May 13, 2026

CO₂ equivalent: what it is, how it is calculated and why it matters more than CO₂ alone

In the language of sustainability, talking only about CO is almost never enough to truly describe the climate impact of a product, process or company. This is why CO equivalent is now used — a metric that makes it possible to aggregate the climate effect of the main greenhouse gases into a single value.

CO equivalent calculation: what is it?

CO equivalent, also indicated as COeq., is a unit of measurement that translates the impact of different greenhouse gases into the equivalent amount of carbon dioxide needed to produce the same effect on global warming. This approach therefore makes it possible to compare different gases using a single reference scale based on the Global Warming Potential, or GWP.

In the technical context, COeq. is the metric used to express the overall carbon footprint of products, activities and organisations. It is also the language used to interpret environmental indicators such as GWP in EPDs and Life Cycle Assessments (LCA).

How does it differ from the “traditional” CO calculation?

There is a clear difference: CO calculation measures only carbon dioxide emissions, while CO equivalent calculation also includes other greenhouse gases, such as:

  • methane;
  • nitrous oxide;
  • refrigerant gases and, more generally, all fluorinated gases.

Consequently, while pure CO calculation provides only a partial picture, CO equivalent calculation offers a much more comprehensive assessment of the real climate impact.

This distinction is important because not all greenhouse gases have the same ability to retain heat in the atmosphere. In practice, limiting the analysis to CO alone can underestimate the environmental impact of a business activity or building material, especially when emissions other than direct combustion are involved throughout the supply chain.

The difference between CO, greenhouse gases and CO equivalent

Human-induced climate change is caused by the release of various gases into the Earth’s atmosphere, known as greenhouse gases (GHG). The main one is carbon dioxide (CO), a gas emitted in large quantities whenever fossil fuels are burned. However, production, industrial and agricultural activities also release other gases with a much higher climate-altering potential, such as methane (CH), nitrous oxide (NO) and refrigerant gases.

To objectively measure and compare these substances, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) developed the Global Warming Potential (GWP). This index evaluates the warming potential absorbed by a given quantity of a greenhouse gas over a specific period of time, usually 100 years, compared with the same mass of CO. For example, when evaluating the impact over a century, methane has a polluting capacity 28 times greater than CO, while nitrous oxide (NO) is approximately 265 times more powerful.

Since a single element or industrial activity can cause the emission of a combination of greenhouse gases in varying quantities, measuring them individually would make carbon footprint calculation extremely complex. To simplify emissions analysis and make results comparable, the term CO equivalent (COeq.) is used as the standard unit of measurement.

The difference between the two concepts is that CO refers exclusively to carbon dioxide emissions, while CO equivalent includes the measurement of the impact of all greenhouse gases by converting them into their equivalent CO value.

Technical deep dive: how is it calculated?

To calculate COeq., the quantity emitted of each greenhouse gas is multiplied by its global warming factor relative to CO, which by convention has a value of 1.

In corporate and product assessments, a recurring formula is: COeq. emissions = activity data × emission factor

Activity data may include, for example, energy consumption, transport or the use of raw materials, while the emission factor indicates how many emissions are generated for each unit considered.

Advantages and disadvantages of this approach for companies

For companies, adopting CO equivalent means using a more robust metric suitable for measuring carbon footprint in a consistent and comparable way. This is particularly useful in environmental reporting processes, EPDs and LCAs, where a common technical basis is needed to interpret the impact of materials and processes.

The main advantages include:

  • greater analysis accuracy;
  • better comparability between products;
  • the possibility of identifying more precisely where to intervene to reduce emissions.

The disadvantages include:

  • greater calculation complexity, which can easily be solved through the use of dedicated software;
  • the need for reliable data throughout the supply chain. However, by relying on partners with certified products and sustainability credentials such as Artigo, this difficulty can easily be overcome.
  • the fact that, without a good data collection system, the result risks being incomplete or poorly representative.

 

Conclusion

For a company, calculating CO alone may only be useful in very limited analyses, but it is not sufficient when the goal is to measure overall climate impact in a serious and credible way. CO equivalent is now the most appropriate approach because it makes it possible to transform the complexity of emissions into a single indicator that is readable and technically more reliable.

CONTACT US!

"*" indicates required fields

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
The Privacy Policy of the website, drafted by Artigo S.p.A.- Single-Member Company, as Data Controller, has been read and accepted, in order to reply to your request.
Newsletter
Scroll to Top