China has entered a decisive phase in industrial decarbonization—not through policy pronouncements alone, but through the quiet, rigorous work of standardization. As of early 2026, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT), the Ministry of Ecology and Environment, the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC), and the State Administration for Market Regulation have jointly issued three batches of industrial product carbon footprint calculation rule recommendations, totaling 111团体标准 (group standards) covering 13 key industrial sectors. This marks a structural shift: from fragmented, voluntary, and often incompatible carbon accounting practices to a nationally coordinated, sector-specific, and technically grounded carbon data infrastructure. For global supply chain professionals, this is no longer a compliance footnote—it is the emerging architecture of competitive advantage, regulatory risk mitigation, and cross-border market access.
The Strategic Imperative: Why Product-Level Carbon Data Now?
Product carbon footprint (PCF) quantifies greenhouse gas emissions across a product’s entire life cycle—from raw material extraction and processing, through manufacturing, distribution, use, and end-of-life disposal or recycling. Unlike organizational or facility-level emissions reporting, PCF captures upstream and downstream value chain impacts—making it the most operationally relevant metric for supply chain resilience, procurement due diligence, and green public procurement. In 2025, over 78% of Fortune Global 500 companies publicly disclosed supplier carbon data requirements, with automotive, electronics, and construction sectors leading adoption. The European Union’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), now fully operational for iron, steel, cement, aluminum, hydrogen, electricity, and fertilizers, mandates verified, lifecycle-based carbon declarations. Without standardized, auditable, and internationally aligned PCF data, Chinese exporters face not only tariff penalties but also de facto exclusion from tier-one OEMs’ supplier networks.
Yet prior to 2023, China lacked methodological coherence. Sectoral associations, provincial governments, and private certification bodies developed over 40 divergent PCF methodologies, resulting in variance of up to 300% in reported footprints for identical products—a situation that undermined credibility, inflated verification costs, and stalled interoperability with international Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs). As Dr. Liu Xiangang, Party Secretary and Deputy Director of the China Electronics Standardization Institute, emphasized: “Standardization is not bureaucracy—it is the operating system for industrial decarbonization.” The 111-group-standard framework directly addresses this by establishing common boundaries (e.g., cradle-to-gate vs. cradle-to-grave), consistent emission factor databases, allocation rules for multi-output processes, and mandatory third-party verification pathways.
From Fragmentation to Foundation: How the Three-Batch Framework Builds Technical Integrity
The three-batch rollout reflects an intentional, evidence-based scaling strategy. Batch One (2023) prioritized foundational, high-impact sectors: cement, flat glass, and electrolytic aluminum—products collectively responsible for ~12% of China’s national CO₂ emissions. Batch Two (2024) expanded into complex, globally traded goods: lithium-ion batteries, passenger vehicles, and integrated circuits. Batch Three (2025), released in March 2026, added 73 new standards, completing coverage across petrochemicals, shipbuilding, packaging materials, textiles, and communication equipment. Crucially, the selection criteria were rigorously applied:
Sign up free to read the full article
Create a free account to unlock full access to all articles.
Sign Up FreeAlready have an account? Sign in
