Supplier indicators

In addition to our own sustainability activities, we also engage our suppliers and their suppliers toward better sustainability practices. To that end, we are active in various supply chain initiatives around the world.

Philips has a direct business relationship with approximately 10,000 product and component suppliers and 30,000 service providers. Given the size and complexity of our supply chain we need to focus our efforts. Therefore, we developed an approach based on the supplier’s sustainability risk profile related to spend, country of production, business risk and type of supplier relationship. The risk profile is used to select suppliers for inclusion in our sustainability audit program, conflict minerals, hazardous substance management and IDH Electronics program.

Philips Supplier Sustainability Declaration

The Philips Supplier Sustainability Declaration is based on the EICC Code of Conduct and in line with our General Business Principles, we added requirements on Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining. The topics covered include labor and human rights, worker health and safety, environmental impact, ethics, and management systems. We monitor supplier compliance to the Declaration through a system of regular audits.

In 2012 we updated the Philips Supplier Sustainability Declaration, in line with the new version of the EICC Code of Conduct. In 2013, we rolled-out the updated Declaration via the new purchasing contracts signed with suppliers, and via all trainings and audits done per January 1, 2013. The updated Declaration includes 4 entirely new provisions, and 14 updates to existing provisions. The new provisions are related to responsible sourcing of minerals, protection of privacy, non-retaliation, and supplier responsibility to monitor code compliance at next tier suppliers.

The Declaration requires suppliers to cascade the EICC Code down to their next tier suppliers. Suppliers must regard the Code as a total supply chain initiative and at a minimum, also require its next tier suppliers to acknowledge and implement the Code. This roll-out to deeper levels in the supply chain is reviewed during the on-site audits, where it is assessed how requirements have been communicated to the next tier suppliers and whether there is an effective process in place to ensure that the next tier suppliers implement the Code.

Risk suppliers with who we have a direct business relationship are included in the supplier sustainability audit program, and most of these are tier 1 suppliers. However, sometimes Philips also selects and prescribes the tier 2 suppliers, in which case these tier 2 suppliers will also be included in the audit program.

Supplier Sustainability Audit Program

We monitor supplier compliance with the Declaration through a system of regular audits. During these audits, an independent external party visits the supplier’s site for several man-days to hold interviews with workers and management, do a factory tour, and review documentation. Based on their risk profile, 572 risk suppliers are included in the supplier audit and development program; the majority of these are in China. During the audits, compliance with all sections of the Declaration is reviewed. In the event of non-compliance (NC) we require suppliers to make a corrective action plan, and we monitor its implementation until all major NCs are resolved. Full-scope audits are conducted in a 3-year cycle; to date we have audited 90% of all identified risk suppliers.

2013 Audits

In 2013 we audited 200 of our current risk suppliers, including 131 continued conformance audits with suppliers that we already audited in 2010. Risk suppliers from recently acquired companies are also included, and this year we audited 27 suppliers from the acquisitions of Povos and Preethi. As in previous years, the majority of the audits were done in China. Also in Brazil, India and Mexico audits were done, as well as a small number of audits in Indonesia, Ukraine and Vietnam. With these audits we directly or indirectly impacted over 110,000 workers employed at the production sites that were audited.

On top of the audits with current risk suppliers, we also audited 59 potential suppliers during the supplier selection process. These potential suppliers need to close any zero-tolerance issues before they can start delivering to Philips. Below we report on the findings at existing suppliers only; findings at potential suppliers are not included in this report since these suppliers are not (yet) part of Philips’ supply base.

To track improvements Philips measures the ‘compliance rate’ for the identified risk suppliers, being the percentage of risk suppliers was audited within the last 3 years and don’t have - or have resolved all - major NCs. During 2013 we achieved a compliance rate of 77% (2012: 75%).

Per January 2013 we rolled out an updated version of the Philips Supplier Sustainability Declaration and audit checklist. Philips follows the EICC classification for distinguishing major and minor NCs, and in the new audit checklist the classification of what is a major and what is a minor NC changed for several topics. This explains some of the differences in audit findings 2013 compared to 2012.

Audit findings

Below table shows the results of the full scope audits done during 2013. When the audit reveals areas of non-compliance we request suppliers to implement corrective actions and our sustainability experts and independent third party auditors monitor the implementation during resolution audits. The results of the resolution audits are not included in the table below.

