Determining the carbon footprint of Australia’s electricity, gas, water and waste services sector Open Access

Climate change and global warming present urgent and significant challenges. The environment, crucial for human survival, has suffered irreversible damage due to the rapid development of industrialisation and the pollution it has created. This crisis, with its serious consequences such as rising sea levels and shortages of food and water, underscores the critical need for rigorous research and immediate action in this field (Shang et al., 2024). Global warming, driven by carbon emissions from various human activities such as transportation, manufacturing, tourism, and agriculture, is a crisis in which human activities play a significant role. Understanding our part in this process is crucial for motivating change and taking responsibility for different nations’ actions (Zaman et al., 2025).

The World Bank (2020) indicated that Australia’s carbon dioxide emissions per capita stood at 15.3 metric tons in 2018, surpassing the G20 nations’ average and ranking as the highest among the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development countries. In 2019, Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions amounted to 535.2 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent. The nation has committed to reducing emissions by 26–28% below 2005 levels by 2030. It aims to achieve net-zero emissions around 2050, aligning with the Paris Agreement (Levy, 2016), to remain within the recommended carbon budget of 1% of the global total. Consequently, there has been a surge in interest among scholars who have published studies measuring the carbon footprint of various countries or regions.

For more than a decade, the utility sector in Australia, which includes electricity, gas, water, and waste services, has been identified as the country’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases (GHGs), according to the Department of Industry Science Energy and Resources (2021). In the 2020–2021 financial year, the sector contributed approximately 2.4% of Australia’s gross domestic product, as reported by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (2022, September). However, that year, the sector was responsible for approximately 33% of Australia’s total direct emissions (Stocks et al., 2022). For this reason, it is essential to evaluate this sector’s carbon footprint to understand better its direct and indirect emissions relationships with other sectors and to identify strategies to reduce emissions.

Understanding the carbon footprint of the utility services sector is critical not only for addressing national climate objectives but also for contributing to global efforts toward sustainable development (Aggarwal, 2018; Shuhidan et al., 2016). This study offers a detailed examination of the emissions profiles of Australia’s utility services sectors, with findings that extend beyond the national context. By leveraging the granular sectoral and spatial data the Australian Industrial Ecology Virtual Laboratory (IELab) framework provides, this research offers a replicable methodology for carbon footprint analysis in regions with similar industrial structures. These insights are particularly valuable for countries aiming to assess and mitigate indirect emissions within complex supply chains, bridging gaps in existing carbon accounting methods.

Numerous studies have set out to assess the carbon footprint of various industries in many world nations. Examples include: research on healthcare in Australia (Malik et al., 2018); agriculture in Australia (Kazemian et al., 2024); households in Germany (Miehe et al., 2016); renewable electricity in Australia (Wolfram et al., 2016); multinationals’ foreign affiliates in the US (López et al., 2019); the construction sector in Australia (Yu et al., 2017), and others. Various methodological approaches have been employed to carry out the necessary analyses to answer some crucial questions, including how the emissions can be measured (Burritt et al., 2011, 2019; Dally et al., 2020; Kazemian et al., 2022); and how indirect emissions can be assessed (Herth and Blok, 2023; Shi et al., 2020; Vélez-Henao and Vivanco, 2021). Also, several studies were conducted and focused on the utility services sector’s direct emissions (Chitnis et al., 2013; Parshall et al., 2010; Parvin et al., 2022; Saidan et al., 2019). However, the carbon footprint of the utility services sector in Australia, as the highest emitter, has not received much attention.

In the present study, following the research model suggested by Malik et al. (2018), Yu et al. (2017), and Kazemian et al. (2024), an observational economic input-output lifecycle assessment was implemented to assess Australia’s carbon footprint in its utility services sector. As Yu et al. (2017) concluded, adequately presenting the carbon footprint of five years provides a comprehensive picture of an industry’s embodied emissions. Therefore, the current research collected all expenditure data for the 2013–17 financial year (four years before the latest available data in IELab and Eora) from the 112 sectors of Australian institutions. CO₂-equivalent emissions per AUS$ spent on the utility services sectors were obtained from the IELab data. The choice of the 112 sectors is a predetermined option in IELab.

The present study aims to fill this gap in knowledge by revealing the most polluting subdivision and identifying sectors with significant embodied emissions within the utility services sector. Consequently, the main question that the study tries to answer is as follows: To what extent do sub-components contribute to the carbon footprint of the Australian utility services sector? Accordingly, the current research aims to:

1. Analyse and compare the national direct emissions (production-based) and carbon footprints (consumption-based) across all sectors in Australia from 2013 to 2017, focusing on identifying trends and potential pathways for achieving carbon neutrality.

2. Evaluate the carbon footprint of the five subsectors within the utility services sector from 2013 to 2017, emphasising determining the primary drivers of emissions and identifying actionable strategies for carbon reduction within the sector.

3. Assess the interconnectedness of emissions embodied in the Australian utility services sector in 2017, identifying the top three contributing sectors and their role in shaping strategies for improving environmental quality and achieving national carbon reduction goals.

