Carbon footprint tracking used to be something companies did to look good. Now it’s becoming the law, and electronics engineers are getting caught in the middle of a major shift. EU regulations like CSRD and CBAM are kicking in, customers want component-level emissions data in weeks instead of months, and the old way of handling carbon accounting just isn’t cutting it anymore.
In the first part of this three-part series, EEWorld talked with Elmar Kert, Founder and CEO of Sluicebox, about how this is changing everything from how engineers make design choices to how they work with suppliers. And what do teams need to know to keep up in a world where carbon matters as much as cost?
——————————
EEWorld: How would you respond if your top-tier customer required carbon footprint data for every component in your BOM within 30 days?
It would be nearly impossible with traditional methods. Most companies would need to hire consultants at $20-50k per product and wait months for results. The semiconductor industry particularly struggles here — collecting supplier data for process-based analysis can take 2+ years for even partial coverage. This gap between customer demands and industry capability is creating real friction in the market. For now, Trustedparts.com is a great source to send your customers to estimate carbon at the component level.
EEWorld: How will regulations like CSRD, CBAM, and the ESPR affect component selection for engineers designing for EU markets?
These regulations are fundamentally changing the game. CSRD pushes Scope 3 reporting requirements down to the component level. CBAM makes carbon-intensive materials more expensive at the border. ESPR requires environmental performance from the design stage. Engineers will soon treat carbon as a core design parameter alongside cost and specs – not because they want to, but because they have to.
EEWorld: How familiar are engineering teams with LCA standards like ISO 14040/44 or EN 50693?
Kert: Most engineers aren’t LCA experts, nor should they be. They need carbon data to be as simple as checking price or availability. There’s growing interest in understanding the basics, especially as customers ask more questions, but the real need is for carbon data that’s already validated and ready to use – and Environmental Product Declarations (EPD) are emerging as a way of verifying the results.
EEWorld: If a customer sent you a sustainability scorecard rating your carbon performance, how would it affect your R&D roadmap?
Kert: For major customers, it becomes priority one. The challenge is that traditional R&D for lower-carbon alternatives is expensive and slow. Companies need to quickly identify their carbon hotspots and evaluate alternatives. The market is moving toward making these decisions in real-time rather than through lengthy redesign cycles.
EEWorld: How will carbon regulations reshape fundamental design decisions over the next 2 to 3 years?
Kert: It’s already happening. Procurement teams are building supplier scorecards based on emissions. Engineers are being asked to baseline current designs and identify cleaner alternatives. One executive told me: “If specs, price, and lead time match — why wouldn’t I choose the lower-emission option?” That mindset is spreading fast.
EEWorld: How does data scarcity affect the ability to make informed carbon decisions in product design?
Kert: It’s the biggest blocker. When getting data takes months — or is impossible — teams give up. The industry needs approaches that provide reasonable estimates quickly, then improve accuracy over time. Waiting for perfect data means missing market opportunities. This is where Sluicebox.ai can infill a lot of the gaps to a degree that could pass 3rd-party verifications and even EPDs.
EEWorld: What component-level information do engineers need to make better sustainability choices?
Kert: At minimum, a reliable CO₂e number they can use for comparison. Behind that, you need weight, materials, manufacturing location, and process data. But engineers shouldn’t have to become carbon accountants. They need final, comparable numbers they can trust. Trustedparts.com could be the initial source there, powered by Sluicebox.ai Component Carbon Intelligence (™)
EEWorld: How should engineers balance sustainability and supplier relationships, especially with smaller suppliers?
Kert: Focus on the biggest impact first. In most products, 80% of emissions come from 20% of components. Start there. Smaller suppliers often lack resources for carbon accounting, so demanding comprehensive data from everyone simultaneously just creates gridlock. Smart companies are taking a phased approach.
EEWorld: If you can’t trust supplier carbon data, how do you validate it?
Kert: Assume inconsistency. We’re seeing supplier data that varies by orders of magnitude for identical parts, usually due to different methodologies. The industry needs standardized approaches and automated validation. Until then, treat all data skeptically and look for obvious outliers.
EEWorld: How would real-time access to accurate carbon data change early-stage design?
Kert: It would transform decision-making. Engineers could evaluate carbon impact as easily as they check the cost today. Run scenarios, optimize designs, make tradeoffs – all in real time. The technology exists; it’s about making it accessible and trustworthy at scale.
EEWorld: If a competitor provides carbon data in a bid and you don’t, what’s the longer-term impact?
Kert: You lose more than the deal — you lose credibility. Once customers see that carbon transparency is possible, they expect it from everyone. Companies playing catch-up later face both higher costs and damaged relationships.
EEWorld: Will “green premiums” become the norm, and how should engineers account for that?
Kert: They’re already here in subtle ways. Many companies apply internal carbon pricing ($30-100/ton). Lower-carbon parts might cost more upfront but save money when you factor in carbon costs, compliance, and customer preferences. Engineers need to think about the total cost of ownership, including carbon.
EEWorld: As an engineer, how would you avoid getting stuck with parts that can’t meet evolving carbon requirements?
Kert: Build flexibility in from the start. Know your carbon hotspots. Have pre-qualified alternatives. Avoid single-sourcing from suppliers who can’t or won’t provide emissions data. The companies succeeding are those building carbon criteria into their standard selection process.
EEWorld: With access to real-time carbon data, what new competitive advantages could you create?
Kert: Faster design cycles. Better RFP responses. Qualification for green procurement programs. Supporting your existing customers with key information as they need it. But the real advantage is strategic — understanding where your emissions come from and having multiple paths to reduce them. That agility is becoming as important as cost optimization.
EEWorld: Where in daily engineering workflows do you see the biggest opportunity for carbon intelligence?
Kert: Wherever component decisions happen — BOM tools, sourcing systems, design reviews. Carbon data needs to live where engineers already work, not in separate sustainability reports. Make it invisible infrastructure, like pricing data. That’s how you drive real change.
Learn more about carbon intelligence and why you should care — now — in EEWorld’s latest EE Training Days webinar, “Why Should I Care? Real-World Use Cases for Product-Level Carbon Intelligence.” Register here for the on-demand version, where you can still ask your own questions.
