The global green economic transformation has become an irreversible trend of the times. Under the promotion of the "carbon peaking and carbon neutrality" goals, the low-carbon development of various industries has become the core path to achieve sustainable development. According to the Global Carbon Neutrality Development Report (2024), the carbon emissions of the global service industry have accounted for 33%. Among them, the sports industry, as a special field with both economic attributes and social value, its carbon emission issue has become increasingly prominent. The high-carbon characteristics of core links such as large-scale sports events, sports goods manufacturing, and venue operation are in sharp contrast to the development requirements of the green economy: the total carbon emissions of the 2012 London Olympics reached 3.4 million tons, and the total carbon emissions of the 2016 Rio Olympics exceeded 5 million tons. Even the 2020 Tokyo Olympics, which adopted emission reduction measures, still had actual carbon emissions 43% higher than the expected target. The sports goods manufacturing sector also faces pressure for low-carbon transformation. The annual energy consumption of China's sports goods industry accounts for 2.1% of the country's total industrial energy consumption. Among them, the carbon emission intensity of links such as chemical fiber raw material processing and printing and dyeing processes in the production of sports shoes and apparel remains high, and the carbon emission per unit output value is more than 3 times that of the electronic information industry.

Under the development logic of the green economy, which emphasizes "efficient resource utilization and minimal environmental impact", the sports industry, as an important growth point of the national economy, its low-carbon transformation is not only an inevitable choice to respond to global climate governance but also an inherent requirement for the sustainable development of the industry itself. With the clear proposal of "establishing a green development standard system for the sports industry" in the 14th Five-Year Plan for Sports Development and the inclusion of green renovation of sports venues and manufacturing of environmentally friendly sports goods in the support scope in the Green Industry Guidance Catalog (2024 Edition), the sports industry is facing a critical period of transformation from "scale expansion" to "quality and efficiency improvement".

As a fundamental tool for the low-carbon development of the sports industry, carbon footprint management’s practical value is reflected in the coordinated efforts of three dimensions: policy response, industrial upgrading, and international competition. At the policy response level, since the implementation of China's "carbon peaking and carbon neutrality" goals, policy documents such as the Carbon Peaking Implementation Plan in the Sports Field and the Green Sports Venue Evaluation Standard have been successively issued, requiring the establishment of a full-chain carbon emission accounting mechanism covering sports events, goods manufacturing, and venue operation. Carbon footprint measurement can provide a quantitative basis for policy implementation. For example, by accurately identifying high-emission links, it supports the formulation of differentiated emission reduction policies and avoids the suppression of industrial development by "one-size-fits-all" control. Beijing has clearly included carbon footprint data as a core indicator for event approval and financial subsidies in its 2025 sports industry plan, highlighting its value as a policy tool.

At the industrial upgrading dimension, carbon footprint management promotes the transformation of the sports industry towards "low-carbonization, circularization, and digitalization". Through carbon footprint analysis, sports goods enterprises can optimize the supply chain structure. For instance, Anta Group promoted upstream suppliers to adopt recycled materials based on carbon footprint data, reducing the carbon emissions of sports shoe products by 28%. Sports venues realize the adjustment of energy structure through carbon footprint measurement. Shanghai Xujiahui Sports Park achieved an annual carbon emission reduction of 12,000 tons and a 15% reduction in operating costs through photovoltaic transformation and intelligent energy consumption management. This "low-carbon-driven innovation" model not only improves the ecological benefits of the industry but also gives rise to new business formats such as green event operation and carbon-labeled sports goods, promoting the extension of the industrial value chain to the high end.

At the international competition level, carbon footprint has become a core element in the global sports industry competition. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) released the Olympic Agenda 2030 in 2024, requiring all candidate cities to submit full-cycle carbon footprint reports. The International Federation of Association Football (FIFA) takes "carbon-neutral events" as a rigid indicator for World Cup bidding. China's sports industry faces increasingly strict "carbon thresholds" in the process of internationalization. In 2023, the EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) included sports goods in its supervision scope, requiring export enterprises to submit complete carbon footprint certificates. By constructing a scientific carbon footprint measurement system, China can gain more discourse power in the formulation of international sports standards. For example, the Specification for Carbon Footprint Evaluation of Sportswear participated in by Anta has become a reference document of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), effectively breaking through trade barriers.

Although the application of carbon footprint measurement in the sports field is increasing, existing studies still have significant limitations, which are difficult to meet the needs of industrial low-carbon development under the guidance of the green economy. The problem of fragmented methods is particularly prominent. Current studies mostly adopt a single accounting method: Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is mostly used for the analysis of individual sports goods but cannot cover complex systems such as events; the IPCC Inventory Method is widely used for measuring energy emissions of venues but ignores indirect emissions from the supply chain; the Input-Output Method can evaluate the overall carbon emissions of the industry but lacks the accuracy of micro-links. This phenomenon of "method islands" makes it difficult to compare the results of different studies. For example, the carbon footprint measurement results of the same event using the LCA method and the Input-Output Method can differ by more than 40%, which seriously affects the policy reference value.

Insufficient adaptability is another core bottleneck. Most existing methods are transplanted from the industrial or energy sectors and do not fully consider the particularities of the sports industry: first, the complexity of business formats leads to difficulties in boundary definition. The sports industry covers multiple forms such as manufacturing, services, and event activities, while existing studies mostly focus on a single business format; second, it is difficult to capture dynamic emission sources. The unsteady emissions such as the construction of temporary facilities for sports events and periodic audience flow are difficult to accurately quantify using traditional static accounting methods; third, there are particularities in data acquisition. The supply chain of sports goods involves multi-level suppliers, and the event operation data is scattered among multiple entities such as the organizing committee, venues, and service providers. Existing methods lack data collection and processing standards for the sports industry, resulting in insufficient credibility of measurement results.

In addition, the lack of a standard system exacerbates application difficulties. There is no unified carbon footprint accounting standard for the sports industry internationally, and there are significant differences in emission factors and accounting scopes adopted by different institutions. The standard of the Global Sports Reporting Initiative (GSRI) focuses on event operation, while the specification of the Global Carbon Project (GCP) is more suitable for the manufacturing industry. Although China has issued the Guidelines for Carbon Emission Accounting of Sports Venues, it does not cover the entire industrial chain and has insufficient connection with international standards. This fragmentation of standards imposes a "multiple certification" burden on enterprise practices. These limitations highlight the urgency of constructing a carbon footprint measurement method system adapted to the characteristics of the sports industry.

As a core tool for environmental impact assessment, the carbon footprint measurement method system has been continuously improved in practice, forming mainstream technical paths such as Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), IPCC Inventory Method, and Input-Output Analysis Method. In terms of the application of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), Can Liu et al. (2025) identified key emission links such as white silk production (44.87%) and steam use (39.56%) through the carbon footprint analysis of the entire life cycle of mulberry silk quilts, confirming the effectiveness of this method in identifying full-chain emission sources of products. Valérie Cappuyns (2024) compared measurement tools such as CO₂PL and SRT in the field of soil remediation and found that the LCA method may lead to result deviations due to differences in boundary settings, emphasizing the need to standardize the setting standards of functional units and system boundaries.

