The Difference Between Measuring Carbon Footprint Under the GHG Protocol and ISO 14064: Which Is Best for Your Company?
The Difference Between Measuring Your Carbon Footprint Under the GHG Protocol and ISO 14064: Which Is Best for Your Company?
Focus on Sustainability: GHG Protocol vs. ISO 14064
In a world increasingly focused on sustainability and reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, many companies are adopting frameworks to measure and lower their carbon footprints. However, when it comes time to choose a methodology, two major approaches stand out: the GHG Protocol (Greenhouse Gas Protocol) and ISO 14064.
Both frameworks are widely used around the world—but how do they differ, and how can your company benefit from each?
What Is the GHG Protocol?
The GHG Protocol is a global standard developed by the World Resources Institute (WRI) and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) to help companies and governments measure, manage, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The GHG Protocol is based on three scopes (Scope 1, Scope 2, and Scope 3) used to categorize emissions, with the goal of providing a consistent and easy-to-understand methodology for organizations.
- Scope 1: Direct emissions from a company’s own operations (e.g., fuel combustion in company vehicles or equipment).
- Scope 2: Indirect emissions from the consumption of purchased electricity.
- Scope 3: Other indirect emissions across the value chain, such as the production of purchased goods and services, business travel, product transportation, etc.
One of the main advantages of the GHG Protocol is its flexibility, which allows it to adapt to organizations of different sizes, industries, and locations. Moreover, because it’s a widely recognized standard, companies can compare their results with others in the market and demonstrate their commitment to sustainability.
What Is ISO 14064?
ISO 14064 is a series of international standards issued by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) for the quantification and verification of greenhouse gas emissions.
Unlike the more flexible GHG Protocol, ISO 14064 provides a formal and detailed framework for the quantification, reporting, and verification of GHG emissions. The standard is divided into three parts:
- ISO 14064-1: Sets principles and requirements for quantifying and reporting GHG emissions and removals at the organizational level.
- ISO 14064-2: Provides guidance for quantifying, monitoring, and verifying GHG reductions at the project level.
- ISO 14064-3: Specifies requirements for the validation and verification of GHG emissions and removals in organizations or projects.
Through this standard, companies can obtain internationally recognized certification that ensures the quality and accuracy of their emissions measurement. This can be especially valuable for organizations that need to demonstrate transparent and verified sustainability efforts to investors, customers, and regulators.
Key Differences Between GHG Protocol and ISO 14064
- Approach and Flexibility
- The GHG Protocol serves as an accessible and flexible guide suitable for all types of organizations. It can be adapted to companies of various sizes and industries, with a practical focus that doesn’t require external audits in its initial implementation.
- ISO 14064, on the other hand, is more formal and detailed. It requires a more rigorous and methodical approach—particularly in quantification and verification. As an international standard, it demands external auditing for certification, adding an extra layer of rigor.
- Emission Scopes
- Both frameworks recognize the three key emission scopes (1, 2, and 3), but the GHG Protocol provides greater clarity and specificity in categorizing emissions within these levels. It’s easier to apply and understand for companies just beginning their emissions tracking journey.
- ISO 14064 also covers these scopes, but focuses more deeply on quantification methods, which can be more technical and require greater expertise.
- Verification and Certification
- GHG Protocol is more flexible when it comes to verification. While voluntary audits can be performed, they are not mandatory.
- ISO 14064 requires an impartial third-party audit to verify GHG emissions, offering additional credibility and transparency—though it involves a more complex and costly process.
- Geographical Reach and Applicability
- The GHG Protocol is widely used globally, particularly in North America and Europe. It offers an adaptable approach for companies operating in multiple regions and markets.
- ISO 14064 has a more uniform global application, being a standardized and internationally recognized norm. It’s ideal for companies seeking to harmonize sustainability efforts worldwide and obtain verified certifications.
Which Is Best for Your Company?
Both frameworks are effective tools for measuring carbon footprints, but choosing between them depends on your company’s specific needs.
- If your organization is just starting out with emissions measurement and you want a flexible, practical approach, the GHG Protocol is an excellent starting point. It’s less technical, more accessible, and provides a solid foundation for improving sustainability as your organization grows.
- If your company already has experience measuring emissions or needs to rigorously demonstrate carbon footprint reduction on a global scale, ISO 14064 is the better option. Its external certification adds credibility and is ideal for companies in highly regulated industries or those aiming to meet the highest international sustainability standards.
Conclusion
Both the GHG Protocol and ISO 14064 are valuable tools for measuring and managing a company’s carbon footprint, but each has its own strengths depending on the organization’s context and objectives.
Understanding the key differences between these two frameworks will help you make an informed decision about which one best fits your company’s needs—paving the way toward a more sustainable and climate-conscious future.
By adopting either methodology, your company will not only comply with environmental regulations but also actively contribute to the fight against climate change, enhancing both its reputation and operational efficiency.
