Analysis of Greenhouse Gas Emissions of a Mill According to the Greenhouse Gas Protocol

Abstract

This article discusses the challenges of adapting to and mitigating climate change through sustainable resource management in the agri-food sector. These aspects are mandatory obligations for businesses under new EU directives and regulations. Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions must be controlled at every stage of the value chain, from the acquisition of raw materials to transportation and cooperation with suppliers. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the areas generating GHG emissions in the agri-food enterprise toward the development of guidelines for the sustainable development of domestic food production. This paper presents a GHG study in three scopes at one of the mills in Poland based on the GHG protocol methodology. The analysis of consumption of energy carriers was used to determine GHG emissions (Scopes 1 and 2), and the total amounted to about 2.1 million kg CO_2eq (the share of Scope 1 was about 16% and Scope 2 as high as 83%), and the average carbon footprint of flour production in terms of unit weight was 0.040 kg CO_2eq/kg. Extending the analysis to Scope 3, the emissions associated with this scope accounted for the largest share (92%), while Scopes 1 and 2 accounted for only 8%. The determined carbon footprint (considering the three GHG emission scopes) was 0.52 kg CO_2eq/kg. In Scope 3, the largest contribution was from category 1 emissions (92%) related to grain cultivation, and category 5 (6%) were emissions related to the transportation of sold products. The smallest impact is from category 3 emissions related to the management of generated waste. Regular calculation and reporting of emissions in each area enables the company to more fully understand its environmental impact, identify risks and implement changes that bring financial and environmental benefits.

1. Introduction

Improving the environment requires significant pro-environmental measures at every stage of food production [1]. The strategic challenge is to adapt to and counteract climate change, which is achievable through sustainable management and conservation of environmental resources [2]. Protection of the agri-food sector in Poland involves many aspects. Among others, it is implemented through energy transition, development of bio-economy and minimization of greenhouse gas emissions [3]. These issues are part of the Strategic Plan for the Common Agricultural Policy for 2023–2027 [4] and the Strategy for the Development of Polish Countryside, Agriculture and Fisheries until 2030 [5]. These documents emphasize the need to mitigate and adapt to climate change, as well as to sustainable production. One aspect of sustainable development is the identification and minimization of GHG emissions in the food production process [6]. GHG analysis is an issue that needs to be considered in many aspects and assigned to specific areas of a company’s operations [7]. The relevance of ongoing work also stems from the challenge of calculating and reporting the carbon performance of organizations, products or services resulting from the CSRD [8]. In Poland, 3500 large, small and medium-sized companies will face this challenge over the next few years. These companies will be subject to mandatory reporting in accordance with the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRSs) [9].

The Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD; formerly the EU Non-Financial Reporting Directive (NFRD)) [8,10] is a legal act governing non-financial reporting within the European Union (EU) on corporate sustainability (according to ESG standards), which, on a European scale, also requires companies to report Scope 3 emissions. The determination of Scope 3 emissions should be made on the basis of reliable data. In addition, all information from suppliers and business partners should be verified for accuracy and completeness. The obligation to accurately assess the amount of emissions generated by a company is imposed by the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) [11]. This directive requires large companies to conduct appropriate verification activities to minimize their negative impact on the environment and human rights throughout the supply chain. Another tool closely related to other EU acts on non-financial disclosure is the European Union Regulation 2020/852 on establishing a framework for sustainable investment (the so-called EU Taxonomy) [12]. This is a set of standards aimed at classifying business activities in terms of their sustainability impact. Based on scientific data, it is an authoritative transparency tool to help companies and investors make sustainable investment decisions. It is also designed to support the identification of activities that contribute to the achievement of environmental and climate goals, such as mitigation and adaptation to climate change, sustainable use and protection of water and marine resources, transition to a closed-loop economy, pollution prevention and control and the protection of biodiversity and ecosystems, among others [12].

Another important aspect is countering deforestation and forest degradation associated with the production of goods entering the EU market. This issue is regulated by the European Union Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) [13] and requires companies to ensure that the products they import or produce do not contribute to deforestation. The regulation applies to key commodities with a high risk of deforestation, such as soybeans, palm oil, beef, cocoa, coffee, wood and some derived products (leather goods, chocolate, furniture and rubber products). The EUDR requires companies to adjust their entire supply chain and provide accurate information about the origin of raw materials, which can ultimately improve environmental standards [13].

