What does “sustainable grease” actually mean for your application?
Sustainability requirements in industry are evolving rapidly, driven by both legislation and customer expectations. At the same time, Product Carbon Footprint (PCF) has become one of the most visible and widely used metrics for environmental impact.
But while PCF is an important tool, it does not tell the whole story. When used on its own, it can lead to decisions that look good on paper – but perform worse in practice.
This article aims to explain why sustainability in lubricating grease cannot be reduced to a single number, and how a more application-driven perspective leads to better environmental and business decisions.
Questions we often hear from customers and the industry:
- • Which lubricating grease is most sustainable for my application?
- • How should we weigh carbon footprint against other environmental aspects?
- • Is it really better to switch to a grease with lower PCF, even if its service life is shorter?
Do these questions reflect the challenges your business faces as well? Read on to get a better understanding.
Putting carbon footprint in context
PCF is a relevant sustainability metric – but it is not a universal tool for all lubricating greases. What matters most depends on how and where the grease is used.
In some applications, biodegradability and low ecotoxicity are critical. In others, long service life, low friction and energy efficiency can have a much greater impact on total environmental performance over time.
Focusing too narrowly on carbon footprint alone risks oversimplifying a complex reality – and can, in some cases, increase both environmental impact and total cost.
Why carbon footprint alone is not enough
PCF has gained prominence because it is measurable, comparable and easy to communicate. That makes it attractive as a general sustainability indicator.
The challenge is that lubricating grease operates under very different conditions depending on the application. Environmental impact and performance are closely linked – and they do not scale in the same way across different use cases.
When a single metric is treated as a proxy for “sustainability”, important environmental and functional aspects risk being overlooked.
Open vs. closed systems – different priorities for sustainability
The environmental impact of a grease is highly dependent on its operational context.
In open systems, such as agricultural machinery or marine applications, where grease can be exposed to the environment, biodegradability and low ecotoxicity become critical. Here, the formulation needs to prioritise minimal environmental persistence and toxicity.
In closed or long life systems, such as industrial gearboxes or electric motors, the situation is different. Here, the key sustainability factor is tribological performance over time. A grease that maintains low friction coefficients and resist oxidation or mechanical degradation reduces energy consumption and extends component life, can result in a lower overall environmental impact, even if its PCF is higher.
This means the focus must shift from identifying the grease with the lowest carbon footprint to selecting the most sustainable option for the specific application.
When carbon footprint matters most
PCF becomes particularly relevant in high volume applications, where the cumulative impact of raw materials, production and disposal is substantial. In these cases, improvements in sourcing, formulation and manufacturing efficiency can make a meaningful difference.
The key point is not to dismiss PCF – but to place it in the right context, alongside the factors that are most decisive for the specific application.
What this means for your business
Customers are faced with choosing between different lubricating greases and need to understand which sustainability factors are most important for their specific application.
The wrong choice can lead to:
- • higher operating costs
- • reduced equipment lifetime
- • poorer overall environmental performance
For example, switching to a grease with a lower carbon footprint but shorter service life may increase grease consumption, maintenance frequency and energy use. In the worst case, this results in both higher total cost and higher total environmental impact.
Key insights – A more application-driven approach
- • Better sustainable choices in lubricating grease require system thinking. The full life cycle must be evaluated together with application requirements, based on a holistic perspective and dialogue between supplier, customer, and end user.
- • PCF should be seen as one piece of the puzzle, not the answer. Depending on the application, factors such as biodegradability, ecotoxicity, energy efficiency and service life need to be weighted differently.
- • Using the right metrics for the right application leads to better decisions – environmentally and commercially.
Looking ahead - A shared responsibility—across the value chain
Sustainability demands will continue to increase, and measurement methods will evolve. To meet these challenges, the industry needs to collaborate on clearer guidelines and adopt a more application-driven approach.
Companies that combine technical expertise with a broader sustainability perspective will make better decisions. They will also be better positioned, both environmentally and commercially.