Bioenergetics: Open Access

Corporate Responsibility and Technological Advances in Supply Chain Transparency

Lucas Schneider^* Division of Bioenergetics, Freiburg University, Freiburg, Germany
^*Correspondence: Lucas Schneider, Division of Bioenergetics, Freiburg University, Freiburg, Germany, Email:

Received: 19-Feb-2025, Manuscript No. BEG-25-28873; Editor assigned: 21-Feb-2025, Pre QC No. BEG-25-28873 (PQ); Reviewed: 07-Mar-2025, QC No. BEG-25-28873; Revised: 14-Mar-2025, Manuscript No. BEG-25-28873 (R); Published: 21-Mar-2025, DOI: 10.35248/2167-7662.25.13.290

Description

Global trade has increasingly influenced patterns of energy consumption and emissions, with a significant portion of fossil fuel use embedded in the production and transportation of traded goods. For the European Union (EU), which has shown commitment to de-carbonization, understanding the exchange between trade and fossil fuel consumption is essential to ensure that progress toward carbon neutrality is genuine and not simply outsourced [1]. This short communication explains the recent trends in the trade-related fossil fuel footprint of the EU and examines whether there is evidence of true decoupling between economic growth and embedded fossil fuel consumption.

Decoupling refers to the ability of an economy to grow without a corresponding increase in environmental pressure in this case, fossil fuel consumption [2]. The EU has reported success in relative decoupling, where emissions per unit of GDP have decreased. However, when considering fossil fuel use embedded in imports, the picture becomes more complex. While territorial fossil fuel consumption within EU borders has declined due to cleaner technologies, stricter regulations and a growing service-based economy, imported goods often carry a significant fossil fuel footprint [3]. This offshoring effect may obscure the actual environmental impact of EU consumption.

Using Multi-Regional Input-Output (MRIO) models and environmentally extended datasets such as EXIOBASE and Eora, researchers have tracked the flows of fossil energy embedded in EU imports and exports [4]. Between 2005 and 2019, the EU's territorial fossil fuel consumption fell by approximately 20%, while GDP continued to grow. However, during the same period, fossil fuels embedded in imported goods remained steady or even increased in certain years, particularly for products sourced from fossil fuel-intensive economies [5]. Sectors such as electronics, textiles and chemical products contribute disproportionately to the embedded fossil energy footprint due to long and energy-intensive supply chains.

China, Russia and the Middle East are among the major trade partners whose exports to the EU carry high fossil fuel intensity. For instance, fossil fuels used in the production of intermediate goods and raw materials such as steel, petrochemicals and fertilizers exported to the EU contribute significantly to global energy demand. The EU, while reducing direct emissions, may indirectly maintain or even increase global fossil fuel use through such consumption patterns. This challenges the narrative of absolute decoupling and calls for more comprehensive consumption-based accounting frameworks.

Several EU policies, including the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), attempt to address this issue by placing a carbon price on certain imports [6]. While a positive step, CBAM currently covers only a limited number of sectors and does not fully account for upstream fossil fuel use. Moreover, many countries that supply goods to the EU lack the technological or institutional capacity to decarbonize production rapidly, further complicating efforts to reduce embedded emissions. In this context, trade agreements and development cooperation can play an essential role in supporting cleaner supply chains globally [7].

Despite the challenges, there are encouraging signs. A growing number of EU companies are engaging in lifecycle assessments and supply chain audits to identify hotspots of energy use and emissions [8]. Technological improvements in tracking and certifying embedded fossil fuel content may soon allow for more accurate disclosure and better-informed procurement decisions. Consumer awareness and pressure are also increasing, driving demand for sustainably produced goods.

A key question remains whether the EU can achieve absolute decoupling that is, reducing both domestic and imported fossil fuel use while maintaining economic growth [9]. Initial modeling studies suggest that combining aggressive domestic climate action with support for decarbonizing global value chains could lead to significant reductions in total embedded fossil fuel use [10]. For example, shifting to renewable energy in key supplier countries, investing in energy-efficient manufacturing abroad and redesigning trade flows to prioritize low-carbon sourcing are among the strategies showing potential.

Conclusion

In conclusion, while the EU has made progress in reducing domestic fossil fuel consumption, trade-related embedded energy remains a critical blind spot. True decoupling requires a shift from a narrow focus on territorial emissions to a broader consumption-based approach that accounts for fossil fuel use throughout the global supply chain. Integrating such considerations into trade, climate and industrial policy is essential for the EU to credibly lead the global transition to sustainable development. Without addressing the fossil fuels hidden in imported goods, efforts to decarbonize may fall short, undermining both climate targets and environmental justice on a global scale.

References

1. Heydenreich T. Trade and decoupling of fossil fuel use embedded in EU consumption. J Clean Prod. 2024;464:142702.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

2. Andres RJ, Gregg JS, Losey L, Marland G, Boden TA. Monthly, global emissions of carbon dioxide from fossil fuel consumption. Tellus B: Chem Phys Meteorol. 2011;63(3):309-27.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

3. Athanassiadis A, Christis M, Bouillard P, Vercalsteren A, Crawford RH, Khan AZ. Comparing a territorial-based and a consumption-based approach to assess the local and global environmental performance of cities. J Clean Prod. 2018;173:112-23.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

4. Wood R, Stadler K, Bulavskaya T, Lutter S, Giljum S, De Koning A, et al. Global sustainability accounting-Developing EXIOBASE for multi-regional footprint analysis. Sustainability. 2014;7(1):138-63.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

5. Steinbuks J, Narayanan BG. Fossil fuel producing economies have greater potential for industrial interfuel substitution. Energy Econ. 2015;47:168-77.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

6. Bellora C, Fontagné L. EU in search of a carbon border adjustment mechanism. Energy Econ. 2023;123:106673.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

7. Arshed N, Hameed K, Saher A. An empirical analysis of supply chain competitiveness and cleaner production. Sage Open. 2022;12(4):21582440221130297.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

8. Liu M, Chen Y, Chen K, Chen Y. Progress and hotspots of research on land-use carbon emissions: A global perspective. Sustainability. 2023;15(9):7245.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

9. Asafu-Adjaye J, Byrne D, Alvarez M. Economic growth, fossil fuel and non-fossil consumption: A Pooled Mean Group analysis using proxies for capital. Energy Econ. 2016;60:345-56.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

10. Petersen M, Renken K. Adopting a Value Chain Focus to Tackle Decarbonization. Springer Books. 2023:79-88.

    [Google Scholar]