It's great to see new services that help consumers make choices about the products they buy. However, without details of the methodology being used to determine the carbon footprint, there is no way to gauge the accuracy of the service. These types of analysis are often quite inaccurate.

The Bloomberg article is paywalled. Their press release at https://enfuce.com/enfuce-launched-new-sustainability-servic... says:

> My Carbon Action is based on a validated calculation method called Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), which has been developed together with D-mat, a Finnish consultancy experienced in lifestyle carbon and material footprint calculations. The calculation takes into account the environmental impacts of a product’s entire lifecycle from raw-material extraction, manufacturing and transport to use and disposal.

This is good but it doesn't actually say what the "validated" LCA is.

Consumer supply chains are notoriously complex. You need details of every element of the supply chain for every product to be able to properly calculate the LCA. This is why we get things like the assumption that local produce always has lower carbon emissions, which isn't always true[1], or switching from plastic bags to organic cotton totes, which are worse on many environmental measures[2].

This is a very complex area[3] and Enfuce need to release their methodology to demonstrate that their data is accurate. Lack of transparency of data is a major problem with sustainability claims of all kinds, something I wrote about this week at https://davidmytton.blog/sustainability-doesnt-work-without-...

[1] https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7679.2009.00445.x

[2] https://www2.mst.dk/Udgiv/publications/2018/02/978-87-93614-...

[3] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10806-015-9591-6