Search Climate Insights Directory

The paper argues that many large technology companies improperly apply market-based accounting to scope 3 emissions, creating a gap between reported reductions and actual environmental impact. It recommends that location-based accounting remain the primary basis for scope 3 reporting and Product Carbon Footprint (PCF) accounting, while suggesting that market-based accounting—specifically when paired with hourly matching and new Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) on the local grid—should only serve as a complementary ledger.

The paper argues that fragmentation of trade-related climate measures (TrCMs) creates significant regulatory burdens, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises in smaller economies. It distinguishes 'interoperability'—the ability to pass useful information between systems—from 'harmonization,' suggesting that focusing on the former allows governments to reduce trade barriers while preserving policy space. The author proposes several strategies to achieve this, including alignment with international standards like ISO 14067 and IPCC guidelines, adopting flexible information systems, focusing on high-impact sectoral products (e.g., steel, aluminium, and concrete), and utilizing a structured 'top-down' approach to collaboration based on a hierarchy of regulatory objectives and principles.

The NewClimate Institute reviews the SBTi Corporate Net-Zero Standard v2.0, noting that while it provides a mature framework for value chain emissions and short-term action, its high flexibility may hinder the comparability of corporate climate strategies and fail to sufficiently reward the most ambitious leadership.

The document argues that current annual matching for scope 2 emissions often overestimates renewable electricity use and fails to incentivise the deployment of new renewables. It proposes 'hourly matching' (or 24/7 reporting), where electricity consumption is matched with renewable generation in the same hour. While 100% hourly matching can be costly, the briefing suggests that targeting a range of 80-90% can maintain emission reduction benefits while reducing costs. The document notes that hourly matching is becoming more viable, with 45 operational projects across five continents and tariffs available for 73% of global electricity demand. It advocates for a phased implementation strategy to allow for necessary data and grid infrastructure upgrades.

WWF advocates for the Greenhouse Gas Protocol (GHGP), Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi), and ISO to refine their standards to incentivize continued corporate action even when companies struggle to meet targets, particularly regarding scope 3 emissions. Using McDonald's as an example of transparency, WWF suggests that companies should be honest about shortfalls while recommitting to long-term net-zero goals and investing in supply chain resilience.

RMI conducted pilots with BCG, Roland Berger, and Estuaire to compare contrail accounting methods. The results show that a bottom-up, flight-specific approach is significantly more accurate than the standard 1.7x multiplier, revealing that 2% of flights cause 80% of contrail impacts. The report advocates for a phased transition toward high-fidelity accounting to enable targeted corporate travel policies and alignment with emerging EU regulations.

The International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) and the Greenhouse Gas Protocol (GHG-P) announced a partnership on 9 September 2025 to merge and align their greenhouse gas accounting frameworks. The collaboration focuses on three core areas: corporate footprints, product footprints, and project-level GHG accounting. While the authors welcome the potential for a unified global framework to reduce fragmentation and reporting burdens, they warn that harmonisation must not lead to the dilution of standards. Specifically, they argue that carbon credits must not be treated as substitutes for direct emission reductions and that scope 3 accounting must not be artificially lowered through certificate trading. The authors also emphasize that the governance of the new standards must be transparent and inclusive to prevent the overrepresentation of large corporate interests, suggesting a model that combines ISO's regulatory recognition with GHG-P's transparency and stakeholder breadth.

The Corporate Climate Responsibility Monitor 2025 finds that none of the 20 assessed companies demonstrate a climate strategy of 'reasonable' or 'high' integrity. The report highlights that 2030 emission reduction targets are increasingly 'unfit for purpose' due to structural obstacles, including incomplete emissions disclosures and sector-specific accounting malpractices. In the tech sector, soaring energy demand from AI and a reliance on outdated market-based accounting for electricity undermine target credibility. The automotive sector shows inadequate progress in phasing out internal combustion engines, while the fashion sector lacks commitments to reduce overproduction. The agrifood sector is criticised for relying on undefined land-based carbon removals to obscure a lack of structural emission reductions. The report argues for the adoption of transition-specific alignment targets to complement general GHG targets.

The report finds that the tech sector is facing a "climate strategy crisis" as soaring energy demands from AI and the use of outdated market-based accounting methodologies undermine the integrity of corporate climate targets. While some companies like Google and Microsoft are pioneering 24/7 hourly renewable electricity matching, others like Amazon and Meta advocate for looser accounting rules through the Emissions First Partnership. The analysis reveals that absolute location-based emissions for all five companies increased from 2019 to 2023, and critical transitions—such as decarbonising third-party data centres and hardware supply chains—remain largely neglected or poorly reported.

The briefing distinguishes between attributional accounting, which allocates emissions responsibility, and consequential assessment, which estimates how specific corporate actions change total greenhouse gas emissions. It argues that while attributional reporting is necessary for inventories, it fails to quantify real-world abatement or value actions like grid storage. By adopting modernized consequential methods, companies can prioritize interventions—such as siting solar projects in coal-heavy regions—that drive faster grid decarbonization.

