### The Issue of Carbon Accounting: A Necessary Analysis
The fundamental question of whether a ton of CO2 is always a ton of CO2, regardless of the country or production sector it comes from, is far from trivial. It represents the heart of carbon accounting, a central theme for anyone involved in environmental management and sustainability.
Carbon accounting is crucial for both national inventories developed according to the directives of the UNFCCC’s Conference of the Parties (COP) and for quantifying greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in companies, which are increasingly prevalent even in voluntary markets. A key aspect of this process is represented by carbon footprints. These tools synthesize all direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions into a single measure known as carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e). Companies use these tools to quantify the impact of their products and operations, enabling them to establish a baseline for climate change and initiate decarbonization strategies.
Having standardized methodologies for quantifying GHG emissions is fundamentally important in two ways: on one hand, it allows companies to reliably monitor improvements over time; on the other hand, it provides a reference framework for assessing climate risk compared to competitors.
To meet these needs, the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) has developed a series of voluntary standards since 2006. These standards cover all aspects of carbon accounting, from product carbon footprints to organizational ones, including the quantification of emission reductions achieved through specific projects, verification and accreditation procedures, and the qualifications required of verifiers. Additionally, standards related to carbon neutrality and Net Zero are being developed.
ISO standards are periodically updated to reflect changes in international regulatory contexts and new market needs. For example, the first review of the ISO GHG package was initiated even before the Kyoto Protocol was ratified. Today, however, we operate within complex regulatory frameworks, both national and regional, resulting from the Paris Agreement and initiatives like the European Green Deal.
Companies’ needs, however, are constantly evolving. In this context, the current revision of the product and organizational carbon footprint standards has been initiated in response to these changes. Initially, the standards were used separately, depending on whether the focus was on reducing the impacts of products or overall operations. Today, these approaches are increasingly being integrated, as decarbonization pathways require coordination between product and operational policies.
ISO working groups focusing on carbon footprints are therefore collaborating to maximize synergies among the standards, developing identical text sections on key issues such as the quantification of biogenic emissions and those associated with electricity consumption.
However, a critical point emerges: ISO seems to be struggling to compete with the GHG Protocol in terms of the dissemination of its standards. The main reason is that the GHG Protocol’s standards are available for free, while ISO standards incur costs, and their development is influenced by a more complex international consensus process.
Another aspect to consider is the influence of the private sector, which tends to emphasize the differences between the two approaches. The availability of significant funding to support GHG Protocol-related initiatives highlights the interest of large companies in promoting voluntary standardization, while raising questions about potential conflicts of interest.
Although the cost of a single standard does not represent an insurmountable barrier for small and medium-sized enterprises, it nonetheless constitutes a barrier to the dissemination of the knowledge necessary for these methodologies to be adopted in regulatory contexts.
An emblematic example comes from a professional who has firsthand experience with the difficulties of accessing the ISO standard on carbon.