Positive trends compared to last year

  • Occupational safety (NCs down 29%)
  • Working hours (on average 22% less NCs in 2013)
  • Emergency preparedness (NCs down 8%)
  • Wages and benefits (NCs down 8%)

Above topics belong to the most frequently observed areas of non-compliance and therefore, during our supplier development activities and visits we have paid more attention to these topics in 2013.

Negative trends compared to last year

  • Business integrity (NCs up 28% - no training provided for employees)
  • Freely chosen employment (NCs up 11% - workers paying deposits)
  • Child labor prohibition/young worker management (NCs up 10% - young employees working overtime)

Above increases we believe are mostly the result of more stringent criteria in the new EICC audit checklist.

Management systems

There may be areas where our audits reveal compliance in actual practice, but the related underlying management systems to safeguard continued compliance may not be sufficient. Therefore, also management systems are reviewed during the audits. Although the 2013 audits show improvements compared to previous years, we see this as a continued weak area at suppliers where further capacity building is necessary. Related to management systems the most frequently observed NCs are a lack of third-party certified management systems, supplier responsibility (EICC Code requirements have not been communicated to the next tier suppliers), insufficient management accountability and responsibility, and absence of improvement objectives.

Summary of 2013 initial and continued conformance audit findings per region
suppliers with one or more major non-compliances per category (in % of suppliers audited in 2013)
“<10%” means that <10% of the supplier audits done in 2013 showed areas of non-compliance for a certain topic
 
China
Asia excl. China
LATAM
EMEA
Total
No. of audits
139
35
24
2
200
Initial audits
44
15
9
1
69
Continued conformance audits
95
20
15
1
131
Average number of non-compliances per audit
11
18
9
11
12
Workers employed at sites audited
88,775
13,008
8,067
516
110,336
Labor
 
 
 
 
 
Freely Chosen Employment1)
10-25%
50-75%
10-25%
-
10-25%
Child labor prohibition /young worker management2)
10-25%
<10%
<10%
-
10-25%
Working hours
50-75%
50-75%
<10%
-
50-75%
Wages and Benefits
50-75%
25-50%
-
50-75%
25-50%
Humane Treatment
<10%
<10%
<10%
-
<10%
Non-discrimination
<10%
-
-
-
<10%
Freedom of association
-
10-25%
<10%
-
<10%
Health & Safety
 
 
 
 
 
Occupational Safety
25-50%
25-50%
<10%
50-75%
25-50%
Emergency Preparedness
25-50%
50-75%
25-50%
>75%
25-50%
Occupational Injury and Illness
25-50%
25-50%
10-25%
50-75%
25-50%
Industrial Hygiene
25-50%
25-50%
<10%
>75%
25-50%
Physically demanding work
<10%
<10%
10-25%
-
<10%
Machine safeguarding
10-25%
<10%
-
50-75%
10-25%
Food Sanitation and Housing
10-25%
10-25%
10-25%
50-75%
10-25%
Environment
 
 
 
 
 
Environmental Permits and Reporting
10-25%
25-50%
10-25%
>75%
10-25%
Pollution prevention and resource reduction
<10%
25-50%
10-25%
-
<10%
Hazardous substances
25-50%
25-50%
-
50-75%
25-50%
Waste water and solid waste
<10%
<10%
10-25%
50-75%
<10%
Air emissions
10-25%
<10%
10-25%
-
10-25%
Product content restrictions
-
-
-
-
-
Management systems
 
 
 
 
 
Certified management system (SA8000, etc.)
50-75%
>75%
50-75%
>75%
50-75%
Company commitment
10-25%
25-50%
10-25%
-
10-25%
Management accountability and responsibility
25-50%
50-75%
25-50%
50-75%
25-50%
Legal and customer requirements
10-25%
25-50%
25-50%
-
10-25%
Risk assessment and risk management
25-50%
50-75%
10-25%
>75%
25-50%
Improvement objectives
25-50%
50-75%
25-50%
-
25-50%
Training
10-25%
50-75%
25-50%
-
25-50%
Communication
10-25%
25-50%
10-25%
-
25-50%
Worker feedback and participation
10-25%
25-50%
10-25%
-
10-25%
Audits and assessments
25-50%
50-75%
25-50%
-
25-50%
Corrective action process
25-50%
25-50%
25-50%
-
25-50%
Documentation and records
10-25%
25-50%
<10%
-
10-25%
Supplier responsibility
25-50%
50-75%
25-50%
-
25-50%
Ethics
 
