Opinion: Is the Greenhouse Gas Protocol fit for purpose?
This article was written by Duncan Oswald, Head of Climate Science at Spherics. Duncan has a Masters in Environmental Management, and is a Chartered Environmentalist and Fellow of the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment. He has worked on decarbonisation projects for 25 years, developing carbon footprints for small businesses, net zero transition plans for multinational corporations and climate emergency programmes for local and national governments.
The basis of every carbon footprint - The Greenhouse Gas Protocol
The Greenhouse Gas Protocol (GHG Protocol) underpins every carbon footprinting standard, and is the gold standard for all emissions reporting. It was originally developed twenty years ago by the World Resources Institute (WRI) and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD).
Twenty years ago, carbon footprints were almost unheard of, and the Protocol reflects this; in an attempt to be comprehensive, it includes emissions associated with parts of the value chain that are tenuously related to the reporting company, and over which they may have little influence.
Is the GHG Protocol too broad for carbon footprinting?
This comprehensive approach may be laudable when yours is the only carbon footprint around, but when emissions are shared by many companies, they may be counted multiple times. Some governments are starting to require companies to publish their GHG emissions. Chances are, it won’t be long before these emissions are taxed, and there may be objections if several companies end up paying for the same emissions.
Also, the purpose of measuring emissions is so that you can reduce, and eventually eliminate them. If you are responsible for only a tiny fraction of, say, a supplier’s emissions, and cannot realistically exert any influence to reduce them, then why measure them? And if you are so far removed from these emissions, how can you even measure them?
The trouble with having the GHG as the bedrock for footprinting
To take another example, the GHG Protocol requires companies to declare emissions from warehouses, distribution centres and retail outlets used to sell their products. These can only be accurately estimated if every downstream link in the value chain is known, if each operator knows what their emissions are, if they can apportion emissions to your product, if they are prepared to do so, and if they are happy to report this information to you.
To comply with the Protocol, a reporting company must have this information, or their footprint report will be incomplete, and an incomplete footprint undermines the whole purpose of the exercise: how can anyone tell whether it is incomplete because you simply cannot get the required data, or because you have chosen to omit emissions that you would rather not declare? This is how major polluters get away with pretending they are sustainable; it’s called greenwashing, and it is what the Protocol was established to avoid.
If real data are not available, the Protocol allows estimation using assumptions and generic published figures. This may give a rough indication of the relative impact of these emissions, compared to those you can measure, which is some use in estimating how important it is to be able to measure them properly; but estimates using generic figures are a dead end as far as decarbonisation actions are concerned: you cannot compare one supplier with another (which may have lower emissions), so you can’t take any action to decarbonise. You also have no information about different suppliers’ net zero commitments, their own decarbonisation actions, or about the quality of their data. This work-around allows you to patch together something you can call a carbon footprint, but it is a long way from being any use in decarbonising anything.
Is the GHG Protocol going anywhere? - Hopefully not.
To be fair, the GHG Protocol has done a good job with a very difficult brief. It tries to be as relevant to a vegan cafe as it is to those pesky ecocidal behemoths whose existence is predicated on destroying the planet. This comprehensive approach makes it hard for any business to omit emissions without it being obvious, but the side effect is that it demands information where none may be available, and this gives a false impression of both accuracy and agency. So, what’s to be done? The Protocol isn’t going anywhere; it’s not even likely to change significantly any time soon, so we need to work with it, and perhaps add to it to address these issues.
How Spherics works within the GHG Protocol & adds extra value through data quality reporting
The Spherics carbon footprint calculator is rooted firmly in the GHG Protocol. Emissions are carefully allocated to the 20 categories across 3 scopes, as you would expect (and as is required if you want to report under any of the recognised frameworks, such as SBTi, CDP, PPN 06/21, ISO14064-x, PAS 2060 etc.). The crucial difference is that our highly automated deep supply chain network methodology accounts for not only data, but also data quality. A footprint that is calculated predominantly using emissions reported by suppliers with their own certified footprints and robust net zero transition plans is more accurate, more reliable and more useful than one based predominantly on generic conversion factors, so it automatically generates a higher data quality score.
The score is weighted according to the reliability of the data underpinning the emissions calculation relating to each action (or transaction) and according to the relative importance of each as a fraction of overall emissions, so it tells you at a glance how good the footprint is overall, and also within the structure of the GHG Protocol, which categories are most important, and which are most reliable.