In order to stop global warming and achieve climate neutrality, companies will not be able to implement effective decarbonization measures if they do not set Scope 3 emissions. Reporting emissions across all scopes will allow a company to comprehensively analyze the opportunities and risks associated with its value chain. In addition, actions to reduce Scope 3 emissions can quickly yield tangible financial benefits [14].

Global warming potential is due to large greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and the quantitative parameter for assessment is the carbon footprint (CF). This is an estimate of the amount of GHGs that are released into the atmosphere during the entire life cycle of a product, process, technology and enterprise. All GHGs, e.g., carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride, should be included in the emissions balance. Each of these gases has a different impact on climate warming, which is expressed in units equivalent to the emission of one particle of CO₂ [15].

The CF methodology of the milling industry is described in [16]. On the other hand, the research work of determining the actual GHG emissions for the milling industry in Poland in Scopes 1 and 2 was characterized in [16,17]. After a detailed description of the technological processes, measurement ranges for the carbon footprint, the functional unit and the boundaries of the measurement system were defined. An analysis of input and output streams within the defined boundaries and for the entire product life cycle was conducted. A methodology was developed for calculating the carbon footprint of a process, taking into account all elements of the life cycle. In addition, a concept was developed for measuring and collecting the necessary data on, among other things, greenhouse gas emissions and production levels. On this basis, a database for calculating the carbon footprint was developed that takes into account the diversity of production volumes. These measures are intended not only to increase efficiency but also to contribute to reducing the environmental impact of production and logistics activities by minimizing greenhouse gas emissions. These studies provided a thorough understanding of which production steps contribute most to GHG emissions. According to the GHG protocol, there are three scopes of GHG emissions analysis:

• Scope 1 includes direct emissions resulting from the consumption of fuels and other manufacturing and technological processes and the volatilization of refrigerants;
• Scope 2 includes indirect emissions resulting from the consumption of electricity, district heating and cooling and process steam;
• Scope 3 includes other indirect emissions generated throughout the value chain, such as the purchase/transportation of raw materials and semi-products or the transportation of products, waste management and business travel.

This research has been expanded to include Scope 3, according to the GHG protocol. Scope 3 GHG emissions include indirect emissions that are not directly controlled by the company but result from its operations. Calculating Scope 3 CFs according to the GHG protocol [18] is crucial because it allows companies to comprehensively understand and manage the impact they have on GHG emissions at all stages of their value chain. An in-depth analysis of the value chain is necessary, e.g., the production of purchased raw materials, transportation, suppliers, customers and employee business travel. Scope 3 covers a much larger portion of emissions compared to Scopes 1 and 2. In many cases, it can account for as much as more than 70% of an organization’s total carbon footprint, so the picture of a company’s environmental impact would be incomplete without its inclusion. All of these emissions are more difficult for a company to monitor and control than Scope 1 (direct) and Scope 2 (indirect emissions related to purchased energy). Nevertheless, companies can influence Scope 3 emissions, for example, by working with suppliers to promote more sustainable farming practices, optimizing transportation logistics or choosing greener packaging. By measuring and analyzing Scope 3 emissions, companies can identify which stages in the supply chain or product life cycle generate the most emissions. This allows them to more effectively implement strategies to reduce GHG emissions [19].

Conducting the study will enable the development of comprehensive GHG emission guidelines for domestic milling production. By calculating and reporting emissions across all scopes, a company has the opportunity to holistically analyze the opportunities and risks associated with its value chain. In addition, taking action to reduce emissions in individual scopes can translate into tangible financial and environmental benefits, enabling rational resource management. In view of this, the aim of this paper is to identify the areas responsible for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the operations of an agri-food company in order to implement recommendations for the sustainable development of the national industry and develop guidelines in this regard. This paper presents a study of one facility.

