| Home | E-Submission | Sitemap | Contact Us |  
Environ Eng Res > Volume 29(5); 2024 > Article
Park, Putra, Park, and Kim: Characterization of the life cycle carbon footprint of the automobile industry in the Republic of Korea by environmentally extended input-output model


The automobile industry is a major economic driver in Republic of Korea (Korea). However, little is known about its climate change contribution. This study estimates the direct and indirect greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions of the Korean automobile industry for the first time, by using a 2017 environmentally extended input-output (EEIO) model integrated by energy balance, GHG inventory and input-output table of 2017. The results show that the final demand of Korean automobile industry led to 8.4% of national GHG emissions in 2017, mostly because of indirect emissions embodied in the supply chain. The study also found that the Scope 1, Scope 2 and Scope 3 emissions on average accounted for 3.0%, 2.9%, and 94.7%, respectively. This highlights the contribution of the upstream supply chain such as primary metals (40.9%) and electricity (32.5%) when assessing the GHG emissions. Finally, the study underscores that carbon taxes could have a significant impact on the competitiveness of automobile export. Overall, this study provides valuable insights on countermeasures by identifying the GHG emissions characteristics of the automobile industry. The results of the study could be used to develop policies and strategies to reduce the GHG emissions and promote sustainable practices in the Korean automobile industry.

1. Introduction

The Korean automobile industry is a critical sector that drives production, value creation, and employment. In 2017, it contributed significantly to the manufacturing sector, accounting for 12.9% of production output and 10.1% of value creation [1]. In 2020, it commanded 12.7% of manufacturing output and 12.1% of exports, while employing 7.1% of the workforce [2]. This shows that the automobile industry is intricately intertwined with the extensive supply chain and holds a pivotal role in the Korea economy. However, the Korean automobile industry faces a pressing challenge to meet the national and global trend of carbon neutrality in 2050 triggered by Paris Agreement. The transportation sector has been reported to contribute 25% of global CO2 emissions and major economies have tightened transportation-related GHG emission regulations, particularly in the automotive sector (e.g., US EPA’s SAFE standards and EU’s 2035 combustion engine ban) [3, 4]. Due to the implementation of these regulations, the leading car manufacturers have been focusing on fuel efficiency in operation phase and transitioning from internal combustion engine to electric vehicle (EV) and securing their low carbon supply chain to comply with GHG and environmental regulations [5].
Life cycle assessment (LCA) serves as a method to quantify carbon emissions across the entire product lifecycle (cradle-to-grave) and encompassing the intricate web of the supply chain. The role of LCA in automobile was highlighted in the WP.29/GRPE Workshop on carbon Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of vehicles held in May 2022 and the European Commission evaluated the applicability of LCA to automotive GHG emission standards and report to the European Parliament [6]. Relatedly, Japan and US are working to establish an international standard for automobile LCA tool [6]. To quantify the life cycle GHG emissions (carbon footprint), the bottom-up process-based LCA (pLCA) and the top-down input-output-based LCA (IO-LCA) have been applied. The strengths and limitations of the two methods are widely described. The pLCA is detailed but could lead to serious truncation errors for incomplete system boundaries [7, 8]. Meanwhile, the IO-LCA is relatively complete but is aggregated, difficult to be detailed and the aggregation errors could outweigh the truncation errors under certain situations [9, 10]. There are some studies on automobile LCA. Buberger et al. compared the total life cycle GHG emission of commercially available passenger cars with different energy sources [11]. In another case, Pipitone et al. compared the environmental impact of internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs), hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs), and battery electric vehicles (BEVs) [12]. However, these approaches haven’t addressed the characteristics of emissions such as Scope 1, 2, and 3 over the entire supply chain; there remains an unsettling void—a glaring absence of systematic analysis about the automobile’s life cycle GHG emissions. The newly adopted Carbon Border Tax (CBT) of the EU and the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) in the USA and the EU are strengthening supply chain emissions of Scope 3 for the product carbon accounting [1317] Thus, all companies have to prepare to reduce their supply chain emissions of the product, not just within the manufacturing process.
Given these situations, this study aims to fill the research gap by analyzing the comprehensive GHG emissions from automobile production in Korea. Automobiles, with their intricate comprehensive picture of tens of thousands of components—steel, aluminum, rubber, glass, plastics, paint, and more—present a formidable challenge to the pLCA approach [1820]. Thus, we navigate this labyrinth with a calculated choice—the IO-LCA, represented by the interdependence between economic interactions and environmental loads. We have calculated GHG emissions based on the energy sources purchased by each industry and weighted averages of carbon emission factors of energy sources.
Our group developed the Korean EEIO table for the year 2017 for analyzing supply chain GHG emissions in Korean economic activity [21, 22]. By using same approach, this paper conducts a thorough analysis of the Korean automotive industry, focusing on GHG emissions, and compares both direct emission (Scope 1), emission from the use of electricity and heat (Scope 2) and the remaining emissions from supply chain (Scope 3). The key research questions of this research are: 1) What are the differences between direct and total GHG emissions, 2) What are the Scope 1, Scope 2, and Scope 3 in the automobile sectors? 3) What are the contributors and drivers of the total GHG emissions? The result will provide crucial insights for the Korean government and automobile companies to establish scientific and practical carbon mitigation strategy.

