FIG. 01Where 0.38 kg CO₂e comes from: per unit, whole life. A screening estimate from the listing and published data.
Change anything below and the footprint recalculates. What you change is marked “Stated”. Nothing here is saved.
Sold in
Freight
Materials
Part
Material (kg CO₂e per kg)
Share %
Mass
Source
Material
Family word, assumption applied ⓘ
50 g
Estimated
Primary source
Material
Family word, assumption applied ⓘ
50 g
Estimated
Primary source
Material
Family word, assumption applied ⓘ
50 g
Estimated
Pin to primary
Raw materials78%0.30 kg
Distribution5%0.02 kg
End of life17%0.07 kg
0.23 kgincluding carbon taken up by plants
0.30 kgup to the factory gate
0.23–0.98likely range, 95%
In everyday terms, about the same as driving 2 km in a petrol car, 48 smartphone charges, or 0 tree-years of absorption.
Is this your product?Replace our defaults with your own materials, energy and supplier data. The biggest lever here: blend in mechanically recycled cotton.
Everything behind the figure, for auditors and the curious. Built to the requirements of ISO 14040/44, ISO 14067 and PACT v3.
Standards checkISO 14040/44, ISO 14067 and PACT v3, requirement by requirement
Standards check · ISO 14040/44 · ISO 14067 · PACT v3Screening estimate: not a full footprint study
ISO 14040/14044
Listed calculation checks passed; independent review or verification pending
12 met · 1 justified · 0 not met · 1 need reviewer
ISO 14067
Does not conform
19 met · 1 justified · 1 not met · 1 need reviewer
PACT
Does not conform
11 met · 4 not met · 1 need reviewer
All 30 requirements, with clauses
Requirement
ISO 14040/44
ISO 14067
PACT v3
The study's purpose is written down
Met
§4.2.2
Met
§6.3.1
—
No public claim that one product beats another
Met
§4.2.2; Amd 1 Annex C
Met
§Annex A, Annex B
—
The unit is clear, and a partial footprint is labelled as such
Met
§4.2.3.2
Met
§6.3.3
Met
§3.2.4
The system boundary is described
Met
§4.2.3.3
Met
§6.3.4, 7.3 b
Met
§3.2.3
The time period is stated and justified
—
Met
§6.3.6
Met
§3.2.3
Product category rules are used where they exist
—
Met
§6.2
Met
§3.1.2
Anything left out is small, estimated and reported
Exclusions 3.06 % of cradle-to-gate emissions (≥ 3 %). Fix: Model the largest excluded processes until the rest is under 3 %.
Met
§4.2.3.3.3
Met
§6.3.4.3
Not met
§3.3.1.2
The data is checked for consistency
Met
§4.3.2–4.3.3
Met
§6.4.3
—
Own processes use measured data, or say why not
—
Not applicable
§6.3.5
Not applicable
§4.1.3
Every database value is referenced and fit for purpose
Met
§4.3.2
Met
§6.3.5
Met
§4.1.3.2
Shared factory burdens are split by the standard rules
Not applicable
§4.3.4
Not applicable
§6.4.6
Not applicable
§3.3.1.4
Recycling is counted with the cut-off method
Met
§4.3.4.3
Met
§6.4.6.3
Met
§3.3.2.2
Electricity covers its whole life cycle
Not applicable
§4.3.2–4.3.3
Not applicable
§6.4.9.4.1
Not applicable
§3.3.2.3
Electricity follows the market-based rules
—
Not applicable
§6.4.9.4.4
Not applicable
§3.3.2.3, Box 7
Land-use change is counted and shown separately
dLUC included but not separable in the factor for m1; factor does not state whether dLUC is covered for m3. Fix: Use a factor with a separate dLUC result, or supply material.land_use_change with its value, source, year and whether the material factor already includes it. A documented no-LUC statement can resolve an unknown coverage gap.
—
Not met
§6.4.9.5
Not met
§3.3.2.4
Biogenic carbon is counted in and out
—
Met
§6.4.9.2, 6.4.9.3, 6.5.2
Met
§3.3.2.4
Air freight is shown separately, without radiative forcing
—
Not applicable
§6.4.9.7
Not applicable
§3.3.2.1
No offsets or avoided emissions
—
Met
§6.3.4.1
Met
§3.3.2.2
Latest IPCC warming factors (AR6, 100 years)
29.9 % of cradle-to-gate emissions use AR5 factors; PACT allows only the latest IPCC report once its grace year has passed. Fix: Replace these factors with AR6-characterised data.