2. Research Material

Grain production is one of the key agricultural sectors in Poland. In Polish agricultural regions, cereal crops occupy about 74% of the total area [20]. Grain is an extremely important plant raw material with high nutritional values [21,22]. Cereals are used for the production of a variety of food products [23,24]. The chosen research facility was a mill in Poland, which was characterized by the production of the following range: wheat flour, feed bran and food bran. The mill had an average capacity of about 250 tons/day, and the elevator had a total capacity of 4350 tons. Wheat was purchased only for its own production needs. The analyzed production process at the plant included several stages. The elevator consisted of an unloading hopper, a cleaning plant and a system for transporting grain to individual storage chambers. The grain was then transported for cleaning, which was carried out on air and sieve balers, a dry stone separator, a sorter and magnets. The cleaned grain was moistened, hulled and then milled using equipment: millers, sifters, filter cyclones, pneumatic conveyors and augers. After milling, mainly flour and wheat bran were produced. The flour was transported to storage chambers and then mixed. Finished products were transported to the dispensing chambers, then passed through checkpoints and packaged. Average annual consumption was determined: fuel (diesel)—167,000 L/year; gas—16,000 m³/year; and electricity—2375 MWh/year.

3. GHG Emission Analysis Methodology

Scopes 1, 2 and 3 GHG emissions were calculated using the GHG protocol methodology [18]. Two types of emissions were considered in the analysis of Scopes 1 and 2 GHG emissions:

• Direct emissions resulting from, among other things, fuel combustion and processing and natural processes:
• Indirect emissions resulting from the use of energy media (electricity, heat) and/or raw materials in the production of a product or manufacturing process.

For the calculation of GHG emissions in Scopes 1 and 2, the emission factors listed in

Table 1. Energy carrier conversion factors in Scopes 1 and 2 for analysis at the plant.

Energy Utilities	Indicator Value	Source
Diesel [liter]	2.66 kg CO2eq/liter	[25]
LPG [kg]	2.94 kg CO2eq/kg
Natural gas [m3]	2.04 kg CO2eq/m3
Electricity [kWh]	0.685 kg CO2eq/kWh	[26]

were used. In Scope 3, the areas of 15 categories were analyzed (

Table 2. Areas of 15 greenhouse gas emission categories from Scope 3 [19].

No.	Category	Characteristic
1	Purchased goods and services	Emissions resulting from the extraction, production and transportation of goods and services purchased by the company, for example, raw materials for production, such as metals or chemicals, production of goods purchased for sale in stores, office supplies, such as paper, and IT services, such as external data centers.
2	Capital goods	All upstream emissions from the production of capital goods purchased by the company in the year for which the carbon footprint is calculated. Examples of capital goods include equipment, machinery, buildings, appliances and vehicles.
3	Energy and fuel-related emissions not included in Scopes 1 and 2	For example, emissions from wells to tanks of purchased fuels, electricity, transmission and distribution losses.
4	Upstream—transportation and distribution	Transportation and distribution of products purchased by a company, counting its carbon footprint between Tier 1 suppliers and its facilities in vehicles or facilities that are not owned or controlled by the company.
5	Waste generated by operations	Disposal and treatment of waste during the reporting period at facilities that are not owned and controlled by the reporting company.
6	Business travel	Transportation of employees related to business activities during the reported period in vehicles that are not owned or managed by the reporting company.
7	Employee work commuting	Transportation of employees between their homes and the workplace during the reporting year in vehicles that are not owned or operated by the reporting company.
8	Upstream—leased assets	Issues related to the operation of assets leased by the reporting company (as a tenant) in the reporting year and not covered by Scopes 1 and 2.
9	Downstream—transportation and distribution	Transportation and distribution of sold products in vehicles or facilities not owned or controlled by the company.
10	Processing of products sold	Refers to emissions from the processing of intermediate products by other companies, for example, chemical products or products from automotive suppliers.
11	Use of sold products	Total projected lifetime emissions of all products sold in the reporting year. For example, products that use energy or emit greenhouse gases when used (electrical appliances, cars or industrial machinery).
12	Dealing with sold products after use	Emissions associated with the disposal and treatment of waste from products sold by the company at the end of their useful life.
13	Downstream—leased assets	Operation of assets owned by the reporting company (as lessor) and leased to others in the reporting year, not included in Scopes 1 and 2. Energy consumption of leased buildings and machinery, including leased vehicles, leased office buildings and production facilities.
14	Franchises	Emissions of franchisees in Scopes 1 and 2 (for example, energy consumption of restaurants in the franchise system).
15	Investments	Investment activities (including equity and long-term investments and project financing in the reporting year not covered by Scope 1 or 2), for example, direct and indirect consumption through investments in other companies, joint ventures or corporate loans granted. Applies mainly to private financial institutions (for example, banks) but also public financial institutions.

