Climate & Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Carbon accounting
The systematic measurement of an organisation's greenhouse-gas emissions across Scopes 1, 2 and 3 — the measurement layer on which targets, disclosure and carbon markets all depend.
Expert review openNo editor-accepted expert review yetDefinition
The process of calculating an organisation's greenhouse-gas emissions, expressed in carbon dioxide equivalent (CO₂e) using global-warming-potential conversions, and categorised under the GHG Protocol's scopes: Scope 1 (direct), Scope 2 (purchased energy) and Scope 3 (value chain). Together the three scopes constitute the corporate carbon footprint; Scope 3 is typically the largest share.
References
Organisational GHG calculation; spend-based vs activity-based vs hybrid methods; EEIO factors; GHG Protocol as most-used standard.
CO₂e and GWP conversions; scopes 1+2+3 as corporate footprint; Scope 3 typically largest.
Overview
What it means
Methodology defines credibility. Spend-based methods apply emission factors to expenditure (environmentally extended input-output factors) — fast but coarse; activity-based methods use physical data (kWh, kilometres, tonnes) — accurate but data-hungry; hybrid approaches mix both, improving as data mature.
The GHG Protocol Corporate Standard is the most widely used framework; regulatory regimes (CSRD/ESRS, California SB 253, ISSB-based rules) all build on it, increasingly with assurance requirements. Carbon accounting differs from, but feeds, product-level footprinting (life-cycle assessment) and project-level accounting in carbon markets.
How it is used
Companies produce annual inventories for disclosure and target-setting (SBTi baselines); auditors provide limited or reasonable assurance; the inventory drives reduction levers, supplier engagement and, where applicable, offsetting decisions.
Why it matters
"You can't manage what you don't measure" is literal here: carbon accounting is the evidentiary foundation of every net-zero claim, disclosure filing and carbon-market transaction — and its quality determines whether any of them can be trusted.
Review
Public comments appear only after editor acceptance. Draft comments stay in the review queue.
Reviewers choose the definition or an overview paragraph, leave a comment or replacement, and attach evidence or a source link.
Editors compare reviewer cards side by side. AI may help find agreement, conflicts, unsupported claims and possible source issues.
Only an editor-accepted synthesis changes the public page. Reviewer identities are shown only with consent and verification.
Submitted reviews stay private until accepted.
Loading verified endorsements… Endorsements are not votes and never determine publication.
Endorse this definition
Endorse the exact version shown here. This is not a vote, and publication remains an editorial decision.
Review board
Comment on a specific line. Each reviewer stays separate until an editor accepts a merged draft.
Each person comments on the definition or overview in their own draft card, with role, evidence and suggested wording kept together.
AI can compare comments against the current text, flag conflicting claims, surface missing evidence and identify where reviewers agree.
An editor merges compatible suggestions into a draft change, checks sources, records disagreements and decides what can be published.