In terms of policy-driven measurement frameworks, Steger Jensen et al. (2025) analyzed the carbon footprint accounting requirements under the EU "cap and trade" mechanism for the logistics and transportation field and proposed a dynamic adjustment plan for emission factors based on industry standards, reflecting the application value of the IPCC Inventory Method in policy compliance assessment. Aitziber Pousa Unanue et al. (2025) innovatively integrated spatiotemporal behavior analysis with the carbon footprint model, incorporating tourist activity trajectory data into the carbon footprint measurement of urban tourism, and found that the per capita carbon footprint of natural leisure tourists reached 30.69 kg CO₂ equivalent per trip, providing a method reference for accurate measurement of segmented scenarios. In addition, Dimitrios E. Tsesmelis et al. (2025) confirmed in agricultural research that the Input-Output Analysis Method can quantify the emission reduction effect of smart farming technology on carbon footprints (30%-40% reduction per unit output), highlighting the feasibility of cross-field method migration.

Although existing sustainable research on the sports industry has not formed a systematic carbon footprint measurement system, relevant explorations have involved core fields such as event operation, sports goods, and venue construction. In terms of event operation, Kadagi Nelly Isigi et al. (2021) pointed out in their research on marine recreational sports fisheries in the Western Indian Ocean that traffic emissions and insufficient community participation in event activities are the main environmental stressors, indirectly reflecting the carbon footprint issues of links such as audience transportation and temporary facility construction in large-scale sports events. Millington Rob et al. (2022) revealed the phenomenon of "hidden carbon emission transfer" possibly caused by the commercial operation of events through a critical analysis of sports projects sponsored by Canadian mining companies.

In the field of sports goods manufacturing, the carbon footprint research on mulberry silk quilts by Can Liu et al. (2025) provides a reference for the production of sports apparel and equipment. The key links of material production and energy consumption identified are similar to scenarios such as sports clothing fabric processing and sports shoe sole manufacturing. In terms of venue construction and operation, Wang Sen et al. (2023) emphasized that the ice and snow sports tourism industry needs to balance ecological protection and venue expansion, pointing out that the heating energy consumption and snow-melting facilities of venues in cold regions may become high-emission sources. The "AI + Sports" integration model proposed by Yun Yang (2024) provides a technical path for optimizing venue energy consumption through intelligent monitoring.

Current research has three significant limitations in the field of sports industry carbon footprint: first, the measurement boundaries are not unified. Valérie Cappuyns (2024) has confirmed that different tools lead to result deviations due to differences in boundary settings. However, the sports industry covers the entire chain of "production-circulation-consumption-recycling", and existing studies have not clarified key boundary issues such as whether event carbon emissions include audience transportation and whether venue carbon emissions include surrounding supporting facilities. Second, the coverage of links is incomplete. Existing studies mostly focus on a single link (such as goods production or venue operation) and lack carbon footprint assessment of hidden links such as sports equipment logistics and transportation, construction and demolition of temporary event facilities, and athletes' business trips. For example, although the tourist spatiotemporal analysis method by Aitziber Pousa Unanue et al. (2025) has reference value, it has not been applied to the measurement of event audience flow emissions.

Third, there is a lack of industry-specific frameworks. Existing carbon footprint methods are mostly derived from fields such as agriculture and manufacturing and cannot fully adapt to the particularities of the sports industry: such as the pulsed emission characteristics of sports events, the seasonal fluctuation of energy demand for ice and snow sports, and the dependence of outdoor sports on the natural environment. These lead to deviations between the measurement results of general methods and actual emissions. At the same time, the research on the combination of dual-carbon technology (Chao Zhang et al., 2025) and the sports industry under the background of the green economy is insufficient, and a closed-loop system of "measurement-evaluation-emission reduction" has not been formed.

The green economy is a sustainable development economic model that takes ecological environment protection as the premise, efficient circular utilization of resources as the core, and technological innovation as the driving force. Its core connotation is reflected in "triple synergy": in terms of value logic, it pursues the balance between economic growth and ecological benefits; in terms of practical paths, it relies on low-carbon technology and circular economy to realize industrial transformation; in terms of goal orientation, it constructs a long-term mechanism for green development through institutional innovation.

The compatibility between the green economy and the sports industry runs through the entire industrial chain, which is specifically reflected in three aspects:

First, the natural adaptation of resource circulation. The sports industry can practice the green economy logic through "reduction, reuse, and resource utilization". For example, sports venues adopt photovoltaic roofs to achieve energy self-sufficiency (Shanghai Xujiahui Sports Park reduces emissions by 12,000 tons annually), and sports goods enterprises use recycled materials to reduce carbon emissions (Anta reduces carbon emissions of sports shoes by 28%), all of which reflect the core requirement of efficient resource utilization. Second, the in-depth synergy of policy orientation. Green economy policies provide institutional support for the low-carbon transformation of the sports industry: the Green Industry Guidance Catalog (2024 Edition) includes the green renovation of sports venues in the support scope, and the 14th Five-Year Plan for Sports Development clearly states "establishing a green development standard system for the sports industry". The two form a closed loop of "policy guidance-industry response", promoting the transformation of the sports industry from scale expansion to quality and efficiency improvement. Third, the two-way empowerment of value transmission. As a field with high social attention, the sports industry can transmit the concept of green economy through practices such as event carbon neutrality and promotion of green sports goods (e.g., the 247-ton carbon emission offset practice of the Scottish Premier League). At the same time, the low-carbon requirements of the green economy give rise to new business formats in the sports industry, such as carbon-labeled sports goods and green event operation, promoting the extension of the industrial value chain to the high end.

The scope of the sports industry should be defined from the dual dimensions of "core business formats + related links", and its carbon footprint boundaries should be dynamically divided in combination with industrial characteristics. The core business formats and their carbon footprint boundaries are mainly divided into three aspects: first, sports event operation. It covers the entire cycle of event preparation, in-event operation, and post-event conclusion. The carbon footprint boundary needs to cover the emission sources directly controlled by the event and the hidden indirect emissions related to it; second, sports goods manufacturing. It includes links such as raw material production, finished product assembly, and packaging logistics. The carbon footprint boundary needs to extend to the entire chain of "cradle to gate", i.e., the entire life cycle from raw material extraction to product factory; third, sports services. Centered on sports venue operation and sports tourism, it covers daily energy consumption of venues, site maintenance, and service support. The carbon footprint boundary needs to include emissions from the main venue and supporting facilities.

Carbon footprint measurement needs to clarify three core elements: emission sources, accounting scope, and quantitative units, and accurately define them in combination with the characteristics of the sports industry.

