GHG-P sheet
Greenhouse Gas Protocol
Type : International standard
Date : 1998
Implementation : 2001
Author : WRI and WBCSD
Target : Organisations
Created in 1998 by the World Resources Institute (WRI) and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (170 companies), with the support of NGOs and governments, the GHG Protocol works with many stakeholders to build standards for accounting and reporting greenhouse gases (GHGs) and to promote their large-scale adoption.
The first GHG Protocol standard was published in 2001, and since then the method has been used worldwide, notably for climate reporting, for example to the CDP.
The current version dates from 2015, with a new revision planned for 2024.
What are the objectives of the approach?
The GHG Protocol includes several standards distinct but related
The GHG Protocol Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard : which helps companies quantify and report their GHG emissions
The GHG Protocol Corporate Value Chain (scope 3) Standard : which enables companies to assess the impact of their emissions across the value chain and to determine the areas on which they should focus their reduction activities
The GHG Protocol Product Standard : can be used to understand the full life-cycle emissions of a product and focus efforts on the best opportunities to reduce GHGs
The GHG Protocol for Community-Scale Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventories (GPC) : provides a robust framework for accounting and reporting greenhouse gas emissions at the city scale
The GHG Protocol Mitigation Goal Standard : provides guidance for the development of national and subnational mitigation goals, as well as a standardized approach for assessing and communicating progress towards achieving goals
The GHG Protocol Policy and Action Standard : provides a standardized approach for estimating the greenhouse effect of policies and actions
The GHG Protocol Project Quantification Standard : guide (still limited but under development) whose objective is to quantify GHG reductions from mitigation projects.
The GHG Protocol thus develops internationally recognised calculation and reporting standards to facilitate accurate GHG assessment at various scales (organisations, territories and products).
Carrying out a GHG Protocol offers organisations several advantages:
Simplify and reduce the cost of carbon accounting
Demonstrate organisations' maturity to potential investors in environmental management and their ability to develop effective strategies to reduce GHG emissions.
Provide the information facilitating participation in voluntary or mandatory GHG projects
Improve harmonisation and transparency of GHG accounting and GHG reporting
What is/are the target(s) of the approach?
Although primarily designed for companies, this standard is also applicable to NGOs, government agencies (local, regional and national), as well as universities, enabling them to showcase their transition initiatives. For example, investors can find a valuable indicator of an organisation's preparedness to face future climate policies through rigorous GHG management.
The GHG Protocol, recognised and used internationally today, complements other initiatives. It offers companies and organisations the opportunity to engage in GHG reporting programmes, whether voluntary or mandatory, as well as in GHG emissions trading systems. In addition, policy-makers and designers of GHG management programmes can integrate relevant elements of this standard into the development of their own accounting and reporting requirements, as CSRD did by drawing on the GHG Protocol.
Does the approach rely on a shared scientific basis?
The GHG Protocol focuses solely on accounting and reporting the seven greenhouse gases covered by the Kyoto Protocol:
carbon dioxide (CO2)
methane (CH4)
nitrous oxide (N2O)
hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs),
perfluorocarbons (PFCs)
sulphur hexafluoride (SF6)
nitrogen trifluoride (NF3).
However, unlike other GHG accounting methods such as Bilan Carbone®, the GHG Protocol does not take into account certain other GHGs such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) or the contrails from aircraft water vapour exhaust plumes.
Does the approach rely on a specific methodology?
The GHG Protocol method is very similar to other approaches and often serves as a standard model for GHG emissions reporting:
Organisational boundary (share of equity & control), operational boundary (scopes 1, 2 and 3), definition of a base year...
Direct GHG emissions come from sources owned or controlled by the company. Emissions from biomass combustion as well as GHGs not covered by the Kyoto Protocol should not be included in scope 1 but reported separately.
Scope 2 covers GHG emissions from the generation of purchased and consumed electricity and energy by the company within the organisational boundary.
The definition of scope 2 was revised to exclude emissions related to electricity purchased for resale, now included in scope 3. This prevents two or more companies from accounting for the same emissions in the same scope.
Scope 3 is an optional reporting category that covers all other indirect emissions. Scope 3 emissions are a consequence of the company's activities but arise from sources that are neither owned nor controlled by the company. Indirect emissions from activities upstream of a company's electricity supplier (for example, exploration, drilling, flaring, transport) are reported in scope 3.
Calculation recommended according to the IPCC guidelines
Inventory quality management & uncertainties
Calculation of emissions reductions
Guidance for setting a reduction target.
Two approaches for GHG accounting are possible:
the equity share approach
the control approach (can be defined either in financial or operational terms)
It is important to note that these two approaches are not mutually exclusive, but it is encouraged to distinguish them in reporting. Investments in capital assets are not accounted for by either approach, as it is considered that the parent company has neither significant influence nor financial control over these entities (exclusion of joint ventures and partnerships).