This study makes significant contributions to the literature by quantifying the carbon footprint of Australia’s utility services sector and identifying subsectors with the highest emissions impact. This work is essential for understanding how the utility services industry influences the country’s overall greenhouse gas emissions and highlights critical areas for implementing effective emission reduction strategies. By evaluating the sector’s carbon footprint, policymakers and stakeholders can identify key emission sources and design policies to promote cleaner energy, enhance energy efficiency, and invest in low-carbon technologies (Padhan and Bhat, 2023; Wang and Azam, 2024). Furthermore, the findings help organisations and individuals make informed decisions about their energy consumption and emissions, contributing to broader efforts to combat climate change. This research also aligns with global climate initiatives, including the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the Paris Agreement. It supports SDG 13 (Climate Action) and informs strategies for achieving national and regional contributions to global climate targets by pinpointing emission-intensive subsectors and cross-sectoral dependencies. These insights are valuable for policymakers and researchers to design actionable decarbonisation and resource allocation plans, enhancing the study’s global relevance in driving climate action.

In addition to its policy implications, the study contributes to theoretical frameworks in environmental responsibility, particularly corrective justice and the Polluter Pays Principle. These frameworks aim to address the challenges of quantifying the emissions of individual stakeholders and their excessive use of the atmosphere’s capacity to absorb CO₂ (Zaman et al., 2024). By applying these theories to the specific context of Australia’s utility services industry, this research offers a more accurate understanding of emissions at a sectoral level. This study’s findings help refine these theoretical concepts and provide a more nuanced approach to emissions accounting, making it a valuable tool for both academic research and practical policy development. This approach is crucial for developing fair and effective global climate policies that ensure a more equitable distribution of emissions reduction efforts across sectors and countries.

The paper is organised as follows. Section 1 provides a comprehensive overview of the study’s theoretical background on a global scale and in Australia, which will be further discussed in Section 2. Section 3 outlines the rationale behind the chosen research methodology, explaining the methods and assumptions utilised to construct an integrated database. Section 4 is dedicated to presenting the research design, while Section 5 discusses and presents the results.

This section examines the research’s theoretical underpinnings, including the importance of direct, embodied, and total emissions from the utility services sector globally and in Australia. It also provides a rationale for the chosen methodology.

The sector responsible for utility services (the subdivision of D, covered in Australian Energy Statistics), which involves generating electricity, distributing gas, and managing water and waste, accounts for substantial greenhouse gas emissions worldwide (Department of Industry Science Energy and Resources, 2020). Australia’s Department of Climate Change Energy the Environment and Water (2022) reported that the utility services sector has played a substantial role in the country’s overall greenhouse gas emissions for the last two decades. For instance, as Table 1 indicates, in 2020, the utility services sector contributed 179.36 Mt CO₂e to the total emissions of 498.11 Mt CO₂e, with the mining industry following closely with 101 Mt CO₂e and agriculture, forestry, and fishing, with 88.62 Mt CO₂e. Based on these figures, the utility services sector has been identified as the most notable contributor, directly and indirectly.

The Department of Industry Science Energy and Resources (2021) reports that in Australia, the utility services sector (Electricity, Gas, Water, and Waste Services) produces a substantial amount of direct emissions resulting from fuel combustion, ranking first with 190.4 Mt CO₂e. The transport and mining industries follow with 101.9 and 97.7 Mt CO2e, respectively. Interestingly, when considering embodied emissions, the Electricity, Gas, Water, and Waste Services industry is still the most significant emitter with 95.9 Mt CO₂e, followed by Mining and Transport with 34.9 and 33.4 Mt CO2e, respectively.

On a global scale, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA) (2021), in 2020, approximately 42% of CO₂e emissions related to energy were attributed to the utility services sector. In fact, this particular sector is known to be one of the most significant consumers of materials with high implications for carbon emission and energy use (Krausmann et al., 2009). However, compared to other polluting industries like construction, hospitality, and transport, the utility services sector has tremendous potential for reducing short- or long-term emissions. This is due to the diversity of its demand chain (Godlevskaya et al., 2021).

The utility services sector accounts for a significant portion of the energy life cycle. In the utility services sector, embodied point refers to the amount necessary to produce and install the required infrastructure that generates and distributes various utilities such as electricity, heat, etc. Infrastructure components include power plants, wind turbines, solar panels, transmission lines, and more. Chen et al. (2011) noted that the embodied energy in constructing and installing wind turbines and solar panels can account for up to 15% and 20% of these technologies' total life cycle energy consumption, respectively. Keoleian et al. (2000) estimated that the embodied energy in the electricity sector could account for up to 23% of its total life cycle energy consumption. The study also found that the embodied energy in constructing and maintaining transmission and distribution infrastructure can account for up to 40% of the total embodied energy in the electricity sector. These ratios will likely increase since the nature of the utility services in different countries varies.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (2021) reported that the electric power sector, which includes electricity generation, transmission, and distribution, is responsible for a quarter of the country’s total greenhouse gas emissions. The latest figures reveal a 10% reduction in this proportion from 2019, attributed to a slight decline in electricity demand following the COVID-19 pandemic and a continued shift towards using natural gas and renewable energy sources with lower carbon intensity instead of coal.