This way, without any additional effort or resource requirement, Spherics platform subscribers can see not only what their carbon footprint is, but how good it is, where any weak spots are, and what to do to improve quality and reduce emissions. They can also see how their suppliers are performing, how they are progressing towards their decarbonisation targets, and how seriously they are taking the climate emergency. With this information, the system can forecast each user’s own decarbonisation trajectory, taking into account the projected performance of their supply chain, and highlighting any hotspots and problems before they become critical.
When reporting under the GHG Protocol (or any of its derivatives) they are not only compliant, but can also demonstrate how each category of the Protocol has been calculated, and how significant and reliable each calculation is. Not only does this clearly prevent greenwashing, it builds on the successful and ubiquitous GHG Protocol, automatically adding functionality to ensure that it remains fit for purpose as we race to net zero.
Contact
References
You may also like
Opinion: Is the Greenhouse Gas Protocol fit for purpose?
This article was written by Duncan Oswald, Head of Climate Science at Spherics. Duncan has a Masters in Environmental Management, and is a Chartered Environmentalist and Fellow of the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment. He has worked on decarbonisation projects for 25 years, developing carbon footprints for small businesses, net zero transition plans for multinational corporations and climate emergency programmes for local and national governments.
The basis of every carbon footprint - The Greenhouse Gas Protocol
The Greenhouse Gas Protocol (GHG Protocol) underpins every carbon footprinting standard, and is the gold standard for all emissions reporting. It was originally developed twenty years ago by the World Resources Institute (WRI) and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD).
Twenty years ago, carbon footprints were almost unheard of, and the Protocol reflects this; in an attempt to be comprehensive, it includes emissions associated with parts of the value chain that are tenuously related to the reporting company, and over which they may have little influence.
Is the GHG Protocol too broad for carbon footprinting?
This comprehensive approach may be laudable when yours is the only carbon footprint around, but when emissions are shared by many companies, they may be counted multiple times. Some governments are starting to require companies to publish their GHG emissions. Chances are, it won’t be long before these emissions are taxed, and there may be objections if several companies end up paying for the same emissions.
Also, the purpose of measuring emissions is so that you can reduce, and eventually eliminate them. If you are responsible for only a tiny fraction of, say, a supplier’s emissions, and cannot realistically exert any influence to reduce them, then why measure them? And if you are so far removed from these emissions, how can you even measure them?
The trouble with having the GHG as the bedrock for footprinting
To take another example, the GHG Protocol requires companies to declare emissions from warehouses, distribution centres and retail outlets used to sell their products. These can only be accurately estimated if every downstream link in the value chain is known, if each operator knows what their emissions are, if they can apportion emissions to your product, if they are prepared to do so, and if they are happy to report this information to you.
To comply with the Protocol, a reporting company must have this information, or their footprint report will be incomplete, and an incomplete footprint undermines the whole purpose of the exercise: how can anyone tell whether it is incomplete because you simply cannot get the required data, or because you have chosen to omit emissions that you would rather not declare? This is how major polluters get away with pretending they are sustainable; it’s called greenwashing, and it is what the Protocol was established to avoid.
If real data are not available, the Protocol allows estimation using assumptions and generic published figures. This may give a rough indication of the relative impact of these emissions, compared to those you can measure, which is some use in estimating how important it is to be able to measure them properly; but estimates using generic figures are a dead end as far as decarbonisation actions are concerned: you cannot compare one supplier with another (which may have lower emissions), so you can’t take any action to decarbonise. You also have no information about different suppliers’ net zero commitments, their own decarbonisation actions, or about the quality of their data. This work-around allows you to patch together something you can call a carbon footprint, but it is a long way from being any use in decarbonising anything.
Is the GHG Protocol going anywhere? - Hopefully not.
To be fair, the GHG Protocol has done a good job with a very difficult brief. It tries to be as relevant to a vegan cafe as it is to those pesky ecocidal behemoths whose existence is predicated on destroying the planet. This comprehensive approach makes it hard for any business to omit emissions without it being obvious, but the side effect is that it demands information where none may be available, and this gives a false impression of both accuracy and agency. So, what’s to be done? The Protocol isn’t going anywhere; it’s not even likely to change significantly any time soon, so we need to work with it, and perhaps add to it to address these issues.