), and 8 of them were found to be relevant to the studied facility (highlighted in green in Table 2). In Scope 3, the calculations were based on the emission factors, depending on the category, as listed in

Table 3. Conversion factors in Scope 3 for in-plant analysis.

Element	Indicator Value	Source
I. Emissions related to the production of purchased raw materials and semi-finished products
Paper packaging	0.00109 kg CO2eq/kg	[27]
Packaging—foil	0.002529 kg CO2eq/kg	[28]
Office supplies	0.95 kg CO2eq/kg	[29]
Raw material barley flour—for production of special flours	0.7 kg CO2eq/kg	[30]
Grains	0.49 kg CO2eq/kg	[31]
Sanitary materials	1.65 kg CO2eq/kg	[32]
Wooden pallets (used)	0.2 kg CO2eq/kg	[33]
Raw material ascorbic acid—added when preparing flour for shipment	25 kg CO2eq/kg	[34]
II. Emissions related to transportation of purchased raw materials and semi-finished products
Transportation of packaging	2.66 kg CO2eq/kg	[25]
Transportation of foil
Transportation of office supplies
Transportation of raw materials—barley flour
Transportation of grain
Transportation of sanitary materials
Transportation of pallets. Packaging
Transportation of ascorbic acid
III. Emissions associated with the management of generated waste
Pomace, sludge and other waste	0.0000393 kg CO2eq/kg	[35]
Paper and cardboard packaging	0.00109 kg CO2eq/kg	[27]
Plastic packaging	0.002529 kg CO2eq/kg	[28]
Iron and steel	1.4 kg CO2eq/kg	[36]
IV. Issues related to employee business travel
Business travel	2.66 kg CO2eq/kg	[25]
Trader
Company car—handling Company matters—small purchases. Commuting to offices, etc.
Business travel between plants
V. Emissions related to transportation of sold products
Data given for emissions in Scopes 1 and 2	2.66 kg CO2eq/kg	[25]
VI. Emissions related to employee work commuting
Bike commute	0
Car commute	2.66 kg CO2eq/kg	[25]
VII. Issues related to capital goods purchased by the company
Car	17,000 kg CO2eq/kg	for a medium-sized passenger car [37]
Truck	17,400 kg CO2eq/kg	[38]
Forklift	10,000 kg CO2eq/kg	for an electric forklift with battery [39]
VIII. Emissions related to transportation, transmission of fuels, energy and transmission losses
Diesel fuel transportation	2.66 kg CO2eq/kg	[25]

. The study was conducted for the reporting period from January to December 2023 based on data obtained from the entrepreneur and its suppliers in the value chain.

Carbon Footprint Calculation Methodology

Calculating the carbon footprint in the milling sector requires a detailed approach according to ISO standards [40,41]. A consistent methodology is key, allowing CF to be compared between different plants and products. Requirements and guidelines are defined, including data collection, allocation, environmental assessment and interpretation of results. For the milling sector, the most appropriate method is physical allocation, which involves assigning environmental impacts to individual products based on their value (e.g., per unit of weight or volume). The use of standards and the physical allocation method provides accurate and comparable results, which is key to identifying opportunities for optimization and reduction of GHG emissions. In the analysis, the functional unit is 1 kg CO_2eq per kilogram of flour. Detailed principles of carbon footprint analysis and methods of calculating CF values, included in relevant normative documents, are described in [42].

$${\mathrm{C}\mathrm{O}}_{2\mathrm{e}\mathrm{q}}=\mathrm{G}\mathrm{H}\mathrm{G}·{\mathrm{G}\mathrm{W}\mathrm{P}}_{\mathrm{G}\mathrm{H}\mathrm{G}}$$