According to the German Federal Environmental Agency (UBA) (2021), in Germany, the energy sector, which encompasses the utility services sector, was responsible for 72.8% of the country’s 49.8 Gt CO₂e total emissions in 2019, directly and indirectly. The indirect emissions from the utility services sector accounted for approximately 9.8% of Germany’s greenhouse gas emissions in 2019. This includes emissions associated with the production and transportation of coal, natural gas, and other fuels used in the utility services sector and emissions from the manufacturing and transportation of equipment and infrastructure used in the industry. The primary source of emissions within the energy sector was the electricity and heat generation subsector, which are responsible for approximately 317 million tonnes of CO₂e greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. They represent around 41% of Germany’s overall greenhouse gas emissions for that year. The second most significant emitter was the transport sector, responsible for roughly 19% of the country’s total emissions.

Previous scholarly literature has classified emissions into three distinct scopes. Scope 1 emissions entail direct greenhouse gas emissions from sources within an organisation’s ownership or control, such as on-site fuel combustion or industrial processes. Scope 2 encompasses indirect emissions from the production of purchased energy, including electricity and heat. Lastly, Scope 3 emissions encompass all other indirect emissions throughout the value chain, including those arising from the extraction and production of purchased materials, transportation, and utilising the organisation’s products or services. Effectively managing and reducing an organisation’s overall carbon footprint requires a comprehensive strategy that thoroughly considers and addresses all three scopes (Ducoulombier, 2021; Wiedmann et al., 2021).

In general, there are two primary methods for quantifying the carbon emissions of a company, industry, or country: direct emissions and carbon footprint. The first method involves assessing national direct carbon emissions and examining the GHGs released by each sector during the production of its primary products (Scope 1). This approach employs a production-based evaluation of carbon emissions (Becken and Patterson, 2006; Dally et al., 2020; Kang et al., 2014). Conversely, the carbon footprint is a comprehensive measure of the overall greenhouse gas emissions associated with a specific entity, activity, product, service, or event. It takes into account not only direct emissions but also indirect emissions throughout the entire life cycle. Carbon footprint assessments encompass emissions directly produced by an entity (Scope 1) and indirect emissions linked to the supply chain, transportation, and consumption of goods and services (Scopes 2 and 3) (Camilleri-Fenech et al., 2018; Eriksson and Spångberg, 2017; Han et al., 2022). Figure 1 illustrates the meaning of the carbon footprint of the utility services sector across the three scopes.

Usually, governments or relevant agencies report individual industries' direct national emissions annually. For instance, the Department of Climate Change Energy the Environment and Water (2022) reports on Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions within various time frames. However, determining the carbon footprint of a particular industry involves several stages. The present research results will assist policymakers in developing a deeper comprehension of the carbon footprint across all industries in Australia, encompassing embodied emissions in the utility services sector.

The current research aligns closely with established standards like International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 14064 and the GHG Protocols, which are pivotal for measuring, managing, and reporting carbon footprints. ISO 14064 provides a comprehensive international framework for greenhouse gas accounting, focusing on consistent and transparent quantification and reporting of emissions. Complementarily, the GHG Protocols, developed by the World Resources Institute (WRI) and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, offer detailed methodologies for corporate emissions accounting (Cano et al., 2023; Tao et al., 2024). These standards work synergistically, with ISO 14064 offering a broad framework and the GHG Protocols providing specific calculation and reporting guidance, ensuring organisations adopt comprehensive and standardised approaches to carbon management.

This research enhances the utility of ISO 14064 and the GHG Protocols by delivering precise data across Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions categories within the utility services sector. By aligning with these standards, the findings enable organisations to adopt transparent and consistent carbon footprint measurement practices, facilitating compliance and promoting informed decisions on emissions reduction. The results empower sectors to develop effective strategies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, supporting sustainable practices and advancing global environmental accountability. This synergy underscores the role of robust research in strengthening these frameworks to address climate change effectively.

Measuring embodied emissions (consumption-based approach) is more challenging than measuring direct emissions (production-based system) because attributing responsibility for GHG generation could be more straightforward (Malik et al., 2018). To calculate the carbon footprint, it is necessary to determine the number of CO₂e emissions per AUS$ spent, which involves quantifying the embodied GHG emissions. However, comparing the results of different studies on carbon footprint evaluation is unlikely to provide an accurate perspective. This is due to the wide range of data and models used in these studies. It is worth noting that all of these methods and data sources are valid and reliable (Dixit et al., 2013).

One limitation identified in previous research on carbon footprint evaluation, such as Zhang and Wang (2016), is that assessing carbon emissions based solely on consumption may fail to account for the supply chain emissions of various industries fully. To address this issue, two major approaches—Input-Output Analysis (IOA) and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)—have been widely adopted for evaluating carbon footprints (Eriksson and Spångberg, 2017; Malik et al., 2018; Wood and Dey, 2009; Yu et al., 2017). These methodologies offer a more comprehensive assessment by considering emissions across the entire supply chain, thereby minimising the risk of underestimating industry-level carbon impacts. Despite sharing numerous analytical aspects, LCA and IOA diverge in five dimensions: data resources, processing methods, commodity unit flow, and the life cycle stages covered, as depicted in Table 2.