On the one hand, in terms of emission sources, according to the GHG Protocol classification standard, the carbon footprint emission sources of the sports industry are divided into three categories: (1) Direct emissions (Scope 1): fossil fuel combustion in sports venues, refrigerant leakage from temporary event facilities, exhaust gas from site maintenance equipment, etc. (2) Indirect energy emissions (Scope 2): emissions generated by the conversion of purchased energy such as electricity (e.g., lighting and air conditioning in gymnasiums) and purchased steam; (3) Other indirect emissions (Scope 3): full-chain indirect emissions including upstream supply chain, downstream consumption, event-related business trips, and waste disposal.

On the other hand, in terms of accounting scope, it needs to be defined from both spatial and temporal dimensions: (1) Spatial scope: events take "venue core area + impact radiation area" as the boundary; manufacturing takes "production plant area + supply chain coverage area" as the boundary; services take "service place + consumer activity area" as the boundary; (2) Temporal scope: events need to cover the entire cycle of "preparation-holding-post-event"; manufacturing needs to include the entire life cycle of "raw material extraction-product disposal"; services are accounted for on an annual or service cycle basis.

Third, in terms of quantitative units, unified standards are required to ensure the comparability of measurement results: (1) Benchmark unit: Carbon dioxide equivalent (kg CO₂e) is used as the unified quantitative unit, and non-CO₂ greenhouse gases are converted according to the latest GWP values (AR6) of the IPCC (e.g., GWP of methane = 28, GWP of nitrous oxide = 273); (2) Functional unit: Set according to the characteristics of business formats. For events, it is based on "per capita per trip" (e.g., 30.69 kg CO₂e per trip for natural leisure tourists); for manufacturing, it is based on "per unit product weight/quantity" (e.g., carbon footprint per pair of sports shoes); for services, it is based on "per unit service duration/area" (e.g., annual carbon footprint per square meter of sports venues).

The green economy theory takes "maintenance and appreciation of ecological capital" as the core, emphasizing the realization of sustainable development through the dynamic balance between economic activities and ecological carrying capacity. Its theoretical core includes two pillars: low-carbon development and efficient resource utilization. British environmental economist Pearce (1989) first systematically proposed that the green economy should balance the synergy between economic growth and ecological protection, and subsequent scholars developed it into a practical framework of "low consumption, low emission, and high circulation". Among them, the low-carbon development theory focuses on the total carbon emission control and optimization of emission reduction paths, advocating the reduction of carbon emissions per unit output through energy structure adjustment and technological innovation, which provides macro guidance for the sports industry to transform from "high-carbon expansion" to "low-carbon transformation".

The theory of efficient resource utilization emphasizes improving resource allocation efficiency through the circular economy model. Its principle of "reduction-reuse-resource utilization" directly guides the practice of the sports industry: in the event field, the Paris Olympics achieved a 92% recycling rate of building materials through the modular design of temporary venues, confirming the contribution of resource circulation to carbon emission reduction; in venue operation, Shanghai Xujiahui Sports Park improved energy utilization efficiency by 15% through an intelligent energy consumption monitoring system, reflecting the green economy logic of "energy efficiency improvement equals emission reduction". This theory provides the idea of "linked analysis of carbon emissions and resource consumption" for the carbon footprint measurement of the sports industry, promoting the expansion of the measurement system from single carbon accounting to "carbon-resource" collaborative assessment.

Based on system theory, the industrial ecology theory regards industrial activities as an organic whole interacting with the ecosystem. Its core methods include the full-life-cycle perspective and material flow analysis, which provide methodological support for the systematic measurement of the carbon footprint of the sports industry. The Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) theory proposed by the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) emphasizes the environmental impact assessment of the entire process of a product or service from "cradle to grave". This perspective is suitable for the multi-link linkage characteristics of the sports industry: in the manufacturing of sports goods, it can track the full-chain carbon emissions from the production of chemical fiber raw materials to the disposal of waste sports shoes; in event operation, it can cover the full-cycle carbon footprint from venue construction, event operation to post-event demolition.

The Material Flow Analysis (MFA) theory reveals the migration law of carbon elements by tracking the flow path and conversion efficiency of materials in the industrial system. In the sports industry, this theory can be applied to: the tracking of carbon flow in event materials; the carbon metabolism analysis of sports venues. The systematic thinking of industrial ecology breaks through the limitation of traditional "single-link accounting" and provides a theoretical basis for constructing a sports industry carbon footprint measurement system covering the entire chain of "production-circulation-consumption-recycling".

The carbon footprint accounting theory takes "clear boundaries and accurate emissions" as the core. Its key lies in scientifically dividing direct and indirect emissions, providing a standardized framework for the quantitative measurement of the carbon footprint of the sports industry. The GHG Protocol jointly released by the World Resources Institute (WRI) and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) divides carbon emissions into three scopes: Direct emissions (Scope 1) refer to emission sources controlled by the subject (e.g., emissions from gas-fired boilers in sports venues); Indirect energy emissions (Scope 2) refer to indirect emissions generated by purchased energy (e.g., power generation carbon emissions corresponding to venue electricity consumption); Other indirect emissions (Scope 3) cover upstream and downstream related emissions (e.g., audience transportation for events, transportation of sports goods). This division method solves the accounting problem of "complex business formats and scattered emission sources" in the sports industry.

The application value of this theory in the sports industry is reflected in: first, clarifying the accounting boundary. For example, event carbon footprints must include Scope 3 audience transportation emissions to avoid accounting omissions; second, realizing accurate emission reduction. By distinguishing between direct and indirect emissions, targeted measures are formulated—for example, Scope 1 emissions can be solved by replacing with clean energy, and Scope 3 emissions need to be optimized through supply chain collaboration. The carbon footprint accounting theory provides core criteria for this study to construct a "multi-dimensional, full-scope" sports industry carbon footprint measurement method system, ensuring the comparability and practicality of measurement results.

As a core emission source of the sports industry's carbon footprint, the carbon emission formation mechanism of event operation presents the characteristics of "centralization, pulsation, and multi-source superposition", which mainly stems from the synergy of three links. Venue energy consumption is the core emission source, including electricity consumption and direct combustion of fossil fuels during the event. The venue operation carbon emissions of the 2020 Tokyo Olympics accounted for 31% of the total emissions, among which the energy consumption of the main stadium's air conditioning system accounted for 42%. The "instantaneous high-load" characteristic of large-scale events intensifies the emission intensity. For example, the power demand of venues during the World Cup final stage surges 3–5 times compared with daily demand, leading to an increase in the carbon emission coefficient of grid peak-shaving power generation.

The transportation and logistics link forms an indirect emission superposition effect, covering three paths: transportation of participants, material transportation, and audience travel. The imbalance of temporal and spatial distribution further amplifies the emission impact. For example, the concentrated travel of Winter Olympics audiences leads to a pulsed characteristic of transportation carbon emissions, with the peak during the event exceeding 3 times that of daily emissions.