2. Methods and Data

2.1. Research Framework

Fig. 1 shows a framework for the sequence of steps in the research process undertaken in this study. The first step is the formulation of the EEIO table through the integration of input-output table (IOT), and environmental satellite table developed by energy balance (EB), fuel GHG, and carbon emission factors, along with national GHG inventory data. The second step is EEIO analysis using the EEIO model to estimate the direct and indirect GHG emissions in the automotive industry, delineating emissions by Scope. Additionally, it identifies the contribution of the supply chain to total GHG emissions based on final demand. Step 3 presents the results of the carbon footprint analysis in automobile industry in 2017. Step 4 comprises the conclusion, encompassing key findings, contributions, and the acknowledgment of limitations.

2.2. Data Collection

Our EEIO model is built upon five primary data sources: 1) base sector IOT in 2017 (381 sectors reclassified), provided by the Economic Statistics System under the Bank of Korea [23]; 2) an EB compiled by Korean Energy Economics Institute by 27 energy sources in the same year [24]; 3) Korea’s 2017 GHG inventory compiled by the GHG Inventory and Research Center under Korean Ministry of Environment [25]; 4) the carbon emissions factors for energy sources [26, 27]; and 5) the currency conversion value from Korean Won (KRW) into United States dollar (USD, $). In 2017, a conversion rate of 1129.0435 KRW/$ was used [28].

2.3. Environmentally Extended Input-Output Table Compilation

The structure of the EEIO table is shown in Fig. 2. As shown in Fig. 2, the EEIO table summarizes the amount of energy consumption by industry and GHG emissions by industry according to economic activities, which can analyze the direct and indirect ripple effect of GHG emissions. When the final demand for each industry’s inputs is known, GHG emissions directly or indirectly induced in the production process of each industry to meet this final demand can be estimated, and environmental impacts linked to these economic activities can be analyzed.
Following the previous studies, we compiled the GHG satellite table [21, 22, 29, 30]. First, CO2 emissions for different energy sources consumed by aggregated sectors in the EB are calculated using corresponding emissions factors. For some energy sources, a carbon storage factor fraction is applied. Thus, fuel CO2 emissions in Kiloton (kt) was calculated by Eq. (1):
where NAij is the fuel use (1000 TOE), FCSij is the carbon storage fraction (%), 41.868 is the joule-toe conversion coefficient (TJ/1000 TOE), CFi is the conversion coefficient (net calorific value/total calorific value), EFi is the emissions factors (tC/TJ), 44/12 is the conversion rate from carbon to carbon dioxide (kg CO2/kg C), i is fuel type, and j is sector. The sectors in the EB often consume multiple types of fuel; the emissions of those fuels are thus added up to calculate the total emissions of each sector.
Then, we allocate the sectoral emissions in the EB to 381 sectors in the IOT based on the energy transaction data in the IOT for different energy sources, with the assumption that each energy would be the same price in similar industries as the energy price is decided by the government. This was calculated by Eq. (2):
CO2iEmissions×xjj=1nxij=CO2 ijEmissions
where CO2 i Emissions is the total amount of CO2 by energy i, xj is the sales volume for energy source i for industrial sub-sector j in the IOT, and j=1nxij is the total output for the industrial sector by similar economic activity for energy source i.
To complete the EEIO table based on CO2 eq. data on six major GHG, such as CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6 are supplemented from Korea’s GHG inventory, which covers all GHG from the country. CH4 and N2O emissions from energy sources are allocated to each sector in proportion to the energy consumption (CO2 emissions) allocated as above. However, given emissions from waste and lime production are unrelated to energy sources, they are allocated to each sector in proportion to the total output.