Besides LCA and IOA, other methods, such as Input-Output Life Cycle Assessment and Multi-regional Input-Output (MRIO), can also be used to achieve more accurate and reliable results depending on the research’s scale and goals. While these methods share similarities in data collection and analysis, their accuracy and reliability can vary based on the research focus, as noted by Gao et al. (2014). Figure 2 highlights the key differences between these four methods for assessing carbon footprints.

As depicted in Figure 2, various methods for evaluating carbon footprint could be selected depending on the research objectives and the scale of the research context. Considering the objective of the current study, which aims to assess the carbon footprint of Australia’s utility services sector, as Gao et al. (2014) suggested, the most reliable and accurate results could be obtained by employing IO or MRIO methodologies.

When deciding between IO and MRIO for this research, the issue of double counting must be carefully addressed. Double counting, in the context of carbon offsetting, arises when more than one entity claims a carbon credit and its associated climate impact without generating additional carbon benefits (Lenzen, 2008). While IO analysis is functional, its limitations may make it less suitable for this study. IO analysis is a top-down model that connects monetary transactions between activities to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions at the environmental level. This approach reduces double counting at the macro level by assigning production emissions solely to final demand, which refers to consumption that doesn’t generate further market-based output (Lutter et al., 2016). However, traditional IO models focus on a single region, limiting their ability to represent the global nature of modern trade. MRIO, an improved version of the IO model, addresses these limitations. It considers multiple economies under different jurisdictions, providing a broader and more accurate perspective on emissions (Eriksson and Spångberg, 2017; Malik et al., 2018; Wood and Dey, 2009; Yu et al., 2017).

The current research measured the carbon footprint of Australia’s utility services sector using the Industrial Ecology Lab (IELab). This comprehensive platform generates multi-region input-output (MRIO) tables with satellite extensions, such as environmental data. IELab addresses the challenge of integrating incomplete, inconsistent, and conflicting datasets using advanced computational methodologies. Its primary tool, AISHA, a Matlab-based software, processes data to construct contingency tables, transforming diverse datasets into useable formats. This ensures that carbon footprint calculations reflect a detailed, accurate, and holistic representation of the interactions within and between economic sectors and regions.

According to Industrial Ecology Virtual Laboratory (IELab) (2020), the MRIO framework begins with data organised in a supply-and-use table format, detailing inter-industry and product interactions. IELab leverages this framework to model carbon footprint by tracking embodied emissions across supply chains. Using satellite extensions, environmental impacts (e.g. CO₂ emissions) are attributed to the corresponding economic activities, industries, and regions. IELab’s root, base, and branch classification levels enable scalability and granularity. For example, the root classification encompasses 1,284 industries/products and 2,214 spatial units in Australia, translating into trillions of potential data points. The base table, an optimally aggregated and memory-storable MRIO table, facilitates precise sectoral analysis, while branch tables support specific analytical tasks, for instance, life cycle assessments. Figure 3 illustrates a based layout of a supply and demand table format.

Carbon footprints and their respective emissions profiles are calculated by disaggregating the input-output data into key variables, for example, industry, product type, and spatial unit. Referring to Australia’s utility services sector, IELab linked emissions data with economic transactions, making possible a breakdown of emissions sources (e.g. electricity generation, waste management) and their downstream impacts. This method ensures the carbon footprint encompasses direct emissions (e.g. electricity generation) and indirect emissions embedded in supply chains.

IELab’s dynamic data feeds allow the integration of new datasets to continuously refine the MRIO model, enhancing its accuracy and applicability. The resulting carbon footprint assessments provide actionable insights for policymakers, highlighting critical emissions sources and enabling targeted mitigation strategies. Combining robust computational tools, detailed classifications, and supply chain transparency, IELab offers a robust methodology to calculate and analyse carbon footprint for complex sectors like Australia’s utility services.

The following sections explain the different stages of the data analysis for the current research.

One of the joint data resources for researchers to obtain the environmental and economic data, the amount of Australia’s national greenhouse gasses accounts, and nationwide inventory by different economic sectors are the ABS ^[1] and Australian Greenhouse Emissions Information System ^[2]. However, as suggested by Yu et al. (2017), because those resources are not comprehensive enough to conduct a thorough analysis and do not provide adequate information on the corresponding data for regions other than Australia, the current research has not utilised any of those resources directly. Instead, as the first step of the data analysis method, similar to Han et al. (2022), Kazemian et al. (2024), Malik et al. (2018), Wolfram et al. (2016), Yu et al. (2017), a new input-output model has been devised to cover Australia and the rest of the world (RoW), including their trade matrices.

The second stage of the analysis method was the identification of 112 industries/sectors in 2017 (the most recent available). The data was obtained from the Industrial Ecology Virtual Laboratory (IELab) ^[3]. Subsequently, the collected data was utilised to set up the Australia supply and demand table to demonstrate that the Electricity, Gas, Water and Waste Services sector represents five subsectors: (1) electricity generation, (2) electricity transmission, distribution, on-selling electricity and electricity market operation, (3) gas supply, (4) water supply, sewerage and drainage services, and (5) waste collection services, treatment and disposal services (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2013).