Justified
§4.4.2
Justified
§6.5.1
Not met
§3.2.2
Fossil and biogenic methane are kept apart
—
Met
§6.5.2
—
Key choices are stress-tested
Met
§4.5.3.3
Met
§6.4.5, 6.6
—
Uncertainty is assessed
—
Met
§6.6
—
Data quality is scored
Met
§4.2.3.6
Met
§6.3.5
Met
§4.2.2, 4.2.3
Limitations are stated
Met
§4.5.4
Met
§6.6, Annex A
—
Results are broken down the required way
—
Met
§7.2
Met
§3.3.1, data model
The study report contains every required item
Met
§5.2
Met
§7.3
—
The PACT data file is complete
Missing or invalid: companyIds, productIds. Fix: Add company and product identifiers (URNs such as urn:mfp:company:acme), the reference period and a PACT unit.
—
—
Not met
§6.1; Tech Specs v3.0.3
The primary data share is reported
—
—
Met
§4.2.2
Independent critical review
No critical review recorded. Fix: Commission an ISO 14071 critical review before any public communication; a panel review is mandatory for public comparisons.
Needs reviewer
§6
Needs reviewer
§8
—
Third-party verification of the calculation model
The MFP footprint calculation model has not yet been verified by a third party. Fix: Commission limited-assurance verification of the calculation model (PACT v3 §5.3.3, Tables 14–15).
—
—
Needs reviewer
§5.3.3
These standards apply to studies. This checklist reports the implemented checks; it is not certification or a substitute for independent review. “Needs reviewer” items (critical review, verification of the calculation model) can only be closed by an independent third party.
Assumptions and defaults21 entries, 4 warnings
Warnings · 4
m2: Bamboo (solid) has no verified carbon content, so its biogenic carbon is missing from the biogenic balance.
Factor te26_cotton_conv_in includes land-use change that cannot be separated; LUC is reported inside fossil GHG for this line.
Excluded processes = 3.06% of cradle-to-gate emissions, at or above PACT v3's 3 % cap. The PCF is NOT PACT-conformant until these are modelled.
Temporal scores for desnz_2025, textile_exchange_2026 use the edition year; their underlying data are older, so those temporal scores may be better than the data deserve.
Assumptions register · 21 entries
Screening mode: this listing gives no primary data, so every input below that is not a stated material or weight is a named screening default. The result is not PACT-conformant (primary data share 0 %).
Product mass 0.15 kg is a category typical value for "packaging", not a measured weight.
Country of manufacture not stated in the listing; India assumed.
m1: material matched from "cotton" (family, MEDIUM confidence): 'cotton' with no qualifier is treated as conventional (not organic or recycled).
m1: material share 33 % is estimated from the listing text.
m2: material matched from "bamboo" (family, MEDIUM confidence): bamboo in a non-textile product is modelled as laminated bamboo panel.
m2: material share 33 % is estimated from the listing text.
m3: material matched from "paper" (family, MEDIUM confidence): 'paper' with no qualifier is treated as virgin paper.
m3: material share 33 % is estimated from the listing text.
Landfill of wood and bamboo is modelled with the library's paper landfill factor, the closest available; no wood landfill factor is on file.
Inbound transport of materials to the factory is left out of the total, because supplier locations are unknown; its likely size is estimated and reported under the cut-off rule below.
Distribution route is a screening default (1,000 km road), carrying product plus packaging.
Cut-off rule: processes are excluded only where no verified data exists, and each exclusion is estimated where possible and reported (ISO 14044 §4.2.3.3.3). Inbound transport is estimated at 0.0094 kg CO₂e.
Carbon content of cellulose computed from repeat-unit stoichiometry (0.4445 kgC/kg), pure polymer basis (additives, moisture and finishes ignored).
Paper/board carbon: IPCC 2006 Vol.5 Table 2.4 defaults (90 % dry matter, 46 % C of dry, 1 % fossil).