2.4. Carbon Footprint Analysis

To quantitatively analyze direct and indirect carbon footprint characteristics by industry, the analysis method was based on the 2017 high-resolution (~380 sectors) EEIO model [21]. Using the EEIO model [21], we maintain some sectors, such as natural rubber, bituminous coal, and raw sugar, whose total input values are all ‘0’, indicating their products were not domestically produced in 2017; the technical coefficients were set to ‘0’ [22]. Furthermore, the industrial activities of ‘manufacturing equipment repair’ and ‘industrial machinery and equipment repair’ were moved from the other manufacturing sector to the commercial sector. In addition, the industrial activities of ‘educational service (public, non-profit, industry)’, ‘medical and health care (public, nonprofit, industry)’, ‘social welfare service (public, nonprofit)’, and ‘cultural service (public)’ were calculated by changing from the public sector to the commercial sector [22]. As in the previous study, the original Korean IOT differentiates the electricity generation sector such as hydro power, thermal power, nuclear power, private power station, renewable energy, steam, chilled or hot water, and air conditioning supply [21]. We aggregate them into one electricity generation sector to reduce the EEIO model from 381 to 376 sectors [22].
The first analysis aims to quantify the GHG emissions generated by the Korean automobile industry in terms of direct and total emissions perspectives [3032]. Direct GHG emissions (D), also known as production-based GHG emissions of the automobile sector can be calculated using Eq. (3):
where B and X are sectors GHG emissions intensity matrix and the total output of the automobile sector respectively.
Total GHG emission (T) of automobiles include both direct and indirect GHG emissions, also known as consumption-based GHG emissions triggered by final demand for automobiles (i.e. private consumption, government consumption, investment, and net exports) and was calculated by Eq. (4):
where A is the technology matrix derived from sectorial transactions where a column represents the direct requirement of a sector per dollar worth of output. I is the identity matrix, and f is the final demand matrix.
The second analysis characterizes Scope 1, Scope 2, and Scope 3 emissions for each economic sector. Scope 1 emission is the direct emissions from each sector to meet the final demand, Scope 2 emission refers to those from the use of electricity and steam; and Scope 3 represents a supply-chain or cradle-to-gate emissions that extend upstream of resource extraction [3336]. Following a previous study [37], our estimation of Scope 1, Scope 2, and Scope 3 emissions is driven from the modification of the power series expansion of total GHG emissions. This was calculated as follows, according to Eq. (5):
where the right side of the Eq. (5) shows the ripple effect of GHG emissions in the supply chain by final demand [38, 39]. Bf is the GHG emissions generated by the final demand (Scope 1 emissions). BAf means the GHG emissions resulting from producing the intermediate unit input (such as resources, electricity, steam, heat, etc.) required to produce one unit of the final demand. Thus Scope 2 emissions (indirect emission from electricity and heat use) can be calculated by Eq. (6):
Scope 2=BeAejf
where Be is the direct GHG emissions intensity of the electricity generation sector, Aej is the input from the electricity generation sector to industry j, BeAejf is the GHG emissions from electricity and heat consumed in each industry to produce unit output (Scope 2). Thus, Scope 3 is total GHG emissions minus the sum of Scope 1 and Scope 2, was calculated as shown in Eq. (7):
Scope 3=B(I-A)-1f-Bf-BeAejf
The third analysis takes a deeper look into the supply chain emissions and identifies the main GHG emission contributors for each automobile product using Eq. (8):
where the ∧ symbol over B indicates diagonalization, f is 1 for the industry of interest and 0 for the rest of the industry. Since this Eq. (8), only considers the final demand for the industry of interest, it can be used to determine the emissions contribution of the supply chain and can provide insights to design climate policy and mitigation strategies.
The fourth analysis takes a deeper look into the final demand emissions and identifies major contributors for each automobile product using Eq. (9):
where f is the final demand in exogenous sectors [40], which can be subdivided into consumption (fco), investment (fiv), and exports (fex) minus imports (fim). Essentially, Eq. (9) represents the total GHG emissions generated from final demand (Consumption, Investment, Exports, and Imports).

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Direct and Total GHG Emissions from the Automobile Industry

The Korean IOT includes 7 automobile sectors among ~380 high resolution sectors from passenger cars, buses, trucks, special-use vehicles, trailers and containers, car engines, and automotive parts (Table 1, all sectors in Table S1 in Supplementary material). As shown in Table 1, direct and total GHG emission shows different characteristics of both the climate impact of automobile sectors in Korea and their relative significance. Direct GHG emissions from the 7 automobile sectors amount to 2,030 kt CO2 eq. or 0.3% of the national total GHG emission in 2017. Of the 2,030 kt CO2 eq. emissions, passenger car, automotive parts, and engine accounted for 40.5%, 31.4%, and 15.6%, respectively. The remaining sectors such as buses, trucks and special use vehicles trailers and containers show a very limited contribution to the total (12.5%). In comparison, the final demand for the Korean automobile industry induced 60,325 kt CO2 eq. throughout the upstream supply chain (cradle to gate), nearly 30 times as large as direct emissions. It contributes 8.4% to Korea’s total GHG emissions and 6.2% to Korean GDP. In the case of passenger cars, the total output was 72,089 Mil. USD and the GHG emissions were estimated at 823 kt CO2 eq. and the direct GHG emissions intensity was 11.4 kt CO2 eq./Mil. USD. On the other hand, the final demand for passenger cars was 72,073 Mil. USD and the total GHG emissions were 41,372 kt CO2 eq. Thus, the total GHG intensity of passenger cars was 574.0 kt CO2 eq./Mil. USD, which is a little higher than 459.7 kt/Mil USD for automobile production in the UK [28, 41]. There are also reports that the GHG emissions for a mid-sized car production is 7.5–11.5 ton CO2 eq. in China [11], and 5 tons for small-sized Renault Clio and 8.9 ton CO2 eq for overall passenger cars in the EU [66]. These differences are considered to be mainly attributed to the different GHG emission intensities of electricity generation and industrial technology in both countries.
The average carbon emission per car produced in Korea was 11.1 tons CO2 eq. This was calculated by dividing the total GHG emissions from passenger car production in Korea (41,372 kt CO2 eq.) by the number of passenger cars produced in Korea (3,735,399) [42]. According to the sustainability report [43] published by H motor company in 2018, the number of passenger cars produced domestically and overseas was 4,635,356 and the total amount of GHG generated during the production process was 24,906,019 ton CO2 eq., which means the average total GHG emission per car produced by H motor was 5.5 ton CO2 eq. [43]. According to data published by V company, the average total GHG emission per passenger car produced by the company was 6.5 ton CO2 eq. [44]. However, the 5.5–6.5 ton CO2 eq. per passenger car by the above two companies is ~ 50% lower than our study’s finding. This difference may be attributed to incomplete pLCA used by the two companies, which inevitably results in truncation errors.