The data for RoW was gathered from a high-resolution version (full Eora), which maintains the detailed national input-output table and a simplified version (Eora26) utilising a harmonised classification system with 26 sectors ^[4]. Next, following the approach outlined in previous studies by Wiedmann et al. (2016), Yu et al. (2017), the RoW data was merged with the Australian supply and demand tables to create a more comprehensive MRIO model for 2017 that accounts for environmental impacts. Yu et al. (2017) proposed using an iterative scaling technique called Row-Column Adjustment with Scaling (RAS) to ensure the resulting model aligns with national accounts data. This method, also known as bi-proportional adjustment, is commonly employed in matrix adjustment or matrix balancing. It is often used to adjust input-output matrices or contingency tables to ensure that the row and column totals match known or desired values while preserving the relative proportions of the original data as closely as possible. RAS accomplishes this by proportionally adjusting the inputs and outputs of each industry/product, utilising fixed totals obtained from the 2017 national accounts, thereby balancing the original unbalanced input-output matrix.

Carbon mapping was one of the most important stages of data analysis for this research. Carbon mapping, also known as carbon footprint mapping, quantifies and visualises the carbon emissions associated with various activities, sectors, or geographical areas. Carbon mapping creates detailed maps of the distribution of carbon stored in various ecosystems such as forests, wetlands, and agricultural lands. Carbon mapping aims to quantify and understand the amount of carbon stored in these ecosystems and to identify opportunities for carbon sequestration and mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions (Lamichhane et al., 2019). Carbon mapping can also be defined based on the origin of carbon emissions in an economy. In this context, carbon mapping refers to mapping the sources of carbon emissions, such as industrial facilities, transportation networks, and land use changes, and quantifying the amount of carbon emitted by each source (Cook-Patton et al., 2020). By creating a carbon map, this research could analyse intermediate emissions and identify the sectors that contribute the most to embodied emissions within the Australian services sector. Converting a two-region IO model into a carbon map requires multiple matrix calculations, as explained in greater detail in the following description (Wiedmann et al., 2016).

The current research grouped the IELab’s 112 disaggregated sectors to present the findings based on the study’s focus level. In the case of the nationwide analysis of Australia, the sectors are consolidated using the Input-Output Industry Groups, which aligns with the Australian and New Zealand Standard Industrial Classification (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2013).

This section presents and examines the research analysis results in the format suggested by Yu et al. (2017), emphasising the methodological innovation of using the IELab framework for carbon footprint analysis. The granularity of the IELab data, with its high sectoral and spatial resolution, enables insights that are not achievable through traditional Input–output models. This advanced framework makes possible a more precise understanding of emissions at both the sectoral and regional levels, facilitating a comprehensive comparison between territorial emissions (direct industry emissions) and consumption-based carbon footprints. The paper presents Australia’s 2017 emissions data from both perspectives, offering a nuanced comparison with previously conducted research. It then focuses on the carbon footprint of the utility services sector in Australia for 2017, providing a detailed breakdown of the supply chains, industries, and products contributing to each subsector. Finally, a time series analysis from 2013 to 2017 highlights key trends and changes, showcasing the enhanced capacity of the IELab framework to track and analyse dynamic shifts over time.

Bourne et al. (2018) reported an increase in Australia’s direct emissions to 524.13 million tons of CO₂e in the year to December 2017, following three consecutive years of growth. However, according to the current study, the national carbon footprint in Australia for the same year was estimated to be approximately 529.79 MtCO₂e, which includes emissions from several sectors like energy, transport industry, agriculture, waste, and forestry. It is important to note that these figures solely reflect direct emissions within Australia’s borders and do not account for the indirect emissions associated with imported goods and services.

As depicted in Figure 4 and Table 3, in 2017, the primary contributors to Australia’s national carbon footprint were the “utility services sectors (electricity, gas, water, and waste)” at 43.1%, followed by “manufacturing” at 18.7%, and “commercial services” at 11.5%. The findings indicated a 5% surge in emissions when factoring in embodied emissions from the utility services sectors, as opposed to their direct emissions. On the other hand, “construction” showed a 332% increase in emissions when accounting for embodied emissions from the transport sectors, which was the most significant percentage increase among all industries shown in Figure 2. However, “mining” had a 75% decrease in emissions when considering embodied emissions from the transport sectors compared to their direct emissions.

The current research analysis, in line with several previous studies such as those by Naderipour et al. (2021), Wood and Dey (2009), Yu et al. (2017), demonstrates that primary sectors like agriculture and mining contribute more to direct national emissions than their emission quota in the carbon footprint. Conversely, a scrutiny of the secondary industries such as construction, utility services, and transportation reveals their higher contribution to carbon footprint emissions (from a consumption perspective). As a secondary industry, what this implies is an increased responsibility for upstream emissions from suppliers in the electricity, gas, water, and waste sectors, with a broader scope for potential emission reductions.