How Spherics works within the GHG Protocol & adds extra value through data quality reporting
The Spherics carbon footprint calculator is rooted firmly in the GHG Protocol. Emissions are carefully allocated to the 20 categories across 3 scopes, as you would expect (and as is required if you want to report under any of the recognised frameworks, such as SBTi, CDP, PPN 06/21, ISO14064-x, PAS 2060 etc.). The crucial difference is that our highly automated deep supply chain network methodology accounts for not only data, but also data quality. A footprint that is calculated predominantly using emissions reported by suppliers with their own certified footprints and robust net zero transition plans is more accurate, more reliable and more useful than one based predominantly on generic conversion factors, so it automatically generates a higher data quality score.
The score is weighted according to the reliability of the data underpinning the emissions calculation relating to each action (or transaction) and according to the relative importance of each as a fraction of overall emissions, so it tells you at a glance how good the footprint is overall, and also within the structure of the GHG Protocol, which categories are most important, and which are most reliable.
This way, without any additional effort or resource requirement, Spherics platform subscribers can see not only what their carbon footprint is, but how good it is, where any weak spots are, and what to do to improve quality and reduce emissions. They can also see how their suppliers are performing, how they are progressing towards their decarbonisation targets, and how seriously they are taking the climate emergency. With this information, the system can forecast each user’s own decarbonisation trajectory, taking into account the projected performance of their supply chain, and highlighting any hotspots and problems before they become critical.
When reporting under the GHG Protocol (or any of its derivatives) they are not only compliant, but can also demonstrate how each category of the Protocol has been calculated, and how significant and reliable each calculation is. Not only does this clearly prevent greenwashing, it builds on the successful and ubiquitous GHG Protocol, automatically adding functionality to ensure that it remains fit for purpose as we race to net zero.
Contact
References
You may also like
.png)
Opinion: Is the Greenhouse Gas Protocol fit for purpose?
This article was written by Duncan Oswald, Head of Climate Science at Spherics. Duncan has a Masters in Environmental Management, and is a Chartered Environmentalist and Fellow of the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment. He has worked on decarbonisation projects for 25 years, developing carbon footprints for small businesses, net zero transition plans for multinational corporations and climate emergency programmes for local and national governments.
The basis of every carbon footprint - The Greenhouse Gas Protocol
The Greenhouse Gas Protocol (GHG Protocol) underpins every carbon footprinting standard, and is the gold standard for all emissions reporting. It was originally developed twenty years ago by the World Resources Institute (WRI) and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD).
Twenty years ago, carbon footprints were almost unheard of, and the Protocol reflects this; in an attempt to be comprehensive, it includes emissions associated with parts of the value chain that are tenuously related to the reporting company, and over which they may have little influence.
Is the GHG Protocol too broad for carbon footprinting?
This comprehensive approach may be laudable when yours is the only carbon footprint around, but when emissions are shared by many companies, they may be counted multiple times. Some governments are starting to require companies to publish their GHG emissions. Chances are, it won’t be long before these emissions are taxed, and there may be objections if several companies end up paying for the same emissions.
Also, the purpose of measuring emissions is so that you can reduce, and eventually eliminate them. If you are responsible for only a tiny fraction of, say, a supplier’s emissions, and cannot realistically exert any influence to reduce them, then why measure them? And if you are so far removed from these emissions, how can you even measure them?
The trouble with having the GHG as the bedrock for footprinting
To take another example, the GHG Protocol requires companies to declare emissions from warehouses, distribution centres and retail outlets used to sell their products. These can only be accurately estimated if every downstream link in the value chain is known, if each operator knows what their emissions are, if they can apportion emissions to your product, if they are prepared to do so, and if they are happy to report this information to you.
To comply with the Protocol, a reporting company must have this information, or their footprint report will be incomplete, and an incomplete footprint undermines the whole purpose of the exercise: how can anyone tell whether it is incomplete because you simply cannot get the required data, or because you have chosen to omit emissions that you would rather not declare? This is how major polluters get away with pretending they are sustainable; it’s called greenwashing, and it is what the Protocol was established to avoid.
If real data are not available, the Protocol allows estimation using assumptions and generic published figures. This may give a rough indication of the relative impact of these emissions, compared to those you can measure, which is some use in estimating how important it is to be able to measure them properly; but estimates using generic figures are a dead end as far as decarbonisation actions are concerned: you cannot compare one supplier with another (which may have lower emissions), so you can’t take any action to decarbonise. You also have no information about different suppliers’ net zero commitments, their own decarbonisation actions, or about the quality of their data. This work-around allows you to patch together something you can call a carbon footprint, but it is a long way from being any use in decarbonising anything.