Material waste and temporary facilities constitute hidden emission sources. The one-time use of event-specific materials generates carbon emissions from waste disposal. The production of building materials for the construction of temporary venues and the landfill of construction waste from post-event demolition account for 15% and 8% of the total emissions in the entire event cycle, respectively. Although the Paris Olympics reduced building material emissions by 30% through the modular design of temporary facilities, insufficient material recycling rate remains a common problem.

The carbon footprint formation of the sports goods manufacturing link has the characteristics of "full-chain penetration and high energy consumption concentration", and the carbon emission intensity is transmitted step by step along the industrial chain. Raw material production is the core emission node. The production process of main raw materials for sports goods such as chemical fibers (polyester fibers) and rubber is carbon-intensive. The production of polyester fibers for sports clothing fabrics emits approximately 5.2 tons of CO₂ per ton, and the raw material processing of rubber soles in sports shoes accounts for 38% of the carbon footprint of individual products. Although natural materials have higher environmental friendliness, the use of chemical fertilizers in the planting/breeding links of cotton and wool and methane emissions still constitute hidden carbon sources. For example, the emission in the raw material stage of pure cotton sportswear accounts for 27%.

The energy consumption in the processing and manufacturing link forms secondary emissions. The carbon emissions from processes such as printing and dyeing, injection molding, and sewing are significant. Among them, the printing and dyeing link accounts for 29% of the total emissions of sports goods manufacturing, and the dye chemical process also produces strong greenhouse gases such as N₂O. Although intelligent transformation can reduce energy consumption—for example, Anta's intelligent factory reduces processing energy consumption by 18% through frequency conversion equipment—the technical lag of small and medium-sized enterprises leads to high overall emission intensity of the industry.

The carbon emissions in the packaging and transportation links have the characteristics of "dispersion and long chain". The production of plastic film and carton manufacturing for product packaging accounts for 8% and 5% of the end emissions, respectively; the ocean transportation of cross-border supply chains (with a carbon emission of approximately 3.2 tons of CO₂ per container) and warehouse refrigeration energy consumption increase the full-chain carbon footprint of exported sports goods by 40%-60% compared with domestic products. The EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) targets such cross-border emissions, requiring enterprises to account for the full-chain carbon footprint.

The carbon footprint formation of the fitness service link presents the characteristics of "scenario-based and terminal-dispersed", and the emission sources are deeply bound to the service scenarios. Venue operation energy consumption is the main emission item. The air conditioning (accounting for 45% of total energy consumption), lighting (15%), and hot water supply (20%) of fitness centers constitute stable emission sources, and the cumulative effect of total carbon emissions is significant due to the long operation time (12–16 hours per day). There are obvious differences in energy consumption characteristics among different scenarios: the energy consumption of the heating system of constant-temperature swimming pools is 2–3 times that of ordinary gyms; the ice-making equipment (ammonia refrigeration or freon system) of ice and snow sports venues not only directly emits greenhouse gases but also its electricity consumption accounts for 62% of the total venue emissions.

The use and maintenance of fitness equipment generate continuous emissions. The electricity consumption of electric equipment such as treadmills and spinning bikes (each treadmill consumes approximately 1.2 kWh per hour) and the replacement of parts and use of lubricating oil in regular equipment maintenance account for 12% and 5% of the carbon footprint of the service link, respectively. The problem of low energy efficiency of old equipment is prominent. The energy consumption of fitness equipment used for more than 8 years is 30% higher than that of new equipment, which intensifies the carbon emission intensity.

Consumer transportation and behavior constitute the extension of indirect emissions. The daily commuting of fitness groups and the carrying of sports equipment make the consumer-side emissions account for 28%-42% of the full-chain carbon footprint of fitness services. Although the 24-hour gym operation improves service convenience, the idling rate of equipment during off-peak hours reaches 50%, resulting in energy waste and redundant carbon emissions.

Related links affect the formation of the sports industry's carbon footprint through "transmission effect and external intervention", forming a hidden driving mechanism of carbon emissions. The indirect emissions from the upstream supply chain have the characteristic of "multi-level penetration". The carbon emissions of secondary and tertiary suppliers of sports goods enterprises are transmitted along the chain, accounting for 55%-70% of the total emissions of the manufacturing link; although the carbon emissions of event service providers are not directly included in the event subject, the energy consumption and material waste in their service process still constitute related emissions, accounting for 18% of the full-cycle carbon footprint of the event. Anta reduced the supply chain carbon emissions by 22% through the replacement of recycled materials by upstream suppliers, confirming the emission reduction potential of related links.

The policy-driven mechanism adjusts carbon emissions through "constraint and incentive" two-way regulation. Mandatory policies (e.g., Green Sports Venue Evaluation Standard) set energy consumption ceilings to promote photovoltaic transformation and intelligent monitoring of venues; incentive policies reduce the emission reduction costs of enterprises. In 2024, China's low-carbon technological transformation projects in the sports industry received more than 30 billion yuan in special loans, driving a 15% increase in emission reduction. However, the "industry difference" in policy implementation leads to differentiated effects. The emission reduction progress in the event field lags behind that in the manufacturing field due to ambiguous standards.

The market mechanism affects emission behavior through consumer preferences and competition rules. Consumers' willingness to pay for "carbon-labeled sports goods" has increased (with a premium acceptance of 20%), forcing enterprises to optimize production processes; the "carbon-neutral event" access rules of international sports organizations (e.g., FIFA World Cup bidding requirements) force organizers to increase emission reduction investment. However, the inconsistency of carbon accounting standards leads to the phenomenon of "greenwashing". Some enterprises falsely reduce carbon footprints by narrowing the accounting scope, which weakens the effectiveness of the market mechanism.

Scientificity is the core guarantee of the measurement system, which needs to achieve accurate quantification through the dual control of method adaptability and data availability. In terms of method adaptability, it is necessary to select appropriate tools according to the emission characteristics of different business formats in the sports industry: for the full-chain carbon emissions of sports goods manufacturing, the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) method is used to cover the entire cycle of "raw material-production-transportation" (referring to the accurate division logic of mulberry silk quilt production links); for the direct emissions of events, the IPCC Inventory Method is used to account for clear emission sources such as venue fuel combustion and electricity consumption; for the indirect emissions of the supply chain, the Input-Output Method is used to quantify the hidden emissions of multi-level suppliers (referring to the carbon footprint accounting practice of Anta's upstream supply chain). Method selection should avoid "one-size-fits-all". For example, the seasonal emissions of ice and snow events need to be adjusted in combination with dynamic factors, while the decentralized emissions of fitness services need to be corrected by sampling accounting.

