit board. Instead, you have to build the picture piece by piece — quite literally.
Component weight
The method we use starts with the bill of materials. Every product is broken down into its constituent parts, from the PCB, silicon, and connectors all the way down to the individual capacitors and resistors. Each of these components needs a specified weight, which can be taken from either the datasheet or physical measurements.
Weight matters because it’s the bridge between a physical object and an emissions figure. Once we know how much a component weighs and what it’s made of, we can begin to estimate the carbon associated with producing that quantity of material.
Mapping to ecoinvent
To turn those weights into emissions, we map each material to the ecoinvent database; ecoinvent is one of the most widely used life cycle inventory (LCI) databases in the world, holding detailed environmental data for thousands of materials, processes, and energy flows. A gram of aluminium, a gram of copper, a gram of a particular plastic — each carries its own emissions factor.
By matching every weighed component to the closest available dataset, we can build a bottom-up estimate of the embodied carbon across an entire product. It’s painstaking work, but it grounds the numbers in something tangible, rather than relying on broad industry averages.
Producing a life cycle assessment with our partners
Doing this rigorously requires specialist expertise, which is why we worked with Inhabit, a consultancy focused on product life cycle assessments (LCAs). Together, we produced a full LCA for the products in scope. (Inhabit has since been acquired, but the methodology we developed together lives on.)
An LCA looks beyond just materials to consider the wider life cycle of a device, from manufacturing and distribution to end of life. Notably, we don’t include usage, as this varies considerably depending on what the Raspberry Pi is being used for and how it’s powered.
Why it matters
The result is a transparent, defensible view of where the carbon in our products actually sits. That’s valuable for two reasons. First, it lets us report our Scope 3 figures with genuine confidence. Second, and more importantly, it shows us which components and materials drive the largest share of emissions.
Carbon reporting isn’t just a compliance exercise. When done properly, it’s the first step towards building products that are less harmful to the planet.
4 comments
Jump to the comment form
Gaia
Visualizing quantities with a metre-rule: 92 cm represents total annual emissions of CO2 from nature, just 4 cm ditto from humanity, and less than 0.5 mm from Britain. On the same scale, calculate the CO2 contribution from RPi.
Anders
Nature can handle its own CO2, reabsorbing it. The human quota tips the balance, nature can’t cope with the extra and it accumulates year on year.
John Doe
That comparison is misleading. 92% vs 4% figures compare gross natural CO₂ fluxes with human emissions, while ignoring that natural systems also absorb almost the same amount of CO₂. The relevant figure is the net imbalance, human emissions are not fully reabsorbed, so they are responsible for the observed increase in atmospheric CO₂. Nature’s large emissions and removals largely balance each other; human emissions are the additional input that pushes the system out of balance. Also, excusing a harmful activity by comparing it with the total is a faulty logic, just as a single murder would be trivial if judged only by its proportion of total homicides, which is clearly not the case.
James Hughes
Heard an interesting comment the other day. If you went to the park with your dog, one of 100 dogs in the park, and your dog does a poo, you pick it up. You don’t leave it because “It’s only 1%”. Same with climate.