Is the GHG Protocol going anywhere? - Hopefully not.
To be fair, the GHG Protocol has done a good job with a very difficult brief. It tries to be as relevant to a vegan cafe as it is to those pesky ecocidal behemoths whose existence is predicated on destroying the planet. This comprehensive approach makes it hard for any business to omit emissions without it being obvious, but the side effect is that it demands information where none may be available, and this gives a false impression of both accuracy and agency. So, what’s to be done? The Protocol isn’t going anywhere; it’s not even likely to change significantly any time soon, so we need to work with it, and perhaps add to it to address these issues.
How Spherics works within the GHG Protocol & adds extra value through data quality reporting
The Spherics carbon footprint calculator is rooted firmly in the GHG Protocol. Emissions are carefully allocated to the 20 categories across 3 scopes, as you would expect (and as is required if you want to report under any of the recognised frameworks, such as SBTi, CDP, PPN 06/21, ISO14064-x, PAS 2060 etc.). The crucial difference is that our highly automated deep supply chain network methodology accounts for not only data, but also data quality. A footprint that is calculated predominantly using emissions reported by suppliers with their own certified footprints and robust net zero transition plans is more accurate, more reliable and more useful than one based predominantly on generic conversion factors, so it automatically generates a higher data quality score.
The score is weighted according to the reliability of the data underpinning the emissions calculation relating to each action (or transaction) and according to the relative importance of each as a fraction of overall emissions, so it tells you at a glance how good the footprint is overall, and also within the structure of the GHG Protocol, which categories are most important, and which are most reliable.
This way, without any additional effort or resource requirement, Spherics platform subscribers can see not only what their carbon footprint is, but how good it is, where any weak spots are, and what to do to improve quality and reduce emissions. They can also see how their suppliers are performing, how they are progressing towards their decarbonisation targets, and how seriously they are taking the climate emergency. With this information, the system can forecast each user’s own decarbonisation trajectory, taking into account the projected performance of their supply chain, and highlighting any hotspots and problems before they become critical.
When reporting under the GHG Protocol (or any of its derivatives) they are not only compliant, but can also demonstrate how each category of the Protocol has been calculated, and how significant and reliable each calculation is. Not only does this clearly prevent greenwashing, it builds on the successful and ubiquitous GHG Protocol, automatically adding functionality to ensure that it remains fit for purpose as we race to net zero.
Opinion: Is the Greenhouse Gas Protocol fit for purpose?
This article was written by Duncan Oswald, Head of Climate Science at Spherics. Duncan has a Masters in Environmental Management, and is a Chartered Environmentalist and Fellow of the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment. He has worked on decarbonisation projects for 25 years, developing carbon footprints for small businesses, net zero transition plans for multinational corporations and climate emergency programmes for local and national governments.
The basis of every carbon footprint - The Greenhouse Gas Protocol
The Greenhouse Gas Protocol (GHG Protocol) underpins every carbon footprinting standard, and is the gold standard for all emissions reporting. It was originally developed twenty years ago by the World Resources Institute (WRI) and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD).
Twenty years ago, carbon footprints were almost unheard of, and the Protocol reflects this; in an attempt to be comprehensive, it includes emissions associated with parts of the value chain that are tenuously related to the reporting company, and over which they may have little influence.
Is the GHG Protocol too broad for carbon footprinting?
This comprehensive approach may be laudable when yours is the only carbon footprint around, but when emissions are shared by many companies, they may be counted multiple times. Some governments are starting to require companies to publish their GHG emissions. Chances are, it won’t be long before these emissions are taxed, and there may be objections if several companies end up paying for the same emissions.
Also, the purpose of measuring emissions is so that you can reduce, and eventually eliminate them. If you are responsible for only a tiny fraction of, say, a supplier’s emissions, and cannot realistically exert any influence to reduce them, then why measure them? And if you are so far removed from these emissions, how can you even measure them?
The trouble with having the GHG as the bedrock for footprinting
To take another example, the GHG Protocol requires companies to declare emissions from warehouses, distribution centres and retail outlets used to sell their products. These can only be accurately estimated if every downstream link in the value chain is known, if each operator knows what their emissions are, if they can apportion emissions to your product, if they are prepared to do so, and if they are happy to report this information to you.