In terms of data availability, it is necessary to establish a data collection mechanism of "industry commonality + business format characteristics": common data (such as electricity emission factors and transportation carbon emission coefficients) rely on standard data sources released by national competent authorities such as the Provincial Greenhouse Gas Inventory Compilation Guidelines; characteristic data (such as event audience flow and the proportion of raw materials for sports goods) are obtained through multiple channels such as enterprise annual reports, event organizing committee ledgers, and industry surveys. For data missing problems, "alternative data + scenario analysis" is used for processing. For example, when small and medium-sized sports enterprises lack energy consumption data, the average energy consumption per unit output value of enterprises of the same scale can be used for estimation. At the same time, sensitivity analysis is used to verify the impact of data deviations on the results, ensuring that the measurement conclusions are within an acceptable error range (usually controlled within ± 10%).

The systematic principle requires the measurement system to break through the limitation of "single link and single business format" and realize the complete coverage of the full chain and multi-dimensions. Full-chain coverage should run through the entire life cycle of the sports industry's "production-circulation-consumption-recycling": the production end covers upstream links such as the extraction of raw materials for sports goods and the production of venue building materials; the circulation end includes intermediate links such as equipment transportation and event material distribution; the consumption end covers use links such as audience watching events and fitness group travel; the recycling end includes end links such as the disposal of waste sports goods and the dismantling of temporary event facilities. Taking large-scale events as an example, the pre-event venue construction, in-event operation, and post-event legacy utilization should be regarded as an organic whole to avoid omitting the carbon emissions from the demolition of temporary facilities (accounting for 8%-15% of the total event emissions).

Multi-business format compatibility requires the construction of a flexible system of "general framework + business format module": the general framework unifies basic standards such as emission source classification (e.g., energy, material, activity), accounting boundaries (Scope 1/2/3 division), and quantitative units (CO₂ equivalent); for different business formats such as event operation, sports goods manufacturing, and fitness services, differentiated measurement modules are designed—the event module focuses on strengthening the accounting of dynamic emissions such as audience transportation and temporary facilities, the manufacturing module highlights core links such as raw materials and processing energy consumption, and the service module focuses on the linkage analysis of venue operation and consumer behavior. Through the design of "general standards ensuring comparability and business format modules ensuring accuracy", the horizontal comparison (e.g., carbon intensity per unit output value) and vertical tracking (e.g., annual carbon footprint change of an enterprise) of carbon footprints of different business formats are realized.

The practical principle emphasizes that the measurement system should balance operational feasibility and decision support value, avoiding the disconnection between theory and practice. In terms of operational simplicity, it is necessary to simplify the accounting process and provide tool support: for small and medium-sized sports enterprises, a "fill-in-the-blank" measurement template is developed, with built-in industry-average emission factors and basic calculation formulas. Users only need to input key data such as output value and energy consumption to automatically generate carbon footprint reports; for large-scale events or enterprises, a "basic version + professional version" dual model is provided. The basic version meets the needs of quickly identifying high-emission links, while the professional version supports full-chain refined accounting (including more than 200 segmented emission items). At the same time, visualization tools (such as carbon emission heat maps) are used to present measurement results, intuitively showing the emission proportion of each link and reducing the use threshold for non-professionals.

In terms of policy guidance, measurement indicators should directly meet the needs of industrial low-carbon development: core indicators (such as carbon intensity per unit output value and per capita carbon emissions of events) are used to evaluate the effectiveness of industrial green transformation and support the goal decomposition of policies such as the Carbon Peaking Implementation Plan in the Sports Field; segmented indicators (such as the proportion of carbon emissions from raw materials of sports goods and the utilization rate of renewable energy in venues) provide emission reduction directions for enterprises. For example, after a sports shoe enterprise found through measurement that rubber raw material emissions account for 38%, it turned to recycled rubber replacement to achieve emission reduction; comparison indicators (such as the carbon footprint difference of similar events at home and abroad) provide a basis for international benchmarking, helping China's sports industry meet the requirements of international rules such as the EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM). The measurement results need to form a closed-loop report of "problem diagnosis-emission reduction suggestions-benefit prediction". For example, specific measures such as "off-peak viewing + public transportation guidance" are proposed for high-emission events to ensure the operability of policy suggestions.

This module realizes the systematic architecture of carbon footprint measurement through multi-dimensional collaboration. The three-dimensional boundary definition establishes the accounting boundary from industrial activities (events/manufacturing/services), geographical scope (core area/radiation area), and emission types (direct emissions Scope 1, indirect energy emissions Scope 2, other indirect emissions Scope 3), and clarifies the inclusion standards for easily omitted links such as event audience transportation and goods supply chain. The carbon source inventory construction sorts out emission sources according to energy (venue gas/electricity consumption), material (raw material production/waste disposal), and activity (audience travel/athletes' business trips) categories, forming a carbon source database covering the full chain. The multi-method collaborative measurement adapts tools to scenarios: LCA is used for the full-life-cycle analysis of sports goods from "raw material to recycling", the IPCC Inventory Method is used to quantify direct emissions such as venue fuel combustion, and the Input-Output Method is used to trace multi-level indirect emissions from the supply chain, realizing the accurate matching of methods and scenarios. The core indicator system design includes three types of indicators: efficiency-type (carbon intensity per unit output value), scale-type (total carbon emissions of events), and per capita-type (per capita carbon footprint of fitness services) to meet different assessment needs.

The reliability and applicability of measurement results are guaranteed through scientific methods. Sensitivity analysis adjusts key parameters (such as audience flow fluctuations and emission factor updates) in gradients, quantifies the impact of data deviations on results, and identifies sensitive links such as venue energy consumption and raw material carbon emissions. Uncertainty assessment adopts the "data traceability + scenario simulation" method. For missing data, industry average values are used for replacement and error ranges are marked. High/medium/low emission scenario analysis is used to strengthen the robustness of conclusions. At the same time, a "case verification-expert review" dual mechanism is established, combining the comparison of measured data from typical events and enterprise cases, and the rationality verification of accounting logic by industry experts to continuously optimize the accuracy and practicality of the measurement framework.

The pre-event preparation stage focuses on venue infrastructure and material preparation, and the IPCC Inventory Method is used for accounting: carbon emissions from the production of building materials (steel, concrete) and construction energy consumption for venue new construction/renovation, with reference to the industry benchmark of 35% carbon footprint proportion in Winter Olympics venue construction; carbon emissions from cross-border transportation (sea/air transportation) of event equipment procurement, quantified according to transportation distance and load factor (e.g., unit carbon emission of container sea transportation is 3.2 tons of CO₂/container). A carbon source inventory of materials is established simultaneously to distinguish the emission differences between disposable materials (billboards, tickets) and recyclable materials (broadcasting equipment).

