Sustainability is no longer a marginal issue, but rather a key competitive factor. But how can the carbon footprint of an industrial valve be reliably determined? We spoke with Andreas Laschke, Head of the Valves Segment at KSB SE & Co. KGaA, and Dr. Laura Dorfer, Managing Director of the VDMA Valves Division, about the challenges and solutions.
Carbon footprint assessment is becoming increasingly important for the industrial valve industry. Is this also an issue for the trade association?
Dr. Laura Dorfer: At the German Fittings Industry Association, we have already addressed this topic in an expert group. The expert group on the “Product Carbon Footprint” (PCF), in which many of our member companies are actively involved, is a great example of the added value an association can provide. Especially when it comes to establishing new standards, a broad base of knowledge and practical experience is helpful in creating a framework for industrial companies that is as universally applicable as possible, yet also pragmatic. Mr. Laschke brought the topic to our trade association. As an internationally active company, KSB was confronted early on in certain markets with customer demands for PCF reporting and therefore advocated for the need for an industry standard. Other large companies on our executive board, such as SAMSON and LESER, were willing to contribute their experiences on this matter. Overall, however, we deliberately included representatives from smaller member companies in the project group—companies that had no prior experience with the topic and do not maintain specialized departments for such specific issues. This ensured that the resulting method would be manageable for a broad range of valve manufacturers—across various product categories and company sizes.
Andreas Laschke: As we were developing our internal methods and processes for the PCF, it quickly became clear that there are different approaches and considerable room for interpretation in the market. That’s not necessarily a bad thing—and it’s normal when dealing with a new topic. But it leads to uncertainty among our customers and creates opportunities for market participants to present themselves in the best possible light. As a company focused on sustainability and energy efficiency, we do not shy away from a serious comparison. That is why I believe it is important that we establish a universally applicable standard as quickly as possible. Incidentally, we are not doing this on our own in Germany, but are also coordinating with associations in other countries and the European umbrella organization for the valve industry, the CEIR.
Mr. Laschke, why is CO₂ accounting becoming such a major focus for valve manufacturers?
Andreas Laschke: Requirements are constantly increasing—both due to legal mandates and our customers’ expectations. Anyone who needs to prepare a sustainability report or document progress in reducing greenhouse gas emissions today needs reliable data. However, I wouldn’t say this is a specific issue for valve manufacturers. Ultimately, every manufacturer of products or systems faces a similar challenge. When it comes to valves, we’re talking about products made up of numerous components—bodies, seals, actuators—and the range extends from compact control valves to large shut-off valves for power plants. Added to this are new manufacturing processes, such as “printing” components from metal. As a trade association, we therefore expect to achieve high efficiency and information quality for our member companies by bringing structure and method to this topic.
Ms. Dorfer, what exactly has been developed within the VDMA Valves division?
Dr. Laura Dorfer: In our expert group, we developed a standardized methodology. The goal was to create Product Category Rules (PCR) for valves—that is, for manufacturers of both industrial and building valves. These rules form the basis for calculating the Product Carbon Footprint (PCF). In this way, we are establishing a uniform approach that accounts for CO₂ emissions throughout the entire manufacturing process. The results will be published in a VDMA technical bulletin, which could serve as the basis for an ISO standard in the future.
Mr. Laschke, how can the calculation be made efficient?
Andreas Laschke: A complete, detailed analysis down to the smallest screw would be neither practical nor economical. That’s why we rely on the Pareto principle (80/20 rule). We assess in detail the components that account for the largest share of mass and emissions. For the remaining parts, we use an extrapolation. The emission factors come from manufacturer data, suppliers, or databases. This results in a reliable PCF value, which is expressed as CO₂ equivalent in kilograms.
Ms. Dorfer, how does the VDMA support companies in implementing this?
Dr. Laura Dorfer: The VDMA technical bulletin contains the complete methodology, sample calculations, definitions, references to relevant ISO standards, and sources for emissions data. In addition, the project group developed flat rates for calculating transport routes, gross-net differences, and for the optional consideration of drive systems. This provides, for the first time, an approach that is feasible even for small and medium-sized enterprises with significantly fewer financial and human resources.
Despite these simplifications, it still sounds like a lot of work for companies—is the PCF an example of “overregulation”?
Andreas Laschke: I don’t want to condemn regulation per se here. In many areas of life, it has led to a better quality of life or greater safety in the past. Ultimately, regulation can and should reflect a social consensus and provide incentives for behavioral change when market-based mechanisms are insufficient. And now that we’ve come to the realization that reducing CO2 emissions is a key lever for safeguarding our future quality of life, we must take appropriate measures. I would only describe regulation as “bad” if it intervenes in processes in an inappropriate or overly undifferentiated manner and thus fails to achieve its goal.
So what about the “carbon footprint” for faucets? At the moment, I consider this metric to be somewhat overblown in relation to the added value or impact. To distinguish between better and worse products, I can already use the energy efficiency of the valve during its operational phase. For manually operated on/off valves, there is a strong correlation between the KV value and the “carbon footprint.” This means the KV value already provides a metric for decision-making. One advantage of the PCF is that I can reduce everything to a single metric and thus aggregate the data as needed. Today, data collection is still very labor-intensive and time-consuming in some cases, but this will improve as digitalization advances.
Dr. Laura Dorfer: We want to play an active role in shaping the future. We have identified networking and early interaction with regulatory bodies in Berlin and Brussels as one of the key priorities of our work within the VDMA and the Valves and Fittings Association. It is important to us that we can contribute information and factual arguments to the regulatory process at an early stage in order to achieve appropriate, nuanced, and yet targeted regulation. The “PCF” regulation initially provides a framework, which we are now fleshing out through the VDMA standard sheet and making manageable for the industry. Playing a pioneering role here can—despite the effort involved—make German and European industry more competitive and drive innovation.