To comply with the Protocol, a reporting company must have this information, or their footprint report will be incomplete, and an incomplete footprint undermines the whole purpose of the exercise: how can anyone tell whether it is incomplete because you simply cannot get the required data, or because you have chosen to omit emissions that you would rather not declare? This is how major polluters get away with pretending they are sustainable; it’s called greenwashing, and it is what the Protocol was established to avoid.
If real data are not available, the Protocol allows estimation using assumptions and generic published figures. This may give a rough indication of the relative impact of these emissions, compared to those you can measure, which is some use in estimating how important it is to be able to measure them properly; but estimates using generic figures are a dead end as far as decarbonisation actions are concerned: you cannot compare one supplier with another (which may have lower emissions), so you can’t take any action to decarbonise. You also have no information about different suppliers’ net zero commitments, their own decarbonisation actions, or about the quality of their data. This work-around allows you to patch together something you can call a carbon footprint, but it is a long way from being any use in decarbonising anything.
Is the GHG Protocol going anywhere? - Hopefully not.
To be fair, the GHG Protocol has done a good job with a very difficult brief. It tries to be as relevant to a vegan cafe as it is to those pesky ecocidal behemoths whose existence is predicated on destroying the planet. This comprehensive approach makes it hard for any business to omit emissions without it being obvious, but the side effect is that it demands information where none may be available, and this gives a false impression of both accuracy and agency. So, what’s to be done? The Protocol isn’t going anywhere; it’s not even likely to change significantly any time soon, so we need to work with it, and perhaps add to it to address these issues.
How Spherics works within the GHG Protocol & adds extra value through data quality reporting
The Spherics carbon footprint calculator is rooted firmly in the GHG Protocol. Emissions are carefully allocated to the 20 categories across 3 scopes, as you would expect (and as is required if you want to report under any of the recognised frameworks, such as SBTi, CDP, PPN 06/21, ISO14064-x, PAS 2060 etc.). The crucial difference is that our highly automated deep supply chain network methodology accounts for not only data, but also data quality. A footprint that is calculated predominantly using emissions reported by suppliers with their own certified footprints and robust net zero transition plans is more accurate, more reliable and more useful than one based predominantly on generic conversion factors, so it automatically generates a higher data quality score.
The score is weighted according to the reliability of the data underpinning the emissions calculation relating to each action (or transaction) and according to the relative importance of each as a fraction of overall emissions, so it tells you at a glance how good the footprint is overall, and also within the structure of the GHG Protocol, which categories are most important, and which are most reliable.
This way, without any additional effort or resource requirement, Spherics platform subscribers can see not only what their carbon footprint is, but how good it is, where any weak spots are, and what to do to improve quality and reduce emissions. They can also see how their suppliers are performing, how they are progressing towards their decarbonisation targets, and how seriously they are taking the climate emergency. With this information, the system can forecast each user’s own decarbonisation trajectory, taking into account the projected performance of their supply chain, and highlighting any hotspots and problems before they become critical.
When reporting under the GHG Protocol (or any of its derivatives) they are not only compliant, but can also demonstrate how each category of the Protocol has been calculated, and how significant and reliable each calculation is. Not only does this clearly prevent greenwashing, it builds on the successful and ubiquitous GHG Protocol, automatically adding functionality to ensure that it remains fit for purpose as we race to net zero.
Contact
References
You may also like
.png)
Opinion: Is the Greenhouse Gas Protocol fit for purpose?
.png)
This article was written by Duncan Oswald, Head of Climate Science at Spherics. Duncan has a Masters in Environmental Management, and is a Chartered Environmentalist and Fellow of the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment. He has worked on decarbonisation projects for 25 years, developing carbon footprints for small businesses, net zero transition plans for multinational corporations and climate emergency programmes for local and national governments.
The basis of every carbon footprint - The Greenhouse Gas Protocol
The Greenhouse Gas Protocol (GHG Protocol) underpins every carbon footprinting standard, and is the gold standard for all emissions reporting. It was originally developed twenty years ago by the World Resources Institute (WRI) and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD).
Twenty years ago, carbon footprints were almost unheard of, and the Protocol reflects this; in an attempt to be comprehensive, it includes emissions associated with parts of the value chain that are tenuously related to the reporting company, and over which they may have little influence.
