Application of the SUSJIP industry product carbon footprint guidance in the offshore wind industry; developer-partner position statement.

Unified industry commitment  

EnBW, Jera Nex BP, Ørsted, RWE, SSE Renewables, ScottishPower Renewables (SPR), and TotalEnergies support the adoption of a harmonised carbon footprint calculation methodology for offshore wind. The industry must move beyond fragmented approaches and commit to a single, robust methodology. Carbon footprint calculations can provide insights into baseline data, emission hotspots and decarbonisation progress across the industry; however, alignment is important to ensure these benefits are unlocked.
 

The need for consistency  

Carbon footprint assessments for large infrastructure projects, including offshore wind projects, are complex. Inconsistencies in assessment methodologies, with different scope boundaries or definitions, can result in significant variations in results.  

The Sustainability Joint Industry Programme (SUSJIP) developer partners funded the development of a common methodology for conducting carbon footprint assessments of offshore wind. The ‘Offshore Wind Industry Product Carbon Footprinting guidance’ (hereafter referred to as ‘the SUSJIP Methodology’) was released in September 2024 alongside an Excel-based carbon footprint calculator tool.¹  

The SUSJIP Methodology provides a credible path to achieving alignment, enhancing transparency and comparability through an accessible and standardised approach. The developer consortium, EnBW, JeraNex BP, Ørsted, SSE Renewables, SPR and TotalEnergies, is committed to using the SUSJIP Methodology to conduct carbon footprint assessments and advocates for increased adoption across the industry.
 

The benefits of harmonisation  

Adopting the SUSJIP methodology will provide a standard approach for calculating the product carbon footprint of an offshore wind farm. Harmonisation delivers several benefits:  

• Transparency and comparability: Enhance the comparability and transparency of carbon footprint calculations produced by developers; and  
• Reporting alignment: Provides one clear reporting standard for the industry with the methodology freely available and accessible; and  
• Sector-specific guidance: The methodology addresses the unique challenges of a product carbon footprint for offshore wind, providing rules tailored to the sector, aligning with ISO 14067, GHG Protocol Product Standard, and  
• Data quality transparency: Working towards primary data collection to improve the transparency of emission data, assumptions and data quality.    
   

The role of carbon footprint assessments  

Carbon footprint assessments are an essential tool to understand the emission sources of a project. Increasing the use of assessments can provide clarity on project portfolios, to support internal decision-making and reporting, and industry baselines.  

As governments and regulators start to consider mechanisms to introduce carbon footprint requirements, including through auctions, the need for a harmonised approach becomes more urgent.² In May 2025, the EU Commission adopted the Net Zero Industry Act (NZIA) implementation regulation,³ included carbon footprint assessment as a possible non-price criterion; the NZIA also outlined the need to harmonise the methods for assessing life cycle carbon footprints. Where governments choose to adopt this criterion, the SUSJIP Methodology provides an answer to this need for harmonisation.  

A practical and phased approach  

The SUSJIP developer consortium supports a phased approach to implementing harmonised carbon footprint assessments, recognising the complexity of supply chain decarbonisation. This approach may evolve in response to industry use cases and feedback; collaborative action on shared challenges is essential to building momentum.  

Introducing carbon footprinting as a competitive element comes with complexities. The emissions associated with an offshore wind farm are influenced by factors such as distance to shore, project design, metocean and environmental conditions and the databases used for emission factors. Directly comparing and rewarding total emissions without accounting for these differences would be an unfair method of assessment, and risks undermining decarbonisation progress. Furthermore, early-stage project assessments also face significant uncertainty due to limited primary data and insufficient transparency in data sources and methodologies.  

In the short term, the SUSJIP developer partners support the adoption of the SUSJIP Methodology for advancing the understanding and management of emission data. As the industry matures and supply chain data improves, the decarbonisation potential could become an effective competitive criterion. Rather than direct emission comparison, which may overlook project parameter and location sensitivities, we recommend focusing solely on emission reduction potential, normalised per component. Any move towards competitive use of emissions data must also consider the diversity of auction structures across different markets.  

Table 1: A suggested overview of the timeline for the implementation of carbon footprint assessments and the implementation of the SUSJIP methodology.  

Call to action  

Inconsistent carbon footprint methodologies are holding the industry back; The SUSJIP Methodology provides a practical solution to alignment. Where developers, industry or governments are choosing to use carbon footprint assessments, we call on stakeholders to adopt the SUSJIP Methodology to work towards industry harmonisation.