Nonprofits demand GHG Protocol tighten corporate governance

A coalition of advocacy organisations has challenged the GHG Protocol and peer standard-setters to strengthen their conflict-of-interest policies, arguing that corporate representation on governance bodies undermines the integrity of emissions accounting frameworks.

The core complaint is straightforward: companies designing the rules they'll be measured against creates perverse incentives. When an oil major sits on the committee revising Scope 3 guidance, or a logistics firm shapes boundary-setting definitions, the resulting standards risk accommodation over rigour.

This matters because GHG Protocol and ISO 14064 underpin corporate climate disclosures globally. Their definitions determine what counts as reportable emissions, which methodologies companies must use, and how they can exclude inconvenient categories. A looser standard on Scope 3 (supply chain emissions) directly affects whether net-zero claims hold water.

The nonprofits aren't arguing companies should have no seat at the table – they have data and operational expertise. The tension is about balance and transparency. How many corporate board seats is too many? Should companies report their interest in specific standards revisions? Are voting rights appropriate when a standard directly affects your compliance burden or competitive position?

Standards bodies will likely push back, citing the need for practical input. Fair point. But the advocacy groups have identified a real governance gap. If standards bodies can't clearly articulate why their conflict policies are sufficient, that's itself a red flag. The legitimacy of net-zero claims depends on it.

The question: will standards bodies treat this as a box-ticking exercise, or use it to rebuild stakeholder confidence in the frameworks that corporate climate action rests on?

Limit corporate influence, nonprofits tell GHG Protocol and other standard-setters

Report This Content