 
 
 
 
Business Integrity
25-50%
25-50%
25-50%
-
25-50%
No improper advantage
<10%
<10%
25-50%
-
<10%
Disclosure of information
<10%
<10%
-
-
<10%
Protection of Intellectual Property
<10%
25-50%
<10%
-
<10%
Fair business, advertising and competition
10-25%
<10%
10-25%
-
<10%
Protection of identity
<10%
25-50%
10-25%
-
<10%
Responsible sourcing of minerals
<10%
<10%
-
-
<10%
Privacy
-
-
-
-
-
Non-retaliation
<10%
<10%
<10%
-
<10%
General
 
 
 
 
 
EICC Code
<10%
25-50%
10-25%
50-75%
10-25%
1)
Freely Chosen Employment: these cases are related to workers having to pay a deposit to their employer, which is not acceptable under the EICC Code of Conduct. We requested suppliers to take corrective action and verified that the deposits were returned to the workers and supplier policies were changed.
2)
Child labor avoidance /young worker management: this is related to A) 20 cases of young workers (16 – 18 years) working overtime hours, which is not allowed by local laws. We requested suppliers to stop this and verified implementation of corrective action during resolving audits. B) two cases of historic child labor, where a labor agency and a supplier hired 2 workers a couple of months prior to reaching the legal age. We requested suppliers to strengthen its management system and age verification procedure, and ensured that the workers were enrolled in the young worker management program. If we find any cases of child labor, we require suppliers to take immediate action according to the ILO guidelines for employers of child labor, see also our child labor policy

Implementing corrective actions

On average we see 12 major NCs per supplier audit, and work with each supplier to resolve these NCs within 90 days where possible. Goal is to improve the conditions in the supplier factories. Therefore, we focus on training, supplier development and implementation of corrective action plans with those suppliers. In exceptional cases where the supplier is unwilling to improve, we will decide to end the business relationship, which we did for 15 suppliers in 2013.

If Philips notices that there is a delay in the realization of the corrective action plan by the supplier, Philips uses a stratified approach for consequence management. Depending on the root cause why the supplier is not taking sufficient corrective actions, Philips can decide to: send a formal warning to the supplier; allocate no new projects; allocate no new orders; or stop doing business.

Audit progress and targets
2013 Goals
Progress
Compliance rate: 67%
Reached 77% compliance rate
2014 Goals
 
75% of corrective actions implemented within 90 days (for major NCs found in 2014 audits)
 

More information on the Supplier Sustainability Involvement Program, the Philips Supplier Sustainability Declaration and audit approach can be found at www.philips.com/suppliers.

Supplier training and capacity building

Based on many years of experience with the audit program, we know that a combination of audits, capacity building, consequence management and structural attention from management is crucial to realize structural and lasting changes at supplier production sites.

Developing risk suppliers

Since 2012 we are extending our capacity building initiatives which are offered to help suppliers improve their practices. We organize classroom training sessions, Philips sustainability experts regularly visit suppliers to provide on-site consultancy and training, and we invite suppliers to participate in trainings provided by the EICC.

This is what we did different in 2013 training sessions, to improve the impact of the supplier trainings and audit results:

  • Smaller groups (less than 40 attendees per training, more training sessions, 22 full days of training were given), to enable more interaction and dialogue with and between suppliers
  • Suppliers performed self-assessments prior to the training
  • Suppliers learned how to do a self-audit after the training, Philips experts helped suppliers in this process and with the follow-up actions

In China we invited suppliers for classroom training sessions which were attended by over 190 active and potential suppliers, representing a workforce of more than 120,000 factory workers in total. Next to basic training on the EICC Code of Conduct, dedicated trainings were provided for areas where we often see weak performance during the audits, e.g. fire safety, working hours, and management systems.

We continued our training programs for Philips buyers and quality managers, supporting them to further integrate sustainability in their daily work with suppliers.