3.2. Scope 1, 2, and 3 Emissions of the Automobile Industry

Table 2 shows the total GHG emissions by Scope from the automobile industry. The breakdown of the total GHG emission confirmed the Scope 1, Scope 2, and Scope 3 emissions, which were calculated using Eq. (3), Eq. (6), and Eq. (7). As shown in Table 2 for the automobile products, direct GHG emissions (Scope 1) account for only 3.0% (1.2 to 4.7%) of the total and Scope 2 emissions account for 2.9% (0.9 to 5.8%) of the total. The Corporate GHG guideline protocol mandatorily requests the amount of GHG emissions should include the direct emissions (Scope 1) and indirect emissions from the use of electricity and heat (Scope 2) of the corporate [45]. So, production GHG emissions (Scope 1 and Scope 2) in the Korean automobile industry can be translated to be 5.9% (4.2–7.7%) of the total. A clear fact that emerges from Table 2 is that Scope 3 emissions dominate the carbon footprint of Korean automobile products, contributing 94.1% (92.3–95.8%).
According to the sustainability report by H motor company in 2018, Scope 1, Scope 2, and Scope 3 emissions from automobile production were 886 kt CO2 eq. (3.6%), 1,937 kt CO2 eq. (7.8%), and 22,083 kt CO2 eq. (88.7%), excluding ‘uses of sold vehicles’ and ‘end-of-life treatment of sold vehicles’ sectors [43]. In addition, F motor company reported the GHG emissions in production Scope 1 (0.9%), Scope 2 (2.3%), and Scope 3 (96.8%), respectively [46]. These results with our findings in this study clearly confirm that major GHG emissions in the automobile industry are Scope 3, which comes from other industries in the upstream supply chain.

3.3. Supply Chain Contribution to the Automobile Carbon Footprint

The contribution of emissions from the supply chain associated with automobile production is presented in Fig. 3. We distinguish between direct electricity consumption (Scope 2) and indirect electricity consumption, embedded in the supply chain (Scope 3) to identify the electricity consumption pattern. For example, producing passenger cars requires primary metal products, and the electricity needed to make these primary metal products is then classified as indirect electricity consumption.
As shown in Fig. 3, the primary metal product sector made a significant contribution and accounted for 31.4–57.2% (average 40.9%) of the automobile industry’s total GHG emissions. The electricity consumption sector, including direct and indirect electricity generation (categories 1 and 2 combined), contributes 25.3–34.7% (average 32.5%) of the total GHG emissions. These two sectors accounted for 63.7–80.0% (average 70.5%) of the automobile industry’s carbon footprint. Meanwhile, other sectors like mining products, chemicals, non-metallic minerals products, processing metal products, and distribution contributed 1.4–1.6%, 2.5–6.8%, 1.0–1.4%, 0.8–2.4%, 3.4–5.7%, and 7.9–19.9%, respectively. Considering these results, reducing the automobile industry’s carbon footprint needs to be strategically prioritized based on the contribution and current situations.
For years, efforts have been made to lower vehicle weight by reducing primary metal contents [4749]. According to H motor company, the steel composition of small cars has changed from 67.9% in 2004 [50] to 63% in 2010 [73]. These trends show that steel products used in the automobile have been gradually declining through many years of continuous effort, but they still account for a high proportion.
In the meantime, the Korean steel industry has already relatively high energy efficiency, but its potential for energy savings is very limited [51], Thus, to reduce the GHG emissions in producing steel products, the use of green and/or low-carbon electricity is crucial, which results in reducing GHG emissions in the automobile sector. Though the carbon intensity of Korea’s electricity grid has slowly improved, it was 0.4403 ton CO2/MWh in 2022 [26], which is higher compared to the OECD average of 0.3804 ton CO2/MWh in 2017 [52]. The current Korean energy grid GHG emission intensity and the detailed contribution analysis suggest that reducing GHG emissions in the Korean automobile sector would benefit most from reducing metal products and transitioning to a low-carbon electricity grid, but mitigation efforts in other areas of the supply chain, such as replacing primary metal products, are also very important.