The in-event operation stage implements dynamic monitoring, integrating spatiotemporal behavior analysis and energy consumption statistics: venue energy consumption (electricity, gas) is classified into Scope 2 emissions based on real-time metering data; audience transportation emissions are measured using the "person-time-distance-mode" model (carbon emission factors of private cars/public transportation are 0.15/0.05 kg CO₂e/person·km respectively); indirect emissions from event services (catering supply, medical support) are included in Scope 3, accounting for approximately 18%. Special accounting of pulsed emissions is carried out for peak activities such as opening and closing ceremonies.

The post-event conclusion stage focuses on tracking facility disposal and waste flow: carbon emissions from the transportation and landfill of building materials from the demolition of temporary venues are quantified using the Material Flow Analysis method (referring to the practical parameters of 30% emission reduction from the demolition of temporary facilities in the Paris Olympics); the recycling rate of event materials (e.g., medal scrap recycling) affects the accounting of end emissions, and the unrecycled part is included in Scope 3 according to the waste incineration/landfill factor.

The raw material procurement link applies the LCA method to trace upstream emissions: carbon emissions from the production of core raw materials such as chemical fibers (polyester fibers) and rubber (5.2 tons of CO₂ emitted per ton of polyester fiber), accounting for 45%-55% of the total manufacturing emissions; hidden emissions from auxiliary materials (zippers, dyes) are converted based on supplier data and included in Scope 3 supply chain emissions. A raw material carbon footprint database is established to distinguish the emission differences between recycled materials and virgin materials (e.g., 60% emission reduction of recycled polyester fibers).

The production and processing link is accounted for based on the factory energy consumption ledger: direct emissions (Scope 1) and indirect emissions from purchased energy (Scope 2) from processes such as printing and dyeing (steam consumption accounts for 39.56%) and injection molding (electricity consumption) are divided according to the ISO 14064 standard; carbon emissions from production waste (scraps, wastewater treatment) are assigned according to the treatment method (incineration/landfill), accounting for 8%-12% of the emissions in the processing link. Intelligent metering devices are installed on key equipment to improve data accuracy.

The warehousing and transportation link implements segmented quantification: energy consumption for refrigeration/lighting in finished product warehouses is classified into Scope 2; domestic distribution is calculated according to the unit cargo carbon emission factor of transportation methods (road/railway) (e.g., 0.12 kg CO₂e/ton·km for truck transportation); sea/air transportation emissions from cross-border exports are superimposed with carbon emissions from the production of packaging materials (plastic film, cartons), accounting for 25%-30% of the end-link emissions.

The venue construction link adopts a full-life-cycle perspective: carbon emissions from the production of building materials (steel structures, glass curtain walls) and construction machinery energy consumption for new venues, with reference to the sports venue carbon emission benchmark value of 80–120 kg CO₂e/m² per unit area; carbon emissions from equipment replacement (e.g., swimming pool heating system) for the renovation of existing venues are accounted for according to the full process of production and demolition of replacement parts. The emission boundaries between the main building and auxiliary facilities (parking lots, rest areas) are distinguished.

The daily operation link establishes a dynamic monitoring system: energy consumption of air conditioning (accounting for 45% of energy consumption), lighting, and hot water supply is classified into Scope 1/2 based on monthly metering data; electricity consumption of fitness equipment (treadmills, spinning bikes) is measured according to usage time and power (each piece of equipment emits approximately 0.8 tons of CO₂e annually); indirect emissions from site maintenance (lawn irrigation, equipment maintenance) are included in Scope 3, accounting for 10%-15% of the total operating emissions. Special monitoring modules are set up for high-energy-consumption scenarios (constant-temperature swimming pools, ice and snow venues).

The consumer behavior link quantifies end-extended emissions: commuting carbon emissions of fitness groups are calculated by weighting the proportion of transportation methods (63% private cars, 27% public transportation), with reference to the average urban commuting distance of 8–12 km/trip; carbon emissions from the use and waste disposal of sports equipment (sports shoes, yoga mats) are allocated according to the product service life (e.g., annual carbon emissions of sports shoes are 0.3 tons of CO₂e/pair). The accuracy of consumer-side emission estimation is optimized through member survey data.

The data in this study are collected through multi-channel collaboration to ensure coverage of full-chain carbon emission sources of core business formats in the sports industry. The specific sources are as follows:

Enterprise Annual Reports and Internal Ledgers: Annual reports, ESG reports, and sustainable development special ledgers of world-renowned sports goods enterprises provide systematic micro-data support for the carbon footprint measurement of the sports industry. Through standardized disclosure frameworks, these internal documents record in detail the full-chain carbon emission characteristics of enterprises: in terms of emission scope division, they clearly present quantitative data of Scope 1 (direct emissions), Scope 2 (indirect energy emissions), and Scope 3 (other indirect emissions such as supply chain). For example, Nike's Scope 1 + 2 emissions decreased to 70,700 tons of CO₂e in 2023, and Lululemon's Scope 3 emissions accounted for 99.7% of the total carbon footprint in 2022; in terms of emission reduction practices, they cover emission reduction targets (Adidas plans to reduce Scope 1 + 2 emissions by 90% by 2030), material innovation (PUMA uses recycled materials in 90% of its products), and supply chain management (Nike promotes the application of renewable energy by suppliers); in terms of data authority, most enterprise data are audited internally or verified by third parties (e.g., PUMA's emission reduction targets are certified by SBTi), ensuring measurement accuracy. These ledger data not only reflect the carbon management practices of international leading enterprises but also provide comparable industry benchmarks for carbon footprint measurement in the sports goods manufacturing link through segmented indicators (such as carbon emission intensity per unit product and material recycling rate), supporting the verification and optimization of the full-chain accounting method. The specific data are shown in Table 4 − 1.

Technology application has gradually upgraded from intelligent energy consumption monitoring in London to digital twins in Tokyo and AI and blockchain carbon tracking in Paris, promoting the improvement of emission transparency and management accuracy. In terms of sustainable practices, the recycling rate of temporary facilities increased from 90% in London to 90% material reuse in Paris, and the proportion of renewable energy jumped from 30% in Rio to 98.4% in Paris. These data systematically reflect the full-life-cycle carbon emission characteristics of events, providing international benchmarking and technical practice references for sports event carbon footprint measurement. The relevant data are shown in Table 4 − 2.

Traditional brands face transformation difficulties: Well's unit area energy consumption reaches 275 kWh/m²・year due to the design of large-scale venues (including swimming pools), the number of stores decreased from a peak of 165 to 68, and the carbon footprint is estimated at 35,000 tons of CO₂e; Kingbird and Comfort 堡 withdrew from more than 50% of the market due to store closure waves, and energy consumption data has been interrupted since 2020, which can only be estimated with reference to industry averages.

Overall, the asset-light model (PURE, Luckin) achieves low-carbon operation through the application of intelligent equipment and renewable energy, while traditional asset-heavy brands are trapped in delayed transformation due to high energy consumption and data gaps. Data transparency and technological drive have become key differences in the industry's low-carbon transformation. The specific data are shown in Table 4 − 3.