Supplier training and capacity building
2013 Goals
Progress
35% of active risk suppliers in China involved in supplier sustainability development program
Supplier sustainability development program was initiated in China. 44% suppliers are involved in sustainability development program
 
Worked together with Philips customers to improve sustainability performance over multiple tiers of the supply chain, harmonizing sustainability expectations and requirements towards suppliers.
2014
 
Roll-out best practices and learnings from IDH electronics program to Chinese suppliers included in audit program
 
Start dedicated 3-year program to improve Health & Safety conditions in supplier factories. Start roll-out to 20% of the Chinese suppliers in 2014
 

Sustainable Trade Initiative IDH

Since 2011 Philips has been an active initiator and participant in the IDH Electronics Program, a multi-stakeholder initiative sponsored by the Dutch government to accelerate sustainable trade by building partnerships between leading multinationals, civil society organizations, governments, and other stakeholders.

The IDH Electronics Program aims to support the development of sustainable and innovative workforce management practices for over 75 suppliers. Unlike other CSR programs that have been implemented previously in the industry, this program steers away from traditional auditing methods and seeks to make a significant impact by building and up-scaling the skills of both workers and management. By promoting worker-management dialogue and helping to develop employees’ skills and careers, the program strives to reduce employee turnover and wastage, improve energy efficiency and improve the overall performance of supplier factories. The goal is to improve working conditions for more than 500,000 employees in the electronics sector.

Participating suppliers are given an ‘Entry Point Assessment’ to identify issues that affect both factory management and employees, such as worker-management communication, occupational health and safety, production, performance management and environmental issues. This is then used to develop a tailor-made action plan with each supplier, based on improved dialogue between management and employees. Suppliers receive support over a period of up to 24 months, and the cost of the program is shared between the supplier, Philips, and the IDH.

In 2013, IDH was extended from the Pearl River Delta Area to include the Yangtze River Delta area. As of year-end 2013, the program covers 52 suppliers to Philips, Apple, Nokia, Dell and Hewlett-Packard. A total of 15 Philips suppliers are now involved in the program, seven in the Yangtze River Delta area and eight in the Pearl River Delta Area, covering around 17,000 employees. Together with other branded goods manufacturers, we are going beyond a supplier audit. In order to ensure a worthwhile output we are also working together with suppliers and the IDH program team to identify the top three improvement actions, and we are monitoring progress closely. Suppliers such as ‘company B’ are starting to see the benefits of this program.

IDH
2013 Goals
Progress
Increase number of participating Philips suppliers from 7 to 15 suppliers
15 suppliers are now participating. Another 5 were invited and are in the process of enrolling
Each IDH supplier identifies its top 3 improvement actions
All 15 suppliers completed their Entry Point Assessments and identified improvement areas and 11 suppliers defined their top 3 improvement actions and completed development of their work plans
2014 Goals
 
Increase number of participating suppliers to 20 
 
All participating suppliers identify their top 3 improvement actions and develop their work plans
 
70% of all identified top 3 improvement actions implemented by end 2014
 

IDH case study

B is a company based in Hong Kong, which has an electronics factory located in Dongguan, China. As a Philips supplier, B has been involved in the IDH Electronics Program since January 2013.

B has implemented a series of improvement plans in different areas, including worker-management communication, workers’ welfare and pay, health and safety, factory facilities and production. These improvement actions have resulted in increased productivity and greater employee satisfaction.

To improve worker-management communication, for example, B has set up a factory improvement team made up of front-line production workers, departmental representatives and managerial staff. B’s management believes that talking directly to front-line workers gives a more accurate picture of what is going on in the company than hear-say reports that are passed up through the organizational hierarchy. The team structure helps to facilitate B’s cultural values of mutual respect and open communication.

In the coming years B’s management will continue their active cooperation and dialogue with employees. Challenges will be identified jointly through constructive dialogue facilitated by the IDH Program.

Issues further down the chain

Conflict minerals

In line with Philips’ commitment to supply chain sustainability, we feel obliged to implement measures in our chain to ensure that our products are not directly or indirectly funding human atrocities in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). We are concerned about the situation in eastern DRC where proceeds from the extractives sector are used to finance rebel conflicts in the region. Philips is committed to address this issue, even though it does not directly source minerals from the DRC. The supply chain for the metals of concern consists of many tiers, including mines, traders, exporters, smelters, refiners, alloy producers and component manufacturers, before reaching Philips’ direct suppliers.