Furthermore, to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the background of emissions in the electricity, gas, water, and waste sectors, the results of the present study were compared to those of Trewin (2001), carried out by the ABS. According to Trewin (2001), from 1992 to 1998, electricity (excluding gas, water, and waste) alone accounted for 47%–50% of Australia’s total direct carbon emissions. However, the findings for the carbon footprint were different. Trewin (2001) indicated that electricity’s carbon footprint ranged from 35% to 46% for the same period. Hence, two conclusions can be drawn: first, the electricity sector has always been a significant contributor to emissions in Australia; and second, unlike the present study, electricity–despite being a secondary industry–made a more substantial contribution to direct emissions than to embodied emissions in the past. The data reflected in each figure is also demonstrated in a table format to illustrate the findings better.

Figure 4 and Table 3 show that in 2017, Australia’s electricity, gas, water, and waste services sector emitted 195.45 million metric tons of direct greenhouse gas emissions, accounting for 37.2% of the country’s overall direct emissions. This sector’s carbon footprint reached 219.9 million metric tons, representing 43.1% of Australia’s embodied emissions.

Figure 5 and Table 4 illustrate the quota of each of the five subsectors: 1) Electricity generation; 2) Electricity transmission, distribution, on-selling electricity and electricity market operation; 3) Gas supply; 4) Water supply, sewerage and drainage services; and 5) Waste collection services, treatment and disposal services. According to Figure 5, electricity generation produced 44.8 million tonnes of CO₂e emissions, while water supply, sewerage, and drainage services accounted for 29.1 million tonnes of CO₂e. Waste collection, treatment and disposal services had 38.8 million tonnes of CO₂e embodied in them. In contrast, electricity transmission, distribution, on-selling, and market operation had the highest level of embodied utility services sector emissions, with 90.2 million tonnes of CO₂e. On the other hand, the gas supply had only 16.8 million tonnes of CO₂e.

The primary factors leading to the highest embodied emissions in “Electricity transmission, distribution, on-selling electricity and electricity market operation” were the extensive energy and material requirements for constructing and maintaining electricity infrastructure. This involved building and maintaining power plants, transmission lines, distribution networks, and other infrastructure. Moreover, the electricity sector heavily relies on fossil fuels like coal and natural gas, significant sources of greenhouse gas emissions. As a result, the embodied emissions in the electricity sector were significantly higher compared to other services like water and waste management.

As shown in Figure 5, and Table 4, the sectors with the most significant contributions to carbon footprints in the utility services sector were “commercial services” and “Manufacturing” at 37.3% and 19.6%, respectively. It was also observed that the “electricity, gas, water, and waste services sector” contributed considerably to the industry’s embodied emissions at 18.5%, including direct emissions from the sector. The following three sections further analyse the results in an attempt to identify which industries or products contributed the most to embodied emissions in the utility services industry.

The commercial services sector is a combination of divisions F-H and J-S, based on the Australian Bureau of Statistics (2013). The Department of Climate Change Energy the Environment and Water (2022) defined commercial services as a broad category that includes a wide range of businesses and industries that offer services to other companies or consumers. This sector encompasses a diverse range of services, including trading services (wholesale and retail), professional services (e.g. legal, accounting, and consulting), outsourcing services (e.g. call centres, payroll, and human resources), facilities management (e.g. janitorial, maintenance, and security), rental, hiring and real estate services, environmental services (e.g. waste management and pollution control), education and training, healthcare and social assistance services, hospitality and tourism, arts and recreation services, and many others.

The current study found that the commercial services sector is the most significant contributor to carbon footprints in utility services. This finding is entirely consistent with major studies conducted in this regard. The previous body of literature found several strong reasons to justify this finding, such as: I. The commercial services sector is a significant energy user contributing to carbon footprints. Commercial buildings consume up to 20% of total energy use in developed countries (Xu et al., 2013). The high energy consumption is due to electricity, heating, cooling systems, lighting, and other equipment. The energy used to operate these systems is often generated from fossil fuels, which emit GHGs, primarily carbon dioxide (CO₂e), contributing to carbon footprints. II. The commercial services sector generates significant waste, contributing to carbon footprints. According to Maalouf and Mavropoulos (2022), commercial and institutional buildings in the US generate approximately 2 billion tons of waste annually, accounting for about 35% of the total municipal waste. Disposing of this waste often involves using landfills or incineration, both of which emit GHGs, primarily methane (CH₄), contributing to carbon footprints. III. Commercial services, which include hospitality and tourism, significantly contribute to carbon footprints in the utility sector due to their high energy consumption and waste production, accommodation energy use, transportation emissions, and food waste and packaging.

As Figure 6(a) depicts, the current research revealed that the “accommodation and food services” sector contributed the highest to emissions, at 15%, followed by “professional and technical services” and “real estate services,” which each accounted for 14%. Public administration and safety and Healthcare and social assistance contributed similarly, around 11% and 10%, respectively. All the other sectors contributed less than 10%, as shown in Figure 6a.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics (2013) defined this sector (division C) as: “The Manufacturing Division includes units mainly engaged in the physical or chemical transformation of materials, substances or components into new products (except agriculture and construction). The materials, substances or components transformed by units in this division are raw materials from agriculture, forestry, fishing and mining, or products of other manufacturing units.” ^[5] The manufacturing sector’s significant reliance on water and energy is a major contributor to the carbon footprint of the utility sector. Additionally, the manufacturing sector generates considerable hazardous waste that requires special handling and disposal methods. This waste disposal process may also contribute to the utility sector’s carbon footprint, mainly if it involves energy-intensive treatment processes or burning waste materials. Consequently, reducing the environmental impact of the manufacturing industry will require focusing on energy efficiency improvement, renewable energy use, and waste reduction and recycling practices, as highlighted by Olatunji et al. (2019) and supported by Cai et al. (2019).