3.4. Drivers of GHG Emissions in the Automobile Industry and Their Implication

The total GHG emissions driven by the final demand sector are summarized in Table 3. Consumption accounted for 28.3% of the final demand, amounting to 28,323 Mil. USD, while investment, which accounted for 25.4% of the final demand, was 25,456 Mil. USD. Meanwhile, exports and imports were 64,501 Mil. USD, 18,042 Mil. USD, respectively. Therefore, net exports (exports minus imports) amounted to 46,458 Mil. USD, accounting for 46.3% of the final demand. In particular, the passenger cars sector accounted for 68.6% of the total automobile industry. On the other hand, the GHG emissions caused by consumption was 16,334 kt CO2 eq., which accounted for 27.1% of the final demand, while the investment-induced GHG emissions were 14,796 kt CO2 eq. accounted for 24.5% of the final demand. Meanwhile, the GHG emissions driven by the exports and imports activities were 40,101 kt CO2 eq., and 10,906 kt CO2 eq., respectively; therefore, net export’s GHG emissions were 29,195 kt CO2 eq., accounting for 48.4% of the final demand. In the case of the passenger cars sector, consumption, investment, exports, and imports induced GHG emissions were 15,832 kt CO2 eq. (38.3%), 9,569 kt CO2 eq. (23.1%), 22,322 kt CO2 eq. (54.0%), and 6,352 kt CO2 eq. (−15.4%), respectively. In addition, Table 3 shows that among the total GHG emissions of the automobile sub-sectors, the amount of GHG induced by exports was the highest, and most of the total GHG emissions from the automobile industry were generated from passenger cars.
As Korea is global automobile exporter, it is meaningful to estimate the impact of global GHG mitigation effort on Korea automobile export. The potential adoption of CBT system by Europe and the US as mentioned in the introduction part [1617] could significantly impact Korea’s economy, particularly through its automobile export [53]. Based on this study, GHG emissions from the production of a single automobile are measured at 11.1 ton CO2 eq. per passenger car and we assume that a CBT of per ton CO2 eq. for passenger cars is 75 USD (following the National Assembly Futures Institute publication) [54], so 830.7 USD per passenger car will be charged. Overall, a carbon tax will be expected to add about 4.1% of the price of vehicles produced in Korea. Because of this condition, prices of export products are predicted to increase, and countermeasures are highly needed in advance to strengthen climate competitiveness.

4. Conclusions

The Korean automobile industry plays a vital role in driving the economy, but its carbon footprint needs urgent attention. This research employed a holistic life cycle perspective to quantify Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions, to identify the contributors and drivers of direct and total GHG emissions. This research found that the direct emissions (Scope 1) are low and indirect emissions (Scope 2 and Scope 3) in the supply chain are dominant. Especially, primary metal production and electricity generation create the biggest carbon burden. Thus, comprehensive GHG emission strategies such as reducing metal use and transitioning to clean energy are the key suggestions from this study for reducing GHG emissions in the automobile sector. Finally, while our EEIO model has been used for the automobile sector, it can be used, built upon and refined in other sectors by future carbon footprint studies in Korea and the world.

Supplementary Information


This work was supported by Brain Pool Program (NRF-2020H 1D3A2A01093596) and Basic Science Research Program (NRF-2020R1I1A2072313) through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education.


Conflict-of-Interest Statement

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Author Contributions

Y.P. (Postdoctoral researcher) led the conceptualization, data curation, analysis, methodology, initial draft, review & editing, project administration, validation, and visualization.

A.S.P. (Postdoctoral researcher) contributed to visualization and manuscript review & editing.

J.K. (Associate Professor) participated in manuscript review & editing.

H-S.P. (Chair Professor) handled methodology, visualization, funding acquisition, supervision, project administration, and manuscript review & editing.


1. Statistics Korea. As of 2017 provisional results of mining and manufacturing surveys. Statistics Korea; 2018.

2. Kim J. Korean automobile industry focusing on developing electric vehicles and autonomous vehicles [Internet]. Invest KOREA; [cited 05 December 2023]. Available from: https://www.investkorea.org/ik-kr

3. Environmental Protection Agency. Revised 2023 and later model year light-duty vehicle greenhouse gas emissions standards (EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0208 FRL 8469-01-OAR) [Internet]. Federal Register. [cited 05 December 2023]. Available from: https://www.federalregister.gov

4. Sim E. [EU economic and trade report (23-03)] Legislative trends and implications for CO2 emissions regulation for vehicles in the EU [Internet]. Korea Trade-Investment Promotion Agency; [cited 05 May 2023]. Available from: https://dream.kotra.or.kr/index.jsp

5. Kim K, Cho C. Automotive industry carbon neutralization trends and challenges. Korea Institute for Industrial Economics & Trade; 2021.

6. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. (WP.29/GRPE) Workshop on carbon LCA of vehicles. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe; [cited 05 December 2023]. Available from: https://unece.org

7. Jiang Q, Li T, Liu Z, Zhang H, Ren K. Life cycle assessment of an engine with input-output based hybrid analysis method. J. Clean. Prod. 2014;78:131–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.04.003

8. Yang Y, Heijungs R, Brandão M. Hybrid life cycle assessment (LCA) does not necessarily yield more accurate results than process-based LCA. J. Clean. Prod. 2017;150:237–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.006

9. Miller RE, Blair PD. Input-output analysis: Foundations and extensions. 2nd edCambridge: Cambridge university press; 2009.

10. Mattila TJ. Life cycle assessment: Theory and practice. Berlin: Springer International Publishing; 2018. p. 349–372.

11. Buberger J, Kersten A, Kuder M, Eckerle R, Weyh T, Thiringer T. Total CO2-equivalent life-cycle emissions from commercially available passenger cars. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 2022;159:112158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2022.112158

12. Pipitone E, Caltabellotta S, Occhipinti L. A life cycle environmental impact comparison between traditional, hybrid, and electric vehicles in the european context. Sustainability. 2021;13:10992. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131910992

13. Bistline J, Mehrotra N, Wolfram C. Economic implications of the climate provisions of the inflation reduction act. National Bureau of Economic Research; 2023.

14. Bown CP. Industrial policy for electric vehicle supply chains and the US-EU fight over the inflation reduction act [Internet]. Peterson Institute for International Economics; [cited 05 July 2023]. Available from: https://www.piie.com

15. Poty A. From washington to brussels, the inflation reduction act and its impact on the european automotive sector. [dissertation]. Louvain: Catholic Univ. of Louvain; 2023.

16. Kim D, Son I. A Study of the impact on the global value chain of and domestic response to the introduction of carbon border tax in the european green deal. Korea Energy Economics Institute; 2021.

17. European Commission. Proposal for a regulation of the european parliament and of the council establishing a carbon border adjustment mechanism [Internet]. EUR-Lex; [cited 05 December 2022]. Available from: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html

18. Korea Council for University Education. 2015 Industry perspective evaluation: Automotive industry. Korea Council for University Education; 2016.

19. Steubing B, Koning AD, Merciai S, Tukker A. How do carbon footprints from LCA and EEIOA databases compare?: A comparison of ecoinvent and EXIOBASE. J. Ind. Ecol. 2022;26:1406–1422. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.13271

20. Majeau-Bettez G, Strømman AH, Hertwich EG. Evaluation of process- and input–output-based life cycle inventory data with regard to truncation and aggregation issues. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011;45:10170–10177. https://doi.org/10.1021/es201308x
crossref pmid

21. Yang Y, Park Y, Smith TM, Kim T, Park H-S. High-resolution environmentally extended input–output model to assess the greenhouse gas impact of electronics in south korea. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2022;56:2107–2114. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c05451
crossref pmid

22. Park Y, Kim J, Kyung D, Park H-S. Characterization of green-house gases emissions by economic sectors using environmentally extended input-output analysis (EEIOA). J. Korean Soc. Environ. Eng. 2022;44:308–335. https://doi.org/10.4491/KSEE.2022.44.9.308

23. Bank of Korea. Input-output table [Internet]. Bank of Korea; [cited 08 May 2022]. Available from: https://ecos.bok.or.kr/

24. Korea Energy Economics Institute. Yearbook of Energy Statistics 2021. Korea Energy Economics Institute; 2021.

25. Greenhouse Gas Inventory and Research Center. 2019 National Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report of Korea. Greenhouse Gas Inventory and Research Center; 2019.

26. Greenhouse Gas Inventory and Research Center. 2021 Approved national ghg emission and absorption factors announcement [Internet]. Greenhouse Gas Inventory and Research Center; [cited 16 June 2022]. Available from: https://www.gir.go.kr

27. Ministry of Government Legislation. Guidelines for reporting and certification of emissions from the greenhouse gas emissions trading system [Internet]. Ministry of Government Legislation; [cited 16 June 2023]. Available from: https://www.law.go.kr

28. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Average currency exchange rates [Internet]. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System; [cited 10 May 2022]. Available from: https://www.federalreserve.gov

29. Park Y. Characterization of the life cycle carbon footprint by the economic activity in the Republic of Korea. dissertation. Ulsan: Univ. of Ulsan & Univ. of Technology of Troyes; 2023.

