Oterra partners with HowGood on ingredient carbon measurement

Oterra has partnered with HowGood to calculate product carbon footprints for selected natural colour ingredients, using existing information about suppliers and manufacturing operations alongside lifecycle assessment data. The agreement, announced on 8 October 2026, is intended to help food and beverage customers understand emissions associated with the ingredients they purchase. The first phase covers selected products rather than the full portfolio, and neither company has published the number of calculations planned or a timetable for their completion.

The footprint calculation has to follow natural colour ingredients from agricultural raw materials through processing and delivery, because those stages contribute different emissions to the product’s total. Different crops and production locations can generate different environmental profiles, even where two ingredients produce a similar shade. The partnership will bring data already held by Oterra into HowGood’s assessment platform so that product-level figures can reflect more of the activities associated with particular ingredients. A product carbon footprint is a calculation of greenhouse gas emissions within a specified assessment boundary, not a measurement of every environmental impact.

To account for those stages, HowGood combines research datasets with activity information supplied by participating organisations, using the assessment boundary to determine which operations are included. Depending on the assessment boundary and the amount of company-specific information available, it can address agricultural production, processing, transport, manufacturing, product use and disposal. Its product carbon footprint methodology has been verified by the Carbon Trust as compliant with ISO 14067 and aligned with the Greenhouse Gas Protocol’s product lifecycle guidance. That verification relates to the assessment methodology; it does not establish separate third-party certification of every footprint that Oterra subsequently produces.

Crop yields, cultivation methods and fertiliser use can vary considerably by region, so generic averages may obscure differences between the materials Oterra actually purchases. Yields, cultivation methods, fertiliser inputs and energy requirements differ by crop and region, while manufacturing facilities may use different processing temperatures, equipment and energy sources. More specific information can improve a calculated footprint when it accurately represents the ingredient purchased. In the absence of primary observations, a model may still use secondary estimates, but the selection of those datasets and the assumptions applied determine how closely its results represent real production conditions.

Although Oterra has linked the collaboration to its 2030 strategy covering nature, climate and people, the initial work will establish product information rather than demonstrate emissions savings. Its immediate deliverable is better product information, rather than a verified reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Companies can use a footprint to identify which stages of production contribute most to the result and to evaluate possible changes, but a reduction requires a subsequent operational intervention and evidence that the change altered the calculation or measured emissions. No emissions saving resulting from the new partnership has yet been disclosed.

Those ingredient-level figures can feed into customers’ Scope 3 inventories, provided procurement quantities and the relevant supplier data correspond to the ingredients being assessed. Where relevant supplier-level data is reliable and sufficiently granular, using it in place of generic ingredient factors can improve the specificity of that accounting. The result remains sensitive to how a manufacturer defines the purchased material, records the quantity consumed and handles differences in assessment methods. Product footprints must therefore be accompanied by information about the applicable boundaries and assumptions before two alternatives are compared.

When food manufacturers compare natural colours using carbon data, the materials must still satisfy their recipes’ shade and stability requirements under processing and storage conditions. Ingredients need to deliver specified shades and stability under the processing and storage conditions of the finished food. Acidity, heat, light exposure and interactions with proteins or other formulation components can alter a colour’s performance. A substitute with a lower estimated carbon footprint may not be suitable for the same recipe or production line without further formulation work, food safety checks and evaluation of product quality.

Even an ingredient-specific figure can lose accuracy if supplier records, factory operations and the material delivered to a customer are not connected consistently. If a colour ingredient is made using raw materials from several locations, the assessment needs a defensible way to allocate their impacts. Manufacturing energy and transport data must correspond to the selected product and accounting period where possible. The partners have not disclosed the sampling, allocation or update procedures that will apply to Oterra’s individual portfolio calculations, so comparisons should retain the relevant methodological qualifications.

As the selected product footprints become available, their usefulness will rest on data quality, coverage and the ability to compare later production changes against the recorded baseline. Subsequent value will depend on the quality of the underlying information, coverage across the product range and the ability to compare later operational changes with the initial footprints. The partnership creates an additional measurement capability for ingredient procurement and reporting, while the extent of any future emissions reductions remains to be established through documented changes in the supply chain.