To ensure measurement accuracy, data processing follows the principle of "problem-oriented-method adaptation", and standardized processing is implemented for three types of data characteristics:

First, a hierarchical strategy is adopted to interpolate missing values. For the missing segmented data of Lululemon's Scope 3 in sports goods enterprises, the proportion of supply chain emissions of PUMA in the same industry (Scope 3 accounts for 90%) is used for proportional allocation; for the incomplete data of Rio Olympics supplier carbon emissions, the "similar event average method" is used to correct it with the average proportion of supplier emissions in London and Tokyo (28%); for the data interruption of Kingbird and Comfort Castle in fitness brands, the unit area energy consumption benchmark value (190 kWh/m²・year) from the China Fitness Industry Carbon Footprint White Paper is used for estimation. For continuous data (such as PURE Fitness's annual energy consumption), linear interpolation is used to fill in the data of intermediate years, with an error controlled within ± 5%.

Second, outliers focusing on atypical fluctuations are eliminated. The 12% carbon footprint deviation of the Rio Olympics caused by rainforest destruction is eliminated and replaced with the average emission of regular event operations; the sudden increase in energy consumption of Well's due to equipment aging before store closure (30% higher than the industry average) is replaced with the average of normal operations in the past three years after verification; the abnormally lagging values of New Balance's supply chain emission reduction progress are eliminated by comparing with SBTi targets, and trend data are retained.

Third, units are standardized to CO₂ equivalent. Energy data are converted according to"regional emission factors × consumption volume" (e.g., 0.56 tons of CO₂/MWh for the East China power grid); material data (such as steel and plastic) are converted with reference to the factor database of the National Development and Reform Commission (1.8 tons of CO₂ per ton of steel); non-CO₂ greenhouse gases (such as methane leakage from event refrigeration) are converted according to IPCC GWP values (methane GWP = 28). Finally, all three types of data are presented in "tons of CO₂e" to ensure the horizontal comparability of carbon footprints across sports goods manufacturing, event operation, and fitness services, providing a consistent data foundation for the verification of the measurement system.

Tool selection is based on data characteristics and method adaptability, forming a collaborative system of "professional software + self-developed models". The LCA software Simapro is mainly used for the full-life-cycle measurement of sports goods manufacturing. Relying on its built-in Ecoinvent database (which includes carbon emission factors for raw materials such as polyester fiber and rubber), it can accurately construct a life-cycle inventory covering "raw material extraction - production and processing - transportation and warehousing", and support the comparative analysis of carbon footprints between recycled and traditional materials (e.g., carbon emission differences between Nike's ReactX midsole and traditional EVA materials in the production process). The "scenario analysis" function of the software can simulate the impact of different emission reduction measures (such as increasing the replacement rate of recycled materials) on carbon footprints, adapting to the evaluation needs of enterprise technological transformation plans.

The self-programmed carbon emission accounting model is developed using the Python programming language to realize integrated measurement with multiple methods: it integrates the IPCC Inventory Method module to directly calculate Scope 1 and 2 emissions of event operations and fitness venues by inputting data such as venue energy consumption and fuel consumption; it embeds the Input-Output Method module to quantify Scope 3 emissions from the sports goods supply chain based on industry correlation data (e.g., indirect emissions from the printing and dyeing links of Lululemon's suppliers in Vietnam); it develops a dynamic measurement module that automatically matches energy consumption coefficients for different stages according to the pulsed emission characteristics of events during the "pre-event - in-event - post-event" cycle (e.g., the 1.8x peak energy consumption coefficient for venues during the Tokyo Olympics). The model supports batch import of Excel data and visual output (carbon emission heat maps, stage proportion pie charts), improving the processing efficiency of decentralized data in fitness service scenarios.

Parameter setting follows the principle of "authoritative benchmark + business format adaptation" to ensure the comparability and accuracy of measurement results. A hierarchical citation strategy is adopted for carbon emission factors: energy-related factors prioritize the Provincial Greenhouse Gas Inventory Compilation Guidelines (2022) issued by the National Development and Reform Commission, such as the 0.56 tons of CO₂/MWh emission factor for the East China power grid (adapting to data from fitness brands in the East China region such as Luckin Sports); transportation-related factors cite the IPCC AR6 Report, with 0.153 tons of CO₂/ton·km for air transportation (used for measuring emissions from athletes' flights in the Olympics) and 0.18 tons of CO₂/ton·km for road freight (matching sports goods logistics data); material-related factors refer to industry-specific inventories, such as the 1.8 tons of CO₂/ton emission factor for steel production (used for accounting for temporary event facilities) and 5.2 tons of CO₂/ton for polyester fiber (adapting to the measurement of raw materials for sportswear).

The division of life-cycle stages is aligned with the characteristics of business formats: sports goods manufacturing is divided into three stages - "raw material acquisition (including chemical fiber synthesis and rubber refining) - production and processing (printing and dyeing, injection molding) - distribution and transportation (warehousing, distribution)", which matches the supply chain structures of PUMA and Nike; large-scale events are divided according to "pre-event preparation (venue construction, material procurement) - in-event operation (energy consumption, audience transportation) - post-event conclusion (facility demolition, material recycling)", corresponding to the full-cycle data characteristics of the Olympics from London to Paris; fitness service institutions are divided into three stages - "venue construction (building material production, construction) - daily operation (equipment energy consumption, hot water supply) - consumer behavior (commuting transportation, equipment use)", covering the scenario-based emission sources of brands such as PURE Fitness. The stage boundaries are defined by both "physical units + time nodes" (e.g., taking the opening and closing ceremonies as time nodes for events), ensuring the consistency between parameters and the measurement process.

The full-cycle carbon footprint measurement results of the past four Summer Olympics based on this system (see Table 5 − 1) show that the total carbon emissions of events present a fluctuating downward trend, decreasing from 3.45 million tons of CO₂e in the 2012 London Olympics to 1.59 million tons of CO₂e in the 2024 Paris Olympics, with a decrease of 54%. From the perspective of structural proportion (Fig. 5 − 1), the in-event operation stage has always been the core emission source, accounting for an average of 52%. Among them, the 2016 Rio Olympics saw the in-event proportion reach as high as 63% due to the surge in audience transportation emissions (accounting for 41%); the pre-event preparation stage (venue construction, temporary facility construction) accounted for an average of 28%, and the post-event conclusion stage (facility demolition, material disposal) accounted for an average of 20%. The Paris Olympics reduced the proportion of in-event operation emissions to 45% through renewable energy replacement (98.4% green electricity), confirming the significant role of low-carbon technologies in structural optimization.

