Sustainability · Methodology
How we count, openly
Every carbon figure on this site comes from the factors below. If you disagree with one, substitute your own — the arithmetic still works, which is rather the point of publishing it.
Request pricing
Everything marked with a star is required. The rest helps us quote faster.
RePallet Co. uses 4.8 kg CO₂e avoided per pallet reused, 23 board feet of lumber per 48" x 40" pallet and 16.3 kg of diverted mass per unit, net of our own fleet emissions.
We do not count carbon sequestered in the wood, do not claim avoided landfill methane, and do not report gross of transport. Each of those choices would materially increase the headline figure.
The factors
| Factor | Value | Applied to | Basis |
|---|---|---|---|
| Avoided manufacture | 4.8 kg CO₂e / pallet | Each pallet reused or repaired | Published LCA range for new North American hardwood 48x40, midpoint |
| Lumber per pallet | 23 board feet | Each pallet reused | Measured across our own dismantling line |
| Board feet per tree | 275 bf | Tree equivalence only | Working estimate for mature hardwood; illustrative |
| Diverted mass | 16.3 kg / pallet | Landfill diversion | Mean dry mass, our weighbridge data |
| Fleet emissions | 10.2 kg CO₂ / gal diesel | Netted from savings | Standard diesel combustion factor |
| Fleet efficiency | 6.1 mpg loaded | Route emissions | Our own fuel records |
| Driving equivalence | 0.404 kg CO₂ / mile | Illustration only | US passenger vehicle average |
| Annual vehicle mileage | 11,500 miles | Car equivalence | US average, illustrative |
| Procurement delta | $6.50 / pallet | Cost saving | New vs recycled Grade A, Denver, rolling average |
Boundaries
What is inside the boundary and what is not. Most disagreements about pallet carbon figures are boundary disagreements rather than factor disagreements.
- Inside: avoided manufacture of a replacement pallet.
- Inside: our own collection and delivery emissions, subtracted.
- Inside: repair lumber, valued at its alternative use rather than at zero.
- Outside: carbon sequestered in the wood itself.
- Outside: avoided landfill methane.
- Outside: the customer's own freight and handling.
- Outside: our yard's electricity and building energy, which is reported separately and is small.
Choices we did not make
Five accounting choices, all defensible, all of which would raise the number. We have taken none of them, and we publish what each is worth so you can compare us against operators who have.
| Choice | Would add | Running total |
|---|---|---|
| Our published figure | — | 893 t |
| Report gross rather than net of fleet emissions | +341 t | 1,234 t |
| Claim avoided landfill methane (mid-range factor) | +1,450 t | 2,684 t |
| Use a virgin-timber baseline | +204 t | 2,888 t |
| Allocate recovered lumber generously | +480 t | 3,368 t |
| Count sequestration in the wood | +5,115 t | 8,483 t |
The full argument for each is in this journal post.
Where we are weakest
Naming these is more useful than defending them.
- The baseline. 4.8 kg assumes a new hardwood 48x40 was the alternative. If your alternative was a cheap softwood pallet, your real saving is closer to 3.6 kg and our figure overstates it for you.
- Tree equivalence. 275 board feet per tree is a working estimate that varies enormously by species, age and mill efficiency. Treat the tree figure as an illustration, not a forestry calculation.
- Repair lumber allocation. We count the avoided manufacture once, at the repair. There is a reasonable argument that some benefit should be attributed to the dismantled pallet that supplied the board. We have not found a method that avoids double counting.
- Fleet netting granularity. Emissions are netted at the fleet level, not per batch. A batch collected on a long unpaired run therefore looks better than it was.
Mapping our figures to reporting frameworks
Customers increasingly need our numbers to land in a specific box in their own reporting. Here is where each figure belongs, with the usual caveats about your own accounting policy taking precedence.
| Our figure | Typical destination | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Tonnage diverted from landfill | Waste diversion rate | Measured on our weighbridge |
| Reuse / repair / recovery split | Waste hierarchy disclosure | Counted at the sort line |
| Units kept in circulation | Circular material use rate | Unit count, not modelled |
| Board feet recovered | Material circularity indicator | Measured at de-nailing |
| CO₂e avoided | GHG Protocol Scope 3, cat. 5 and 12 | Modelled from a published factor |
| Ferrous scrap tonnage | Metals recovery | Weighed at dispatch |
| Fibre tonnage and end use | Recovery disclosure | Weighed and destination named |
| Landfill tonnage | Residual waste | The rejected-timber stream, published |
Sensitivity analysis
A single-point carbon figure implies a precision that does not exist. This is how much our headline moves if the key assumptions move.
| Input | Our value | Low case | High case | Effect on headline |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Avoided manufacture | 4.8 kg/pallet | 3.6 | 5.9 | 670 t – 1,097 t |
| Fleet efficiency | 6.1 mpg | 5.5 | 6.8 | ±38 t |
| Repair share of intake | 31% | 26% | 36% | ±74 t |
| Reuse share of intake | 46% | 41% | 51% | ±93 t |
| Diesel factor | 10.2 kg/gal | 10.0 | 10.4 | ±7 t |
| Combined range | 893 t | ≈ 590 t | ≈ 1,260 t | −34% / +41% |
So the honest statement is: roughly 600 to 1,250 tonnes, best estimate 893. We publish the point figure because reporting frameworks demand one, and we publish this table because the point figure on its own would be misleading.
What we measure ourselves versus what we take from literature
| Input | Source | Confidence |
|---|---|---|
| Intake and dispatch weights | Our weighbridge | High — measured |
| Unit counts by disposition | Sort line count | High — counted |
| Board feet recovered | De-nailing line tally | High — counted, some rounding |
| Ferrous scrap tonnage | Smelter receipts | High — third-party weighed |
| Fleet fuel | Fuel card records | High — measured |
| Fleet mileage | Odometer and route logs | High |
| Diesel emissions factor | Standard published factor | High — well established |
| Avoided manufacture, 4.8 kg | Published LCA literature, midpoint | Moderate — our weakest input |
| Board feet per pallet, 23 | Our own dismantling measurements | High for our stream |
| Board feet per tree, 275 | Working estimate | Low — illustrative only |
The two rows to read carefully are the last two. The avoided-manufacture factor is the largest single driver of our headline number and it is the input we measure least directly. The tree figure is an illustration and should never appear in a formal disclosure.
What would improve this
- A primary LCA of a North American recycled pallet, which does not currently exist in public literature at the granularity we would want.
- Per-batch rather than fleet-level freight netting, which needs telematics we have not yet fitted.
- Third-party verification of the carbon figures, not just the zero-landfill claim.
- An agreed industry convention on allocating benefit between a dismantled pallet and the pallet its boards repair.
Questions people actually ask
Why not count carbon stored in the wood?
Why not claim landfill diversion credit?
Can my auditor speak to someone?
Is the methodology third-party verified?
Can we use your figures in a CSRD or CDP submission?
Why is your number lower than competitors'?
Do you have third-party verification?
How often are the factors reviewed?
Can I substitute my own factors?
Let's keep your pallets in the loop
Whether you have 40 broken cores behind the dock or need 4,000 Grade A pallets a month, the conversation starts the same way.