Organisations shall select and justify a base year with verifiable emissions data. Most choose a single year, but an average over several consecutive years may be used to smooth atypical fluctuations, thus making the data more representative.
There are two basic approaches to collect emissions data from a company's facilities:
The centralised approach : individual facilities report activity/fuel consumption data to the company level, where GHG emissions are calculated.
The decentralised approach: individual facilities collect activity/fuel consumption data, directly calculate their GHG emissions using approved methods, and then report this data to the company level.
The revised edition of the GHG Protocol is the result of a two-year dialogue among multiple stakeholders, aimed at leveraging experience gained from the first edition. It includes additional guidance, case studies, annexes, and a new chapter on setting GHG reduction targets. The first edition remains largely relevant; the changes do not affect most GHG inventories.
The choice of accounting boundary depends on the characteristics of the company, the objective pursued and the needs of users. Several factors must be considered, such as:
organisational structures: control (operational and financial), ownership, legal agreements, joint ventures...
operational boundaries: on-site and off-site activities, processes, services and impacts
the business context: nature of activities, geographic locations, industrial sector(s), information objectives and information users
All relevant emission sources shall be included in reporting for it to be complete. Although the idea of a materiality threshold may seem useful, it is not compatible with the GHG Protocol's completeness principle. When emissions have not been estimated or are estimated at an insufficient quality level, it is essential that this is clearly documented and justified.
The GHG Protocol describes five accounting principles which set an implicit standard for the faithful representation of a company's GHG emissions through its technical, accounting and reporting efforts. A guidance document on uncertainty assessments, as well as an uncertainty calculation tool, have been developed.
Does the approach rely on tools?
Cross-sectoral and industry-specific tools, developed in partnership with industry groups such as the International Aluminum Institute and the WBCSD, complement the GHG Protocol to improve the accuracy of emissions data. Simplified, they are accessible to non-technical company staff.
The guidance for each calculation tool includes the following sections:
Overview : provides an overview of the tool's purpose and content, the calculation method used and a description of the process.
Selection of activity data and emission factors : provides sector-specific best practice guidance and references for default emission factors.
Calculation methods : describes different calculation methods depending on the availability of site-specific activity data and emission factors.
Quality control : offers best practice advice.
Internal reporting and documentation : offers guidance on internal documentation to support emissions calculations.
Can other low-carbon transition methods and tools be used to achieve the objectives of this approach?
The steps of the approach are:
The boundary (which includes the operational delineation, the description of the value chain, the determination of relevant scope 3 categories)
Accounting (which involves calculating emissions, notably identifying GHG emission sources, collecting emission factors and activity data, applying calculation tools, and aggregating GHG emissions data)
The action plan (proposal to set targets, optional): refer to the GHG Protocol Mitigation Goal Standard
The evaluation (optional) : refer to the GHG Protocol Policy and Action Standard and to the GHG Protocol Project Quantification Standard
The steps of defining the boundaries to be accounted for, collecting and using the data as well as that of the reduction Action plan are all addressed within the Bilan Carbone® methodology, which is therefore compatible with that of the GHG Protocol. Note that the GHG Protocol focuses on reporting issues to strengthen transparency on organisations' responsibility for GHG emissions while Bilan Carbone® is a strategic management method that integrates organisations' vulnerability and dependency issues. In addition, the GHG Protocol, like Bilan Carbone® and ISO 14064-1, enables launching an ACT® process to evaluate energy-climate strategies.
Does it allow third-party recognition? If so, in what manner?
An independent or internal verification is possible. The required information is:
Organisation activity and types of emissions
General information
Details and justifications of any boundary changes during the reporting period
Procedures for identifying emission sources
Information on the level of assurance in systems and data
Data used for the inventory
Description of the calculation method
Description of the information collection process
Other information
Verifiers can assess the potential impact and relevance of excluding certain emission sources or the lack of overall reporting quality.
Can this approach be harmonised with other international frameworks?
The GHG Protocol standard is intended to be programme- and policy-neutral, but it is widely used and compatible with many GHG accounting programmes.
Voluntary GHG reduction programmes (WWF Climate Savers, EPA Climate Leaders)
GHG registries (California Climate Action Registry, World Economic Forum Global GHG Registry)
National and regional industry initiatives (New Zealand Business Council for Sustainable Development, AERES)
GHG emissions trading programmes (UK ETS, EU ETS)
Sectoral protocols developed by industry associations (International Aluminum Institute, IPIECA)
The fact sheets of the Overview of carbon accounting methods and tools are the result of a synthesis work by ABC. We remain open to your feedback or questions on this form.
Last updated