The NewClimate Institute assesses the draft SBTi Corporate Net-Zero Standard (CNZS) v2.0, noting improvements in target boundaries and scope 2 emissions requirements while calling for stricter rules on indirect mitigation, more frequent validation renewals, and the inclusion of activity-level alignment targets.

The report finds a systemic lack of methane accountability among top US and European supermarkets, with none of the 20 largest retailers setting specific methane reduction targets despite the significant impact of animal agriculture on global heating.

The report finds that most large dairy and coffee companies lack credible methane targets and transparency, with 18 of 20 companies scoring less than half of the available points in a comprehensive assessment. While some dairy companies show slight progress, coffee house companies performed poorly, and only one company, Danone, possesses both a methane-specific target and a detailed action plan.

The report finds that the dairy and coffee house industries are failing to address methane emissions with urgency, with 18 out of 20 analysed companies scoring less than half of the available points in a performance assessment. While methane's climate impact is widely recognised, most companies lack specific reduction targets, credible action plans, or transparent, disaggregated reporting of methane emissions (CH4). Danone was the only company to set both a methane-specific target and an aligned detailed plan. The report highlights a significant gap in corporate accountability, noting that even members of the Dairy Methane Action Alliance (DMAA) generally achieve only about a third of the total possible score, though they outperform non-members.

Global Energy Monitor (GEM) identifies that five major oil and gas plant owners failed to disclose 10.7 million tonnes of CO2 emissions in 2022, resulting in an annual social cost of $2 billion. The report highlights how companies use the 'operational control' and 'financial control' approaches of the Greenhouse Gas Protocol to exclude assets from their reporting boundaries. Specifically, the Saudi Electricity Company failed to disclose over 7 million tonnes of CO2 from three plants, representing $1.3 billion in annual climate costs. Other analyzed entities, including Egyptian Electricity Holding Company, Calpine Corporation, Chubu Electric Power Co. Inc., and Entergy Corporation, also exhibited gaps between their reported emissions and their actual asset ownership.

The briefing contrasts two competing approaches to corporate renewable electricity accounting: 24/7 hourly matching and the 'avoided emissions' model proposed by the Emissions First Partnership (EFP). It argues that 24/7 matching provides a necessary demand signal for grid decarbonisation and storage technologies, whereas the EFP proposal is a "repackaging of the controversial offsetting model" that allows companies to claim emissions reductions without actually decarbonising the grids they use. The document urges the GHG Protocol and the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) to adopt granular, hourly, and local accounting standards to prevent corporate lock-in of fossil fuel infrastructure and to ensure genuine progress toward the 1.5°C temperature limit.

The guidance outlines the operational requirements for Approved Verifiers to ensure the integrity of the Climate Bonds Certification mark. It details the verification processes for four certification types: Use of Proceeds (UoP), Assets, Non-Financial Entities, and Sustainability-Linked Debt (SLD). The document specifies a multi-stage methodology—comprising engagement, planning, risk assessment, testing, evidence gathering, and reporting—and mandates adherence to professional standards such as ISAE3000 or AA1000. It establishes strict independence and conflict-of-interest rules, requires professional indemnity insurance, and defines the oversight mechanisms used by the Climate Bonds Standard Secretariat to monitor verifier performance.

The Climate Bonds Standard version 4.2 provides a science-based framework for certifying climate-aligned investments. It covers four primary certification paths: Use of Proceeds (UoP) debt instruments, specific assets, non-financial legal entities, and sustainability-linked debt (SLD). Certification requires independent verification by approved third parties and adherence to sector-specific criteria. For entities and SLDs, the standard emphasizes absolute measures tied to transition pathways, requiring climate mitigation performance targets (CMPTs) and robust transition plans. The standard also includes a specialized certification for agri-food entities focusing on deforestation- and conversion-free sourcing.

The document examines the limitations of current GHG accounting, particularly the Scope 2 Market-Based method, which allows companies to claim zero emissions through annual matching of renewable energy certificates (RECs) without necessarily reducing actual grid emissions. The authors propose a dual approach: improving attributional accounting to require hourly and locational matching of carbon-free electricity (CFE) to consumption, and implementing consequential accounting to measure the actual marginal impact of company actions on the atmosphere. This framework aims to incentivize a diverse portfolio of CFE, including firm and dispatchable resources, rather than just low-cost variable renewables.

The paper identifies three fundamental flaws in the current GHG Protocol Scope 2 Market-Based method: it fails to accurately measure emissions based on the timing and location of electricity use, it does not value firm CFE and balancing resources, and it does not prioritize actions that reduce real-world emissions. To address these, the authors propose five key improvements: implementing location-matching based on deliverability, adopting hourly time-matching, treating all forms of CFE (compliance, non-bypassable, and voluntary) equally, ensuring EACs are allocated to those who financially support them, and removing 'grid CFE' from inventories unless substantiated by EACs. The authors also suggest establishing a standardized 'Baseline' CFE score for utility service areas to better distinguish between required and voluntary procurement efforts.