(1)

$$\mathrm{C}\mathrm{F}={\sum }_{\mathrm{i}=1}^{\mathrm{n}}{\left({\mathrm{C}\mathrm{O}}_{2\mathrm{e}\mathrm{q}}\right)}_{\mathrm{i}}+{\sum }_{\mathrm{j}=1}^{\mathrm{m}}{\left({\mathrm{C}\mathrm{O}}_{2\mathrm{e}\mathrm{q}}\right)}_{\mathrm{j}}$$

(2)

where ${\mathrm{C}\mathrm{O}}_{2\mathrm{e}\mathrm{q}}$ is the equivalent emission volume [kg CO_2eq]; GHG is the emission volume of a given greenhouse gas [kg]; ${\mathrm{G}\mathrm{W}\mathrm{P}}_{\mathrm{G}\mathrm{H}\mathrm{G}}$ is the GWP value of a given greenhouse gas [kg CO_2eq/kg GHG]; $\mathrm{C}\mathrm{F}$ is the carbon footprint of a product [kg CO_2eq/kg product]; ${\left({\mathrm{C}\mathrm{O}}_{2\mathrm{e}\mathrm{q}}\right)}_i$ is the direct emission volume from the i-th source expressed in CO_2eq [kg CO_2eq/kg product]; and ${\left({\mathrm{C}\mathrm{O}}_{2\mathrm{e}\mathrm{q}}\right)}_j$ is the indirect emission volume from the j-th source expressed in CO_2eq [kg CO_2eq/kg product].

The following areas were included within the limits of the analysis:

• Transportation of raw material: transportation of wheat to the mill;
• Processing at the mill: the process of grinding wheat into flour;
• Delivery to the customer: transportation of flour to points of sale or bread production;
• Manufacture of purchased raw materials;
• Employee business travel.

4. Results and Discussion

After analyzing the technological processes, an assessment of GHG emissions related to production and transportation at the plant and other emissions listed in Scopes 1, 2 and 3 was carried out. Initially, the main focus was on the consumption of energy carriers to determine GHG emissions in Scopes 1 and 2. The analysis used energy carrier conversion factors (Table 1). Data on the production and consumption of energy carriers were collected in a database, and aggregate data for 2023 are shown in Figure 1 and

Table A1. Database for the plant in 2023.

Month	Production Volume	Electricity	Diesel	LPG	Natural Gas
	kg	kWh	liter	kg	m3
January	3,842,655	193,282	9,367.66	495	2062
February	5,147,200	258,205	7487.32	297	990
March	6,239,075	314,859	10,014.83	528	644
April	3,683,355	194,435	11,143.48	429	887
May	5,506,800	267,829	11,213.89	297	255
June	3,453,070	155,166	9780.52	297	68
July	4,008,965	111,824	12,138.67	396	63
August	3,436,500	175,271	11,165.85	396	77
September	4,605,080	226,220	8812.33	341	55
October	4,945,420	245,853	12,999.45	297	528
November	4,940,890	249,348	11,110.99	429	1366
December	3,564,920	192,216	9988.06	539	2095
	53,373,930	2,584,508	125,223.05	4741	9090

. The volume of average production at the mill was 81% wheat flour and 19% bran.

Based on the consumption data of energy carriers, GHG emissions (Scopes 1 and 2) were calculated (Figure 2), and the percentage of each source for the plant was determined (Figure 3). Taking into account the results obtained, total GHG emissions and carbon footprints were determined for individual months in the analyzed year (

Table A2. GHG emissions report and CF values for the plant in 2023 considering only Scopes 1 and 2.

Month	GHG Emissions Scopes 1 and 2	CF
	kg CO2eq	kg CO2eq/kg
January	162,978	0.0424
February	199,679	0.0388
March	245,184	0.0393
April	165,900	0.0450
May	214,685	0.0390
June	133,317	0.0386
July	110,181	0.0275
August	151,083	0.0440
September	179,516	0.0390
October	204,938	0.0414
November	204,406	0.0414
December	164,094	0.0460