As depicted in Figure 6(b), the study determined that the manufacturing of chemicals, such as petroleum and coal product manufacturing, basic chemical and chemical product manufacturing, polymer product, and rubber product manufacturing, was responsible for the most significant portion of embodied emissions at 29%. Food product manufacturing and beverage and tobacco product manufacturing accounted for 20% of the carbon footprint, while transport equipment manufacturing contributed approximately 18%. Metal manufacturing, including Primary metal and metal product manufacturing and fabricated metal product manufacturing, accounted for 14%, and textile, leather, clothing, and footwear manufacturing, wood product manufacturing, and pulp, paper, and converted paper product manufacturing contributed 11% to the 19.6% overall carbon footprint of the utility services sector.

The utility services sector comprising “electricity, gas, water, and waste services” significantly impacts its carbon footprint, contributing to 18.5% of total emissions. This outcome is attributed to a diverse range of activities that are carried out within the sector, such as electricity transmission, distribution, on-selling electricity, electricity market operation, electricity generation, gas supply, water supply, sewerage and drainage services, waste collection services, and waste treatment and disposal services. These activities require a huge amount of energy and resources, resulting in greenhouse gas emissions, and subsequently adding to the sector’s carbon footprint.

The research revealed that 71% of embodied emissions were attributed to electricity transmission, distribution, on-selling electricity, and electricity market operation. The remaining 15%, 5%, 4%, and 5% of embodied emissions were derived from electricity generation, gas supply, water supply, sewerage and drainage services, waste collection services, treatment, and disposal services, respectively (as shown in Figure 6(c)).

According to Figure 7 and Table 5, the national direct industry emissions and total carbon footprint remained relatively stable from 2013 to 2017, with only a slight decrease in direct emissions in later years. This diminishment has been attributed to a carbon tax being implemented, and it was introduced to help Australia meet its target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 26–28% below 2005 levels by 2030 (Burke, 2016). The two metrics are also comparable in magnitude, with the carbon footprint being either the same or slightly higher than the national emissions. Suggested here is that the amount of emissions associated with imports and exports is very similar for Australia.

As was the case for 2017 (Figure 4), the significant contributors to the national direct emissions were “electricity, gas, water and waste services”, “mining”, “agriculture, forestry and fishing”, and “manufacturing” for all years. Similarly, the most significant contributors to the national carbon footprint consistently remained in “commercial services”, “electricity, gas, water and waste services”, “construction”, and “manufacturing”. Additionally, despite a 5.3% decline in direct national emissions and a 1.3% rise in national consumption-based emissions between 2013 and 2017, the emissions from the direct utility services sector and the consumption-based emissions from the utility services sector grew by 1% and 11.6%, respectively. This suggests that the utility services sector has contributed more significantly to the country’s greenhouse gas emissions. As illustrated in Figure 8, the utility services sector’s consumption-based emissions reached their highest point in 2017, reaching 221.6 million tonnes of CO₂e after a jump from 203.3 Mt CO₂e in 2016.

The analysis by subsector (as shown in Figure 8, and Table 6) confirmed that the most significant contributor to the overall carbon footprint of the utility services sector was the subsector of “electricity transmission, distribution, on-selling electricity, and electricity market operation” over the years. This trend continued in 2017, with other subsectors making a small contribution. However, this pattern was not consistent throughout the entire period. From 2013 to 2016, the subsector above comprised a similar proportion of the utility services sector’s carbon footprint, with no significant increase observed. In contrast, the subsector of “water supply, sewerage, and drainage services” saw a slight decline in its contribution to the carbon footprint in 2017.

It appears that the carbon footprint of the utility services sector has been increasing over the years due to the growing contribution of the subsector of “electricity transmission, distribution, on-selling electricity, and electricity market operation.” This subsector appears to have significantly contributed to the sector’s overall carbon footprint. Furthermore, the consumption-based emissions from the utility services sector have increased, which may indicate an increase in demand for utility services, such as electricity and water. Additionally, the sector’s efforts to reduce emissions may have been insufficient in comparison to the growth of the industry, resulting in an overall increase in emissions.

As for the relationship between more investment in the utility services sector’s infrastructure and the carbon footprint produced by this sector, Murshed et al. (2021) found that more investment in the utility services sector will not lead to a larger carbon footprint. While an increase in investment could lead to more infrastructure development, resulting in higher emissions during construction, the ultimate impact on emissions depends on how the investment is directed. For instance, investment in renewable energy sources or more efficient infrastructure could help reduce the sector’s carbon footprint. Conversely, investment in traditional, carbon-intensive energy sources or inefficient infrastructure could contribute to higher emissions (Padhan and Bhat, 2023). Therefore, the relationship between investment and carbon footprint in the utility services sector is complex and depends on various factors.