Is the GHG Protocol too broad for carbon footprinting?
This comprehensive approach may be laudable when yours is the only carbon footprint around, but when emissions are shared by many companies, they may be counted multiple times. Some governments are starting to require companies to publish their GHG emissions. Chances are, it won’t be long before these emissions are taxed, and there may be objections if several companies end up paying for the same emissions.
Also, the purpose of measuring emissions is so that you can reduce, and eventually eliminate them. If you are responsible for only a tiny fraction of, say, a supplier’s emissions, and cannot realistically exert any influence to reduce them, then why measure them? And if you are so far removed from these emissions, how can you even measure them?
The trouble with having the GHG as the bedrock for footprinting
To take another example, the GHG Protocol requires companies to declare emissions from warehouses, distribution centres and retail outlets used to sell their products. These can only be accurately estimated if every downstream link in the value chain is known, if each operator knows what their emissions are, if they can apportion emissions to your product, if they are prepared to do so, and if they are happy to report this information to you.
To comply with the Protocol, a reporting company must have this information, or their footprint report will be incomplete, and an incomplete footprint undermines the whole purpose of the exercise: how can anyone tell whether it is incomplete because you simply cannot get the required data, or because you have chosen to omit emissions that you would rather not declare? This is how major polluters get away with pretending they are sustainable; it’s called greenwashing, and it is what the Protocol was established to avoid.
If real data are not available, the Protocol allows estimation using assumptions and generic published figures. This may give a rough indication of the relative impact of these emissions, compared to those you can measure, which is some use in estimating how important it is to be able to measure them properly; but estimates using generic figures are a dead end as far as decarbonisation actions are concerned: you cannot compare one supplier with another (which may have lower emissions), so you can’t take any action to decarbonise. You also have no information about different suppliers’ net zero commitments, their own decarbonisation actions, or about the quality of their data. This work-around allows you to patch together something you can call a carbon footprint, but it is a long way from being any use in decarbonising anything.
Is the GHG Protocol going anywhere? - Hopefully not.
To be fair, the GHG Protocol has done a good job with a very difficult brief. It tries to be as relevant to a vegan cafe as it is to those pesky ecocidal behemoths whose existence is predicated on destroying the planet. This comprehensive approach makes it hard for any business to omit emissions without it being obvious, but the side effect is that it demands information where none may be available, and this gives a false impression of both accuracy and agency. So, what’s to be done? The Protocol isn’t going anywhere; it’s not even likely to change significantly any time soon, so we need to work with it, and perhaps add to it to address these issues.
How Spherics works within the GHG Protocol & adds extra value through data quality reporting
The Spherics carbon footprint calculator is rooted firmly in the GHG Protocol. Emissions are carefully allocated to the 20 categories across 3 scopes, as you would expect (and as is required if you want to report under any of the recognised frameworks, such as SBTi, CDP, PPN 06/21, ISO14064-x, PAS 2060 etc.). The crucial difference is that our highly automated deep supply chain network methodology accounts for not only data, but also data quality. A footprint that is calculated predominantly using emissions reported by suppliers with their own certified footprints and robust net zero transition plans is more accurate, more reliable and more useful than one based predominantly on generic conversion factors, so it automatically generates a higher data quality score.
The score is weighted according to the reliability of the data underpinning the emissions calculation relating to each action (or transaction) and according to the relative importance of each as a fraction of overall emissions, so it tells you at a glance how good the footprint is overall, and also within the structure of the GHG Protocol, which categories are most important, and which are most reliable.
This way, without any additional effort or resource requirement, Spherics platform subscribers can see not only what their carbon footprint is, but how good it is, where any weak spots are, and what to do to improve quality and reduce emissions. They can also see how their suppliers are performing, how they are progressing towards their decarbonisation targets, and how seriously they are taking the climate emergency. With this information, the system can forecast each user’s own decarbonisation trajectory, taking into account the projected performance of their supply chain, and highlighting any hotspots and problems before they become critical.
When reporting under the GHG Protocol (or any of its derivatives) they are not only compliant, but can also demonstrate how each category of the Protocol has been calculated, and how significant and reliable each calculation is. Not only does this clearly prevent greenwashing, it builds on the successful and ubiquitous GHG Protocol, automatically adding functionality to ensure that it remains fit for purpose as we race to net zero.