30. Peters GP. From production-based to consumption-based national emission inventories. Ecol. Eng. 2008;65:13–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.10.014

31. Lenzen M, Murray J, Sack F, Wiedmann T. Shared producer and consumer responsibility-Theory and practice. Ecol. Eng. 2007;61:27–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.05.018

32. Chandrakumar C, McLaren SJ, Malik A, Ramilan T, Lenzen M. Understanding New Zealand’s consumption-based green-house gas emissions: an application of multi-regional input-output analysis. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2020;25:1323–1332. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-019-01673-z

33. Suh S, Lenzen M, Treloar GJ, et al. System boundary selection in life-cycle inventories using hybrid approaches. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2004;38:657–664. https://doi.org/10.1021/es0263745
crossref pmid

34. Matthews HS, Hendrickson CT, Weber CL. The importance of carbon footprint estimation boundaries. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2008;42:5839–5842. https://doi.org/10.1021/es703112w
crossref pmid

35. Huang YA, Weber CL, Matthews HS. Categorization of Scope 3 emissions for streamlined enterprise carbon footprinting. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2009;43:8509–8515. https://doi.org/10.1021/es901643a
crossref pmid

36. World Resources Institute and World Business Council for Sustainable Development. Technical guidance for calculating Scope 3 emissions (version 1.0). Greenhouse gas protocol. 2013;

37. Suh S, Heijungs R. Power series expansion and structural analysis for life cycle assessment. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2007;12:381–390. https://doi.org/10.1065/lca2007.08.360

38. Yang Y. Two sides of the same coin: Consequential life cycle assessment based on the attributional framework. J. Clean. Prod. 2016;127:274–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.03.089

39. Yang Y, Heijungs R. On the use of different models for consequential life cycle assessment. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2018;23:751–758. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-017-1337-4

40. Bank of Korea. 2015 Input output statistics. Bank of Korea; 2019.

41. Berners-Lee M, Clark D. What’s the carbon footprint of ... a new car? [Internet]. The Guardian; [cited 03 JAN 2024]. Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/international

42. KOrean Statistical Information Service. Automobile production [Internet]. KOrean Statistical Information Service; [cited 07 May 2022]. Available from: https://kosis.kr

43. Hyundai Motor Company. Road to sustainability (2021 Sustainability report). Hyundai Motor Company; 2021.

44. Christian S, Ralf P, Michael L, Keynotes ID. Insights Sustainable E-Mobility [Internet]. Volkswagen; [cited 21 January 2023]. Available from: https://www.volkswagen-newsroom.com/de

45. Ministry of Government Legislation. Guidance on greenhouse gas target management operations [Internet]. Ministry of Government Legislation; [cited 16 June 2023]. Available from: https://www.law.go.kr

46. Aguilar EL, Kasliwal A, Kinzler M. Scope 3 emissions assessment and circular economy protocol development at ford motor company. Dissertations and Theses. Michigan: Univ. of Michigan Library; 2019.

47. Han T-K, Lee K-Y, Kim J-S. Recent developments and weldability of advanced high strength steels for automotive applications. J. Weld. Join. 2009;27:13–18. https://doi.org/10.5781/KWJS.2009.27.2.013

48. Kim J-S, Cho NH. Lightweight materials for automobiles. Korea Institute of Science & Technology Evaluation and Planning; 2018.

49. Jeoung S, Ha J. Lightweighting technology development and trends in automotive. Auto J. 2018;40:30–34. Available from: http://online.webbook.kr/books/yude/#p=12

50. Korea Automotive Recyclers Association. A study on enhancing recycling of plastics in end-of-life vehicles. National Institute of Environmental Research; 2010.

51. Kim D, Son I. A study on the promotion of de-harmonization of greenhouse gas emissions in major manufacturing. Korea Energy Economics Institute; 2020.

52. OECD. OECD Regions and Cities at a Glance 2020. OECD; 2020.

53. Korea Customs Service. Top 10 about Import and Export Items [Internet]. Statistics Korea; [cited 16 June 2022]. Available from: https://www.index.go.kr

54. Jeong H, Yeo Y. A study on industrial policy measures and the prediction of policy impact in response to a carbon border adjustment mechanism. National Assembly Futures Institute; 2021.

Fig. 1
Research framework for environmentally extended input-output analysis.
Fig. 2
Formulation of the environmentally extended input-output table.
Fig. 3
The contributor to automotive carbon footprint. Passenger cars (A), Buses (B), Trucks (C), Special use vehicles (D), Trailers and containers (E), Car engines (F), and Automotive parts (G). 1) Indicates emissions from direct consumption of electricity (or Scope 2 emissions), 2) Electricity consumption (indicates emissions from indirect consumption of electricity, i.e., embodied in the supply chain), 3) Mining products metals, 4) Chemicals, 5) Nonmetallic minerals products, 6) Primary metal products, 7) Processing metal products, 8) Distribution, and 9) Others.
Table 1
Direct and total GHG emissions from Korea’s automobile industry. Passenger cars (A), Buses (B), Trucks (C), Special use vehicles (D), Trailers and containers (E), Car engines (F), and Automotive parts (G). Here the percentage value represents the proportion of the country as a whole.
Sectors A B C D E F G Sum
Total output (Mil. USD) 72,089 (4.5%) 3,257 (0.2%) 5,251 (0.3%) 2,901 (0.2%) 334 (0.0%) 17,953 (1.1%) 66,789 (4.2%) 168,574 (10.5%)
Direct GHG emissions (kt CO2eq.) 823 (0.1%) 57 (0.0%) 116 (0.0%) 76 (0.0%) 6 (0.0%) 316 (0.0%) 638 (0.1%) 2,030 (0.3%)
Direct GHG emission intensity (ton/Mil. USD) 11.4 17.4 22.0 26.0 17.0 17.6 9.6 12.0