Philips has committed not to purchase raw materials, subassemblies, or supplies which we know contain conflict minerals that directly or indirectly finance or benefit armed groups in the DRC or an adjoining country. Philips works towards the following goals:

  • Minimize trade in conflict minerals that benefit armed groups in the DRC or an adjoining country
  • Enable legitimate minerals from the region to enter global supply chains, thereby supporting the Congolese economy and the local communities that depend on these exports.

What are conflict minerals?

Conflict minerals are defined in the US Dodd-Frank Act as tin, tantalum, tungsten and gold. They can come from many sources around the world, including mines in the DRC which are estimated to provide approximately 18% of global tantalum production, 4% of tin, 3% of tungsten, and 2% of gold. These minerals may end up in many different products such as cars, planes, chemicals, jewelry, packaging, and electronics equipment.

Collaboration with different stakeholders

We believe that industry collaboration and stakeholder dialogue are key to creating impact at these deeper levels of our supply chain. Since 2008 Philips is actively contributing to the Conflict Free Sourcing Initiative, a joint effort founded by a coalition of leading electronics companies from the industry organizations EICC and GeSI (formerly called the “EICC-GeSI Extractives Work Group”). Over 120 companies participate in this initiative today, and we have formed partnerships with other leadership groups from across industries, government and civil society. The Conflict Free Sourcing Initiative provides information on conflict-free smelters and refiners, common tools and standards to collect supply chain information, and forums for exchanging best practices. It is a multi-sector, multi-stakeholder network, and reduces the need for duplication of efforts across the many sectors that are using these minerals. See also www.conflictfreesmelter.org

As we have been doing for years, we continued in 2013 our engagement with relevant stakeholders including the European Parliament, other industry organizations and local as well as international NGOs in Europe and the U.S. to see how we can resolve the issue. To assist in developing a due diligence standard for conflict minerals, we participated in the multi-stakeholder OECD-hosted program for the implementation of the “OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains of Minerals from Conflict-Affected and High-Risk Areas”.

Supply chain due diligence

In 2013 we continued our work with 349 priority suppliers to raise awareness and conduct supply chain investigations into the country of origin for the metals. These suppliers cover more than 80% of the relevant purchasing spend. Using the standard Conflict Minerals Reporting Template we requested our suppliers to report back their progress and to disclose which smelters are used in their supply chains to produce the metals.

Progress on smelter identification

Philips suppliers have provided the names of several hundred possible smelters and we are working to confirm which of these actually are smelters. For all four metals together we now identified 191 confirmed smelters in our supply chain, of which the majority is located in Asia. 29% of these successfully passed their Conflict Free Smelter (CFS) assessment, thereby confirming their conflict-free status. None of the smelters identified in our supply chain is known to source minerals that benefit armed groups in the DRC, and our suppliers reported back that they provide us with conflict-free products. Nevertheless, we continue to urge smelters to confirm their status via independent third party assessments.

Philips was the first company to publish its smelter list on internet in 2012. In doing so we created transparency at deeper levels in our supply chain of those actors that we believe hold the key towards effectively addressing the concerns around conflict minerals. In 2013 we updated the smelter list with new information received from our suppliers, and we will continue to do so as more information becomes available over time.

Conflict-free smelter program

Smelters mix minerals from many sources and refine it into metal used in our industry. The smelter is at a key point in the supply chain to enforce responsible sourcing by implementing due diligence in selecting their mineral sources. The EICC-GeSI CFS program makes it possible to identify smelters that can demonstrate through an independent third party assessment that the minerals they procure did not originate from sources that contribute to conflict in the DRC. After having identified smelters in our supply chain, Philips started to invite these smelters to participate in the CFS program.

A list of CFS compliant smelters for tin, tantalum and gold has been published, and assessments for tungsten smelters are under way. As sufficient conflict-free smelters for all four metals become available, Philips plans to direct its supply chain towards these smelters. See www.conflictfreesmelter.org for more details.

Conflict Free Tin Initiative

In September 2012, the Conflict Free Tin Initiative was launched, introducing a tightly controlled conflict-free supply chain for tin, from a mine in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) all the way to an end-product. Philips is one of the industry partners brought together by the Dutch government that initiated this conflict-free sourcing program in eastern DRC. In an effort to prevent minerals from financing war, many companies worldwide have refrained from purchasing minerals from the DRC, leading to a de facto embargo and a collapse of the local economy.