). The total GHG emissions for Scopes 1 and 2 amounted to 2,135,960 kg CO_2eq. The determined carbon footprint of flour production at the plant with respect to unit weight was 0.028–0.046 kg CO_2eq/kg, and the average CF was 0.040 kg CO_2eq/kg. It was found that there was a relationship between the carbon footprint of flour production and the season (Figure 4). The carbon footprint was relatively stable in the year under review, although slight differences can be seen in different months. The CF of flour production was lowest in the month of July, while it was highest in April due to the variability in emissions per unit weight in different months (Figure 4). The variability of the plant’s GHG emissions in the year under review can be attributed to several key factors that affect the variable consumption of energy carriers in different months. Electricity consumption was 20% lower in the month of July, which may reflect the lack of additional grain drying in that month, as well as from seasonal variations in energy demand and differences in equipment efficiency or maintenance. In addition, a relationship was found between carbon footprints and monthly production volumes. This correlation makes it possible to predict the size of the carbon footprint within a specified range. An increase in monthly production volume leads to a decrease in GHG emissions converted per kilogram, which can indicate the efficiency of the plant’s processes at a higher production scale (Figure 5). Using the determined relationship, it is possible to plan production and predict GHG emissions. The average GHG emissions associated with production came mainly from indirect emissions (electricity consumption), that is, Scope 2, and accounted for 82.88% of total emissions. GHG emissions related to transportation (diesel consumption), with Scope 1 averaging 15.59%.

Scope 3 includes the following areas responsible for emissions: the value chain related to the company’s operations, i.e., purchasing raw materials or semi-finished products, waste management, transportation of raw materials and products, business trips of employees and the use of products by end users. Scopes 1, 2 and 3 GHG emissions for the plant in 2023 are presented in

Table 4. Scopes 1, 2 and 3 GHG emissions for the plant in 2023.

	Quantity	GHG Emissions [kg CO2eq]
Scope 1
Diesel	125,223.05 L	333,093.00
LPG	4741.00 m3	13,935.50
Natural gas	9090.00 m3	18,543.60
TOTAL GHG EMISSIONS (Scope 1)		365,572.10
Scope 2
Electricity	2,584,508.00 kWh	1,770,388.00
TOTAL GHG EMISSIONS (Scope 2)		1,770,388.00
Scope 3
I. Emissions related to the production of purchased raw materials and semi-finished products
Paper packaging	100,069.36 kg	109.08
Packaging—foil	9740.60 kg	24.63
Office supplies	421.30 kg	400.24
Raw material: barley flour—for the production of special flours	18,000 kg	12,600.00
Crops	48,174,120.00 kg	23,605,318.80
Sanitary materials	3795.24 kg	6262.15
Wooden pallets (used)	1440 kg	288.00
Raw material: ascorbic acid—added when flour is prepared for shipment	2650 kg	66,250.00
TOTAL GHG EMISSIONS CAT. I		23,691,252.89
II. Emissions related to transportation of purchased raw materials and semi-finished products
Transportation of packaging	5517.50 km	4667.14
Transportation foil	1364.00 km	1153.78
Transportation of office supplies	466.20 km	394.35
Transportation of raw materials—barley flour	2440.00 km	2063.95
Grain transportation	115,560.00 km	97,749.89
Transportation of sanitary materials	2924.00 km	2473.35
Transportation of pallet packaging	2.00 km	1.69
Transportation of ascorbic acid	636.00 km	537.98
TOTAL GHG EMISSIONS CAT. II		109,042.14
III. Emissions associated with the management of generated waste
Pomace, sediment and other waste	26,690 kg	1.05
Paper and cardboard packaging	4945 kg	5.39
Plastic packaging	1465 kg	3.70
Iron and steel	12,163 kg	17,028.20
TOTAL GHG EMISSIONS CAT. III		17,038.34
IV. Issues related to employee business travel
Business trips	11,216.34 L	29,835.46
Trader	4259.67 L	11,330.72
Company car—handling company matters, such as small purchases, travel to offices, etc.	577.57 L	1536.34
Business trips between plants	163.52 L	434.96
TOTAL GHG EMISSIONS CAT. IV		43,137.49
V. Emissions related to transportation of products sold
Transportation of flour in tanks	1,477,505 km	1,249,791.93
Transportation of loose bran	155,210 km	131,289.03
Transportation of flour in bags	274,867 km	232,504.50
TOTAL GHG EMISSIONS CAT. V		1,613,585.46
VI. Emissions related to commuting of employees to work
Access by bike	0	0
Access by car	70,738.8 km	188,165.21
TOTAL GHG EMISSIONS CAT. VI		188,165.21
VII. Issues related to capital goods purchased by the company
Passenger car	3 pieces	51,000
Truck	6 pieces	104,400
Forklift	1 piece	10,000
TOTAL GHG EMISSIONS CAT. VII		165,400
VIII. Emissions related to transportation, transmission of fuels, energy and transmission losses
Diesel transportation	814 km	688.55
TOTAL GHG EMISSIONS CAT. VIII		688.55
TOTAL GHG EMISSIONS (Scope 3)		25,828,310.08
TOTAL GHG EMISSIONS (Scopes 1, 2 and 3)		27,964,270.18