Figure 5 − 1 Pie Chart of Full-Cycle Carbon Emission Structure Proportion of Large-Scale Sports Events

The measurement results identify three core emission drivers (see Table 5 − 2): audience transportation emissions account for an average of 36% of the total carbon footprint, with private car travel accounting for over 60% (38% of London Olympics audiences traveled by private car), making it the primary source of in-event operation emissions; venue electricity consumption accounts for an average of 22%, with traditional events relying on fossil energy power grids (30% green electricity in Rio), and the electricity consumption per audience per hour reaching 0.8 kWh; temporary facility construction emissions account for an average of 18%, with steel and plastic seat production being the main contributors (120 tons of steel used in London emitted 216 tons of CO₂e). The Paris Olympics reduced the total emissions from these three factors by 41% through AI-based transportation scheduling (increasing the proportion of audience public transportation to 72%) and digital twin optimization of material usage, verifying the emission reduction potential of controlling driving factors.

Taking the existing data of the 2020 Tokyo Olympics as the benchmark, the deviation rate between the measurement results of this system and the official report is only 3.2%, which is significantly more accurate than the traditional IPCC Inventory Method (8.5% deviation) and the single LCA method (11.7% deviation) (see Table 5 − 3). The core improvements are reflected in: correcting the omission of hidden audience transportation emissions in traditional methods through "three-dimensional boundary definition" (supplementing 12% of uncounted mileage); eliminating supply chain accounting blind spots through "multi-method collaboration" (increasing Rio's supplier emissions by 9% after correction); and quantifying the impact of outliers such as equipment failures through "sensitivity analysis" (excluding 5% of atypical energy consumption data in London). The accuracy improvement reduces the identification error of key driving factors from ± 15% to ± 5%, providing a more reliable basis for formulating emission reduction strategies.

The full-life-cycle measurement based on data from 6 world-renowned sports goods enterprises (see Table 5 − 4) shows that the carbon footprint of sports goods presents a "raw material-dominated" characteristic: the raw material production stage accounts for an average of 63%, among which emissions from the production of petrochemical-based materials such as polyester fiber and rubber account for over 50%; the production and processing stage (including printing and dyeing, assembly) accounts for an average of 22%, with energy consumption and process emissions as the main sources; the warehousing and transportation stage accounts for 9%, with prominent emissions from cross-border logistics; the waste disposal stage accounts for 6%, mainly from the landfill of non-degradable materials.

By replacing 90% of materials with recycled ones, PUMA reduced the proportion of the raw material stage to 51%, which is 12 percentage points lower than the industry average (Fig. 5 − 2). Nike's ReactX midsole technology reduced emissions in the production and processing stage by 43% through process optimization, verifying the key role of material innovation and process improvement in full-cycle emission reduction.

Category comparison shows (see Table <link rid="tb11">5</link>–5) that the average unit carbon footprint of sports shoes (26.8 kg CO₂e/pair) is higher than that of sportswear (18.5 kg CO₂e/piece), with the main differences reflected in three aspects:

(1) Material complexity: Sports shoes contain 5–8 types of materials (such as rubber soles and EVA midsoles), 3–5 more types than sportswear (fabric + accessories), resulting in 28% higher emissions in the raw material stage;

(2) Process intensity: The energy consumption of injection molding and bonding processes for shoes is 1.5 times that of fabric printing and dyeing for clothing, with the production and processing stage accounting for 27% of emissions (20% for clothing);

(3) Component weight: The average weight of a single pair of shoes (500g) is higher than that of a single piece of clothing (300g), and the difference in material usage leads to a higher total emission base.

Nike reduced the carbon footprint of sports shoes to 22.3 kg CO₂e/pair through recycled rubber replacement; PUMA controlled the unit emission of sportswear at 15.2 kg CO₂e/piece using waterless dyeing technology, which is 18% lower than the category average.

The measurement results show that supply chain (Scope 3) emissions of sports goods manufacturing account for 92%-99% of the total carbon footprint (Table 5–6), with significant contributions from upstream suppliers:

(1) Tier 1 suppliers (raw material production) account for an average of 78%, with chemical fiber factories and rubber factories being the core emission sources. Due to its high dependence on polyester fiber, Lululemon’s upstream proportion reaches 85%;

(2) Tier 2 suppliers (component processing) account for 12%, with prominent emissions from printing and dyeing factories and hardware factories;

(3) Tier 3 and above suppliers (logistics, packaging) account for 10%, with cross-border transportation accounting for over 60% of emissions.

Leading enterprises reduce emissions through supply chain management: Adidas requires Tier 1 suppliers to use 100% renewable energy, promoting a 15% reduction in upstream emissions; Nike established a blockchain material tracking system, increasing supply chain emission transparency to 90% and providing data support for accurate emission reduction.

The measurement based on single-store data from 6 chain brands shows significant differences in annual carbon emissions per store among fitness institutions (see Table 5–7). Luckin Sports, with an asset-light model, has the lowest annual emission per store (28.6 tons of CO₂e), while Well's large-scale venues with swimming pools reach 89.2 tons of CO₂e, 3.1 times that of Luckin Sports. Link decomposition results show that air conditioning system energy consumption accounts for the highest proportion (38%), mainly due to the heating of constant-temperature swimming pools and environmental control in large-scale venues; the use of fitness equipment accounts for 27%, with electric equipment such as treadmills and spinning bikes being the main contributors; lighting and basic operations account for 15% and 12% respectively, and the remaining 8% comes from material consumption and waste disposal.

Comparison shows that PURE Fitness reduced emissions from air conditioning and lighting by 25% compared with the industry average through intelligent HVAC systems (reducing energy consumption by 20%) and LED lighting renovation, verifying the direct role of technical optimization in emission reduction. However, due to aging equipment (the average service life of Well's equipment exceeds 8 years), the energy consumption per unit time of traditional brands is 18% higher than that of new equipment, becoming the main cause of high emissions.

Consumer commuting constitutes the most significant external carbon emission source of fitness services. The measurement shows that it accounts for 30.2% of the total carbon footprint of institutions, significantly higher than the Scope 1 + 2 emissions usually counted in the industry. From the perspective of transportation methods (Table 5–8), private car travel accounts for 58%, contributing 72% of transportation emissions (with an average one-way distance of 7.5 km and carbon emissions of 1.2 kg CO₂e/person-trip); public transportation (subway, bus) accounts for 32%, contributing 21% of emissions; low-carbon methods such as cycling and walking account for only 10%.

There are obvious differences in spatial distribution: due to the longer commuting distance (average 9.2 km) of consumers at stores in first-tier cities, transportation emissions are 41% higher than those in third- and fourth-tier cities; community-based stores (Luckin Sports) have a private car proportion reduced to 35% due to close-range coverage, with transportation emissions accounting for only 22%, 26 percentage points lower than business district-based stores. These results reveal that carbon footprint management of fitness services needs to extend to the full scenario of "venue operation + user behavior". Optimizing store location (community integration) and guiding green travel (e.g., member cycling discounts) can reduce external impacts.