Final demand (Mil. USD) 72,073 (4.5%) 3,255 (0.2%) 5,066 (0.3%) 2,901 (0.2%) 269 (0.0%) 1,024 (0.1%) 15,649 (1.0%) 100,237 (6.2%)
Total GHG emissions (kt CO2eq.) 41,372 (5.8%) 1,821 (0.3%) 2,704 (0.4%) 1,799 (0.3%) 260 (0.0%) 384 (0.1%) 11,985 (1.7%) 60,325 (8.4%)
Total GHG emission intensity (ton/Mil. USD) 574.0 559.4 533.7 620.1 963.7 375.3 765.9 601.8
Table 2
Total GHG emissions by Scope. Passenger cars (A), Buses (B), Trucks (C), Special use vehicles (D), Trailers and containers (E), Car engines (F), and Automotive parts (G).
Sector A B C D E F G
Facility emissions (kt CO2eq.) Scope 1 822 (2.0%) 57 (3.1%) 112 (4.1%) 76 (4.2%) 5 (1.8%) 18 (4.7%) 149 (1.2%)
Scope 2 1,003 (2.4%) 46 (2.5%) 76 (2.8%) 63 (3.5%) 6 (2.4%) 4 (0.9%) 698 (5.8%)

Scope 1 + Scope 2 1,825 (4.4%) 103 (5.6%) 187 (6.9%) 139 (7.7%) 11 (4.2%) 22 (5.6%) 847 (7.1%)

Emissions outside the facility boundary (kt CO2eq.) Scope 3 39,547 (95.6%) 1,718 (94.4%) 2,517 (93.1%) 1,660 (92.3%) 249 (95.8%) 363 (94.4%) 11,138 (92.9%)

Total (kt CO2eq.) 41,372 (100.0%) 1,821 (100.0%) 2,704 (100.0%) 1,799 (100.0%) 260 (100.0%) 384 (100.0%) 11,985 (100.0%)
Table 3
Drivers of GHG emissions in the automobile industry. Passenger cars (A), Buses (B), Trucks (C), Special use vehicles (D), Trailers and containers (E), Car engines (F), and Automotive parts (G).
Sector A B C D E F G Sum
Final demand (Mil. USD) Consumption 27,581 (27.5%) 321 (0.3%) - - - - 420 (0.4%) 28,323 (28.3%)
Investment 16,670 (16.6%) 1,841 (1.8%) 3,032 (3.0%) 2,993 (3.0%) 341 (0.3%) 126 (0.1%) 453 (0.5%) 25,456 (25.4%)
Exports 38,887 (38.8%) 1,164 (1.2%) 2,725 (2.7%) 270 (0.3%) 36 (0.0%) 2,391 (2.4%) 19,028 (19.0%) 64,501 (64.4%)
Imports 11,065 (11.0%) 71 (0.1%) 690 (0.7%) 362 (0.4%) 108 (0.1%) 1,493 (1.5%) 4,252 (4.2%) 18,042 (18%)
Total 72,073 (71.9%) 3,255 (3.2%) 5,066 (5.1%) 2,901 (2.9%) 269 (0.3%) 1,024 (1.0%) 15,649 (15.6%) 100,237 (100%)

Total GHG emissions (kt CO2eq.) Consumption 15,832 (26.2%) 180 (0.3%) - - - - 322 (0.5%) 16,334 (27.1%)
Investment 9,569 (15.9%) 1,030 (1.7%) 1,618 (2.7%) 1,856 (3.1%) 329 (0.5%) 47 (0.1%) 347 (0.6%) 14,796 (24.5%)
Exports 22,322 (37.0%) 651 (1.1%) 1,454 (2.4%) 168 (0.3%) 35 (0.1%) 897 (1.5%) 14,574 (24.2%) 40,101 (66.5%)
Imports 6,352 (10.5%) 40 (0.1%) 368 (0.6%) 225 (0.4%) 104 (0.2%) 560 (0.9%) 3,257 (5.4%) 10,906 (18.1%)
Total 41,372 (68.6%) 1,821 (3.0%) 2,704 (4.5%) 1,799 (3.0%) 260 (0.4%) 384 (0.6%) 11,985 (19.9%) 60,325 (100.0%)
PDF Links  PDF Links
PubReader  PubReader
Full text via DOI  Full text via DOI
Download Citation  Download Citation
Supplement  Supplement
Editorial Office
464 Cheongpa-ro, #726, Jung-gu, Seoul 04510, Republic of Korea
FAX : +82-2-383-9654   E-mail : eer@kosenv.or.kr

Copyright© Korean Society of Environmental Engineers.        Developed in M2PI
About |  Browse Articles |  Current Issue |  For Authors and Reviewers