.

Based on the data obtained, shown in the diagram (Figure 6), it was found that the largest share of total Scope 3 emissions was accounted for by category 1 (91.73%), i.e., emissions related to the production of purchased raw materials and intermediate products and specifically related to grain cultivation. The second largest was category 5 emissions (6.25%) emitted during the transportation of sold products. The smallest impact (only 0.07%) in Scope 3 was from category 3 emissions generated during waste management.

An analysis of all emissions in the three scopes, shown in Figure 7, reveals that the largest share (more than 92%) was accounted for by the emissions associated with Scope 3, followed by Scopes 2 and 1, whose shares were more than 6% and 1%, respectively. Comparing the results obtained with the literature data, it was found that the shares of total Scope 3 emissions of the mill studied were as much as about 22% higher than those identified by the United Nations Global Compact [19]. This share structure is due to the supply chain and cultivation of the raw material. The value of the product’s carbon footprint was also corrected for the extended scope of analysis, and the determined CF (taking into account GHG emissions in Scopes 1, 2 and 3) was as high as 0.52 kg CO_2eq/kg.

5. Summary

The need to determine the carbon footprint and GHG emissions of the agri-food industry is increasingly important due to the growing challenges of climate change. The industry’s responsibility for GHG emissions arises from the implementation of production processes, logistics and resource use. Calculating GHG emissions in all three scopes is part of a carbon footprint reduction strategy and helps to better understand the full environmental impact of operations in specific areas and provides data for sustainability reporting. The analysis of operations at the Polish flour plant made it possible to indicate the greenhouse gas emissions of the specified scopes. In addition, the carbon footprint for each month in the analyzed year was determined. Total GHG emissions amounted to more than 2 million kg CO_2eq in Scopes 1 and 2. Indirect emissions (identified in Scope 2), mainly from electricity consumption, accounted for the largest share (82.88%), while direct emissions (Scope 1), related to transportation, accounted for 15.59% of total emissions. The designated CF of flour production (GHG emissions from Scopes 1 and 2) averaged 0.040 kg CO_2eq/kg. Extended analysis of GHG emissions to include Scope 3 provided a different perspective on the emissions liability structure. Scope 3 emissions, which are related to the value chain, accounted for the largest share of total emissions at about 92%, while Scopes 1 and 2 accounted for only 8%. The carbon footprint, after accounting for GHG emissions in all three Scopes (1, 2 and 3), was 0.52 kg CO_2eq/kg. In scope 3, the largest share was accounted for by category 1 emissions (92%) related to grain cultivation and category 5 emissions (6%) related to the transportation of sold products. The smallest impact came from category 3 emissions related to the management of waste produced.

The initial analysis of Scope 3 needs thorough refinement and continuous validation of the results to ensure its compliance with dynamically changing requirements. Many constraints are encountered, especially at the stage of obtaining reliable Scope 3 data. Thus, it is important to involve all participants in the supply chain, from raw material suppliers to manufacturers to distributors and retailers. Analysis of greenhouse gas emissions and carbon footprints in Scope 3 is crucial for companies that want to effectively manage their emissions and implement a strategy to decarbonize their production processes. Conducting such an analysis enables companies to better understand where their operations have the highest emissions and develop a plan to implement low-carbon policies. On this basis, they can develop comprehensive strategies that address different sources of emissions and implement solutions for optimizing processes, selecting sustainable suppliers or investing in environmentally friendly solutions.