Companies are increasingly calculating their carbon footprint. However, depending on the scope and method used, the results in tonnes of greenhouse gasses emitted into our atmosphere and the reduction targets set may differ.
It is important to understand the calculation steps.
An emissions report can be calculated as a legal, commercial or voluntary obligation.
In the meantime, there are three major methodologies: the GHG Protocol (United States), Bilan Carbone (France), and the ISO 14067 (international). These were developed in the early 2000s. They are compatible with each other.
They categorize emissions according to their direct links to company activities (scope 1), and those that are directly related to energy production (scope 2). Those indirectly related to production, upstream or downstream (scope 3).
Fanny Fleuriot (carbon accounting coordinator at French Environment and Energy Management Agency) says that the first step is to study sector guides in order to identify major sources of emission and then decide whether or not to call on a design agency. energy (Ademe).
Companies determine the year to be used as the basis for the reduction targets and the scope. Fanny Fleuriot says that while scopes 1 and 2 are legally required, scope 3 is often the most significant.
The next step is to collect data. This can take several months.
The data is expressed in volume (tons or kWh), etc. The corresponding emission factor is multiplied with the data in volume (tons, kWh, etc.) Based on life cycle analyses by professional federations, engineers and design offices, the averages and emission factor are determined. Professor Karthik Ramanna at Oxford believes that their use for scope 3 creates "greenwashing paradise” for companies due to the averages being incompatible with accounting rules.
He proposed that the carbon accounting system could only be used to identify suppliers. He explains that each company should "calculate its scope 1" and then transfer it to its value-chain.
The calculation must be repeated, but refined to measure progress. Emission factors and scope can change, so the calculations should be repeated, but refined. There are automated tracking tools on the market.
The company should abandon sectoral averages in order to incorporate the actual emissions of its suppliers to get as close to reality as possible. Karthik Ramanna explains that the next few years will be challenging because of the lack of a standard system for carbon data. This data must be transmitted as closely as accounting data along the value chain. This will allow investors and consumers to make informed decisions.