Secondary (library) factors are scored at least 3 on technology: PACT v3 Table 12 reserves scores 1-2 for primary data.
Use-phase scenario: No energy-using use phase for packaging.
End-of-life route shares: MFP screening scenario for India, not PEFCR: textiles and leather goods 80 % landfill / dump, 5 % burning; plastics 60 % / 10 %; paper 40 % / 5 %; metals and glass 50 % landfill; the rest recovered (cut-off). Anchored on CPCB Annual Report on Solid Waste Management 2021-22 (24 % landfilled, 22 % unaccounted).
Incineration: 100 % oxidation of carbon assumed (IPCC 2006 Vol.5 Ch.5 default oxidation factor for MSW incineration). Energy-recovery credits are not applied under cut-off.
Aggregated secondary factors are used as published in their own GWP basis (AR5); only gas-split fuel factors and direct gas emissions are characterised with AR6. Residual inconsistency is typically a few percent for CO2-dominated factors.
Sources quoted as published figures (not open-licensed datasets): textile_exchange_2026, moso_epd_2022. Replace with licensed or supplier data before external or comparative claims.
SensitivityThe figure with other published choices
Sensitivity analysis (ISO 14067 §6.4.5, §6.6)
The footprint recalculated with each alternative choice: other published factors, the other allocation method, the grid mix instead of a green-power contract, and the use profile at its uncertainty bounds. A large change shows where better data pays off first.
Line
Choice tested
Baseline
Alternative
Δ kg CO₂e
Δ %
Cotton, conventional
Emission factor
Conventional cotton lint, India country average
Conventional cotton fibre
ifeu (2022) Environmental footprints of cotton and cotton fibres
-0.073
-19.2%
Cotton, conventional
Emission factor
Conventional cotton lint, India country average
Conventional cotton fibre (TE/PE International 2014 comparison baseline)
Textile Exchange (2014) LCA of Organic Cotton Fiber, summary (PE International)
-0.118
-30.8%
Cotton, conventional
Emission factor
Conventional cotton lint, India country average
Conventional cotton fibre, global average
Cotton Incorporated LCA update (2017), as cited by ifeu 2022
-0.143
-37.5%
Cotton, conventional
Emission factor
Conventional cotton lint, India country average
Conventional cotton lint, global production-weighted average
Textile Exchange (2026) LCA for Cotton, technical report, Table 5-2 / Annex F
-0.063
-16.6%
Bamboo (solid)
Emission factor
Bamboo, laminated solid panel, GWP-fossil
Bamboo, strand-woven high density, GWP-fossil
MOSO, EPD 'Density (EN15804)', calculation number EPD-NIBE-20210322-18246, Dutch NMD / EN 15804+A2; NOBB copy
+0.006
+1.5%
Every line of the calculation14 lines: activity × factor, with sources
Full inventory
Footprint = Σ activity × emission factor
Every line: how much (activity) × how much CO₂e per unit (factor), with its source. Source labels
Screening carbon footprint shown on the Made for Planet catalogue so brands and buyers can see where a product's emissions come from. Reasons: No company data is available for this listing; a transparent estimate from the listing and published factors shows the likely size and the main stages. Audience: Brands and buyers (business-to-business). The estimate is also displayed on madeforplanet.com, labelled as a screening estimate; it is not an environmental claim the brand may use in marketing. Public comparative assertion: no.
Functional or declared unit and reference flow
§7.3 a
Functional unit: one packaging delivered and used to the end of its life, sold in India; reference flow 0.15 kg of product.
System boundary
§7.3 b
cradle to grave. Screening: materials, processing energy, packaging, distribution, use and end of life. Capital goods are excluded, as is usual for attributional product footprints. Stages modelled: raw_materials, distribution, end_of_life.
Significant unit processes
§7.3 c
cotton_fibre_conventional (virgin) (54.42 %); bamboo_solid (virgin) (5.69 %); paper (virgin) (17.55 %); m1 to landfill (5.19 %); m2 to landfill (6.08 %); m3 to landfill (6.08 %)
Data sources
§7.3 d
LCA for Cotton, technical report Mar 2026; MOSO bamboo EPDs (NIBE 18247 / 18246) 2022; UK DESNZ Greenhouse gas reporting: conversion factors 2025 2025 (flat file)
Greenhouse gases considered
§7.3 e
CO₂, CH₄ (fossil and biogenic), N₂O and refrigerant gases (HFCs, SF₆, NF₃) where present; secondary factors cover the gases their publishers include.
