One ton of CO2 represents the same amount of emissions anywhere in the world, regardless of the country or the production sector? It may seem like a trivial question, but it is the crux of every carbon accounting process.
This principle underlies the national inventories developed according to the guidelines of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, as well as the quantification of greenhouse gas emissions by companies, which is increasingly widespread and accepted in the voluntary market.
Emissions are commonly summarized in so-called carbon footprints, which consolidate all emissions, both direct and indirect, of greenhouse gases into a single value of CO2 equivalent (CO2e). Companies use this methodology to understand the impact of their products and activities on climate change, enabling a conscious move towards decarbonization strategies.
The creation of standard methodologies for quantifying greenhouse gas emissions is therefore crucial. These standards not only allow companies to monitor progress in their emission reduction efforts over time but also provide a valuable benchmark for competitive positioning regarding “climate risk” compared to other players in the sector.
To address these needs, the International Organization for Standardization has developed a set of voluntary standards since 2006, covering all dimensions of carbon accounting, from product carbon footprints to organizational ones, including the assessment of emission reductions through projects, procedures for verification and accreditation, and the calibration of the skills required for verifiers. There is also a standard on carbon neutrality and Net Zero currently under development.
These standards undergo periodic review to ensure they are up to date concerning the evolution of the international regulatory framework and the needs of a continuously changing market. It is interesting to note that when the first review of the ISO greenhouse gas package was launched, the Kyoto Protocol had not yet been ratified; today, however, companies operate in well-defined regulatory contexts, both nationally and regionally, as highlighted by the Paris Agreement and the European Green Deal.
However, companies themselves are going through a period of change. The current review of standards related to product and organizational carbon footprints was initiated to respond to new needs. Initially, these standards were applied separately: organizations chose to focus on reducing product impacts or overall sustainability. Today, however, companies tend to integrate these approaches, as the complex paths to decarbonization require coordination between product-related policies and business practices.
Therefore, the ISO working groups dedicated to carbon footprints are collaborating to maximize the similarities between the standards for products and organizations, starting from a common structure and index all the way to identical sections of text on relevant points, such as the quantification of biogenic emissions and electricity consumption.
However, there remains a critical issue that ISO has not resolved: the greater competitiveness of the GHG Protocol compared to ISO standards. The main reason is that GHG Protocol standards are freely accessible, while ISO standards require a purchasing procedure. This presents a barrier to entry for small and medium-sized enterprises and limits the dissemination of essential knowledge for implementing carbon accounting methodologies even within the regulatory context.
A significant episode comes from an expert who participated in the ISO working groups. When she attempted to access the ISO standard for organizational carbon footprints, she found that to obtain information, she had to initiate a lengthy internal purchasing process. In contrast, consulting the GHG Protocol required nothing more than downloading the document online.
The situation is even more complex in Europe, where the Commission faces the same difficulties accessing ISO standards, a problem that hinders the assessment of their utility in the regulatory context. Furthermore, there is currently ongoing debate regarding the legitimacy of referring to non-ISO documents.