The easiest route would have been to simply abandon sources from the DRC and nearby countries (forbidding suppliers from sourcing there) and to rely instead on supplies from conflict-free regions. However, we decided against that approach. Instead of avoiding the DRC, we took the more difficult road, supporting conflict-free sources within the region.

Conflict minerals
2013 Goals
Progress
Awareness raising and capability building with buyers and suppliers
Conflict minerals is now a standard part of the Philips procurement core curriculum
 
Organized webinars for buyers and suppliers, attended by about 120 participants and installed a helpdesk (English and Chinese) to support suppliers in collecting the requested information
Priority suppliers to adopt a conflict-free sourcing policy
71% of the priority suppliers did
Priority suppliers to investigate supply chain and report back on progress and results
94% of the priority suppliers completed the standard Conflict Minerals Reporting Template. 69% disclosed smelters identified in their supply chain
Conflict Free Tin Initiative: include DRC tin in end-user product
In Q4 the first products were made using this DRC conflict-free tin
2014 Goals
 
Publish a Philips Conflict Minerals Report validated by external auditors
 
Collect Conflict Minerals Reporting Templates from at least 80% of priority suppliers, applying stricter criteria on data quality and completeness
 
Conflict Free Tin Initiative: include DRC tin in mainstream solder supply (move from pilot to normal business)
 

For more details, see www.philips.com/suppliers and the published Philips position paper on Conflict Minerals.

Tin mining in Indonesia

The islands of Bangka and Belitung, Indonesia, are one of the world’s principal tin-producing regions. Recently concerns have been raised about environmental devastation and unsafe working conditions related to the illegal mining of tin in this region. To evaluate possibilities for addressing these concerns, Philips teamed up with other frontrunner companies, the tin industry and civil society in the new IDH Indonesian Tin Working Group, coordinated by the Dutch Sustainable Trade Initiative IDH. We co-funded a situational analysis and sustainability assessment commissioned by this working group to better understand the situation and the potential ways for downstream companies to take constructive action.

Other initiatives in our supply chain

Carbon footprint of our supply chain

Society has a pressing need to manage and reduce CO2 emissions over the whole value chain, including at supplier level. Therefore 80 of the largest suppliers to Philips have been invited to report their carbon footprint as part of the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) Supply Chain program. 69 suppliers completed the full questionnaire, showing increased performance with respect to climate change. This year, Philips became a founding member of the CDP Action Exchange program, connecting our suppliers to globally recognized solutions providers in the field of energy-efficient technology, helping them in their search for innovative solutions to reduce their future emissions, for instance by applying LED lighting technology.

Substance management with suppliers

We work with suppliers to eliminate and minimize the use of hazardous substances in our products and production processes. Since regulatory requirements affecting electronics frequently change, we structurally collect information from suppliers in an online tool (BOMcheck) since 2010, in particular for those suppliers that provide materials which could represent a risk in terms of compliance, e.g. soft plastics, complex materials, and ROHS-relevant materials. Philips validates the substance declarations received from suppliers to ensure that the products we put on the market are compliant with the Philips Regulated Substances List and all relevant legislation. During 2013 we collected and validated substance declarations for nearly 95% of all relevant components and products.

(0)
(0)
This is an interactive electronic version of the Philips Annual Report 2013 and also contains certain information in summarized form. The contents of this version are qualified in their entirety by reference to the printed version of the full Philips Annual Report 2013. This printed version is available as a PDF file on this website. Information about: forward-looking statements, third-party market share data, fair value information, IFRS basis of presentation, use of non-GAAP information, statutory financial statements and management report, reclassifications and analysis of 2013 compared to 2012.

Philips uses Productivity internally and as mentioned in this annual report as a non-financial indicator of efficiency that relates the added value, being income from operations adjusted for certain items such as restructuring and acquisition-related charges etc. plus salaries and wages (including pension costs and other social security and similar charges), depreciation of property, plant and equipment, and amortization of intangibles, to the average number of employees over the past 12 months.

CO2-equivalent or carbon dioxide equivalent is a quantity that describes, for a given mixture and amount of greenhouse gas, the amount of CO2 that would have the same global warming potential (GWP), when measured over a specified timescale (generally 100 years).