Characterisation factors
§7.3 f
IPCC AR6 GWP100 with climate-carbon feedbacks; secondary factors in their published basis where no AR6 version exists (see gwp check).
Cut-off criteria and exclusions
§7.3 g, o
Inbound transport of materials to the factory: 0.009382 kg CO₂e (screening estimate: 0.150 kg of materials × 500 km by average lorry (UK DESNZ GHG conversion factors 2025, Freighting goods + WTT delivery vehicles); supplier locations are not known)
Allocation procedures
§7.3 h
No multi-output processes. Recycling: cut-off.
Timing of emissions
§7.3 i, 6.4.8
All emissions and removals counted as at the start of the assessment period; no delayed-emission weighting.
Data description and quality
§7.3 j
PACT Table 12 DQR: technological 3, geographical 2.82, temporal 1.23; per-line scores, confidence and 95 % uncertainty in the inventory.
Sensitivity and uncertainty
§7.3 k
5 sensitivity case(s); lognormal Monte Carlo on pedigree uncertainty.
Electricity treatment
§7.3 l
No electricity in scope.
Interpretation, limitations
§7.3 m, Annex A
Climate change only: other impacts (water, land, toxicity, biodiversity) are not assessed, so a lower footprint does not mean a lower environmental impact overall. Secondary factors limit accuracy as shown by the data-quality scores.
Value choices
§7.3 n
Cut-off for recycling (PACT); economic allocation only above a 5× value ratio; conservative factor where published values disagree (see sensitivity).
Scope changes and exclusions
§7.3 o
None.
Life-cycle stages, use and end-of-life scenarios
§7.3 p, 6.3.7, 6.3.8
Use-phase scenario: No energy-using use phase for packaging. End-of-life route shares: MFP screening scenario for India, not PEFCR: textiles and leather goods 80 % landfill / dump, 5 % burning; plastics 60 % / 10 %; paper 40 % / 5 %; metals and glass 50 % landfill; the rest recovered (cut-off). Anchored on CPCB Annual Report on Solid Waste Management 2021-22 (24 % landfilled, 22 % unaccounted).
2026-01-01 to 2026-12-31: current production as represented by the factor library (each factor's own data year is scored in the temporal data quality)
Product category rules
§7.3 s, 6.2
No product category rules conforming to ISO/TS 14027 are known for this product category; MFP screening rules are applied and disclosed.
Performance tracking
§7.3 t, 6.4.7
Not a performance-tracking study.
ISO 14067 counts biogenic removals (−1) and emissions (+1) in the carbon footprint; the PACT headline excludes biogenic uptake. Both are shown.
PACT v3 data and biogenic carbonData-exchange values and a downloadable file
PACT v3 data model (cradle-to-gate) and biogenic carbon balance
Download PACT v3.0.3 JSONProductFootprint in the Technical Specifications v3.0.3 format (decimals as strings). Check the conformance panel before sending it.
Footprint excl. biogenic uptake
0.2972 kg CO₂e
Footprint incl. biogenic uptake
0.1409 kg CO₂e
Fossil GHG emissions
0.2972 kg CO₂e
Land-use change GHG
—
Biogenic non-CO₂
0.0000 kg CO₂e
Biogenic CO₂ uptake
-0.1564 kg CO₂
Fossil carbon content
0.0002 kg C
Biogenic carbon content
0.0427 kg C
Aircraft GHG (no RF)
0.0000 kg CO₂e
Packaging GHG
0.0000 kg CO₂e
Exempted emissions
3.0600 %
Primary data share
0.0000 %
IPCC characterisation
AR6, AR5
Biogenic CO₂ uptake
-0.1564 kg CO₂
Biogenic CO₂ emitted
0.0078 kg CO₂
Biogenic C stored in landfill
0.0260 kg C
Biogenic C exported to recycling
0.0146 kg C
Biogenic C in product
0.0427 kg C
Engine / factor library
1.2.0 / 2026.11-mfp.8
Bamboo Cotton Ear Swabs carbon footprint: 0.38 kg CO₂e
