Transparency
ROI & ESG methodology
Last updated September 20, 2026
The fleet simulator on /enterprise projects paper, cost, CO2, and water impact from lane count and daily transactions. This page documents assumptions, which figures are E-FACTS planning coefficients, and the third-party research that frames the thermal-receipt problem.
Disclaimer
Outputs are planning estimates, not a contractual guarantee, not a third-party audited greenhouse-gas inventory, and not advice under any ESG reporting standard (CSRD, GHG Protocol, etc.). Merchants remain responsible for their own Scope 3 disclosures.
Why thermal receipts matter
Point-of-sale thermal paper commonly uses chemical color developers such as bisphenol A (BPA) or bisphenol S (BPS). Independent research and regulatory assessments document exposure pathways for workers and consumers, releases during manufacturing and end-of-life, and persistence of these chemicals in paper recycling loops.
- U.S. EPA Design for Environment, Bisphenol A Alternatives in Thermal Paper (2015)—thermal paper as a BPA use case; occupational and consumer exposure; recycling and disposal pathways. Executive summary (PDF); Chapter 5 (PDF).
- Pivnenko, Laner & Astrup, Environmental Science & Technology (2016)—contaminants including BPA can persist in European paper recycling cycles for decades after phase-out. DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.6b01791.
- Pivnenko et al., Resources, Conservation & Recycling (2018)—substituting BPS for BPA can substantially increase BPS flows in the paper cycle; chemical bans alone do not guarantee clean material cycles. DOI: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.01.021.
- Björnsdotter et al., Chemosphere (2017)—review of BPA and replacements in thermal paper; migration and environmental detection. DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2017.05.070.
Industry campaign estimates (not peer-reviewed science) further quantify U.S. receipt paper demand and discard behavior. Green America 's Skip the Slip (2020) reports that U.S. retail spent more than $312 million on receipt paper in 2019 and that surveyed consumers often throw away or lose half or more of paper receipts. Cite as Green America estimates: Skip the Slip report (PDF); campaign summary.
Simulator inputs
The public calculator uses two merchant inputs:
- Active POS lanes (default 250)
- Daily transactions per lane (default 425)
Annual transactions = lanes × daily transactions × 365. We assume standard 80 mm thermal paper and an average printed slip length of 22 cm when talking about paper geometry in FAQs and sales materials. Cost savings are intended to reflect paper media plus roll replenishment labour, printhead wear, and freight at a fleet level—not a line-item POS invoice.
Planning coefficients
Per-transaction multipliers below are E-FACTS planning coefficients. They are not published EPA look-up factors. Earlier marketing copy that implied “EPA conversion constants” for these exact numbers was imprecise; we correct that here. EPA and peer-reviewed sources above support the problem framing (thermal paper chemistry and material cycles), not these numeric coefficients.
| Metric | Coefficient | Origin |
|---|---|---|
| Net cost savings | $0.0081 / tx | E-FACTS planning coefficient (paper + labour + wear + freight bundle) |
| CO₂ (Scope 3 abated label) | 0.001007 g / tx → MT / yr | E-FACTS planning coefficient (not an EPA published factor) |
| Paper diverted | 0.22 m / tx → km / yr | E-FACTS planning coefficient from assumed slip geometry |
| Water conserved | 0.037 L / tx | E-FACTS planning coefficient (not a published LCA factor ID) |
Shopper “eco-scorecard” figures on /shoppers are illustrative demo values for the same narrative—not personal meter readings.