It is worth noting that the only sectors that consistently show a slow increase in their carbon footprint are those related to waste management services, including collection, treatment, and disposal. This aligns with previous research, for instance Camilleri-Fenech et al. (2018), Turner et al. (2011), which underscores the significance of waste management in reducing the overall carbon footprint of the utility services sector.

This study aimed to determine the primary sectors responsible for contributing to the carbon footprint of the Australian utility services sector, which encompasses “electricity, gas, water, and waste services”. Utilising a “carbon map” created through a two-region input-output model, the utility services sector was examined on a larger, economy-wide scale, providing more detailed analysis than possible. This model allowed for a greater understanding of the carbon implications of the utility services sector and identified areas that could be targeted to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The current research advances methodological understanding of carbon footprint analysis within input-output modelling by applying an accounting-based approach to measure embodied carbon emissions. It highlights the importance of evaluating indirect emissions at a granular sectoral level, often underexplored in environmental accounting literature. The research introduces a replicable framework for examining utility-related emissions in national economies and contributes to policy-oriented discourse by translating technical findings into actionable insights. This deepens our understanding of sectoral interdependencies and supports more targeted, evidence-based decarbonisation strategies in academic and policy settings.

The model revealed that in 2017, the utility services sector was responsible for 43.1% of Australia’s total carbon footprint, almost 5% higher than the 37.2% of direct emissions contribution. The increased demand for generating and transmitting electricity to remote areas, such as mining sites, has contributed to the rising carbon footprint of the utility services sector over the past few years. This demand can be attributed to the mining boom era in Australia, which occurred during the study period. However, this trend is expected to reverse if investments are made in renewable energy development. Nonetheless, further increases in emissions from the utility services sector are expected to originate from waste collection, treatment, and disposal services. As a result, it is essential to continuously monitor GHG emissions over time so that reduction efforts can be appropriately targeted towards the most significant sectors.

This study’s results provide critical insights that can inform both local and global policymakers, offering actionable suggestions for advancing climate policies and strategies. The research identifies key subsectors within the utility services sector that contribute disproportionately to indirect emissions, with electricity transmission and generation being the highest contributors, followed by waste collection, water supply, and gas supply. Policymakers can prioritise investments in renewable energy adoption, efficiency improvements, and technological upgrades in these high-emission subsectors to ensure that resources are directed where they will have the most significant impact. Additionally, carbon pricing mechanisms can be tailored to reflect the emissions intensity of each subsector, incentivising the adoption of low-carbon technologies and penalising high-emission activities, thus accelerating the transition to a more sustainable and low-carbon future.

The study’s application of the IELab framework provides granular sectoral and spatial data, enabling precise cross-sector comparisons and guiding the development of sector-specific emission reduction targets aligned with national and international climate goals, such as the Paris Agreement and the United Nations SDGs. By replicating this methodology in other countries or regions with similar industrial structures, policymakers can identify critical emission hotspots and adapt these findings to global carbon neutrality efforts. Moreover, this research underscores the importance of societal engagement by highlighting the indirect impacts of consumer and industrial activities on emissions.

This study bridges the gap between data-driven analysis and real-world applications through its comprehensive approach, offering a robust tool for shaping industrial decarbonisation strategies and influencing public attitudes toward sustainable practices. These contributions support global climate action objectives, enhancing the quality of life by addressing climate risks and fostering resilience against environmental challenges. Over the years, the “commercial services” and “manufacturing” sectors have been the most significant contributors to the carbon footprint of the utility services sector. Since the commercial services sector is the largest contributor, it is an area that requires significant emissions reductions. Improving the energy efficiency of lighting, cooling, and heating systems in hotels, hospitals, and commercial buildings and enhancing waste management practices can considerably reduce the carbon footprint of the utility services sector.

Several measures can be taken to reduce carbon emissions related to the manufacturing sector, as the second contributor to the utility services sector’s carbon footprint. These include implementing more energy-efficient processes, equipment, and technologies, switching to renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, and hydropower to reduce reliance on fossil fuels and carbon emissions, improving the effectiveness of the manufacturing supply chain by reducing waste, using more sustainable materials, and implementing more efficient transportation methods.

Like others in its field, the current research encountered certain data collection and analysis limitations. The primary constraint was the availability of up-to-date data, with the study relying on the latest accessible information to quantify the carbon footprint within Australia’s utility services sector, specifically around 2017. Data from 2017 may not precisely reflect the carbon footprint landscape in subsequent years due to potential changes over time. A second limitation pertains to the assumption of static emissions profiles for sectors such as “utility services” and “commercial services”, which may not account for the dynamic nature of these industries. However, given the research’s objective to assess the carbon footprint in past years, when all the dynamic activities and transactions have been completed and recorded, the potential negative impact of this limitation has been addressed. These limitations are inherent challenges in the research process, and the study takes measures to address them while acknowledging the potential impact they may have on the findings.

This topic has great potential for further research in the future, and the results may prove intriguing. One possible focus could be investigating the carbon footprint of various sectors in Australia, such as manufacturing and agriculture. Comparing the findings would likely determine the emissions stemming from these embodied sectors. Additionally, it would be worthwhile to compare the same industry’s carbon footprint in different countries.