Loading...
BETA – We are refining the platform. Your feedback helps us improve. Share feedback
Loading...
Publish your own articles and insights on Citable ESG
Pro organisations publish unlimited content, strengthening their AI Citability Score and visibility to procurement teams, investors, clients, customers, partners, and followers.
The GHG Protocol's proposed overhaul of Scope 2 emissions accounting has faced substantial pushback from the business community. The organisation's draft requirement – that companies match electricity consumption to generation on an hourly, location-specific basis to claim emissions reductions – struck opposition across stakeholder feedback periods.
This matters because Scope 2 covers purchased energy, often the largest emissions lever for many organisations. The hourly matching proposal would tighten what counts as a genuine reduction versus corporate greenwashing. Companies currently use annual or portfolio-level matching, which masks whether renewable energy was actually consumed when generated.
The resistance reveals a real tension in climate accounting. Stricter rules expose the gap between claimed reductions and actual grid decarbonisation. They also increase compliance cost and complexity – a legitimate operational concern, but one that shouldn't shelter weak accounting.
What the GHG Protocol does next will signal whether Scope 2 standards tighten toward measurable impact or soften under commercial pressure. The outcome affects how billions in corporate climate commitments get verified, and whether renewable energy procurement claims hold scrutiny.
The draft faced negative feedback. Now the standards body must decide: does it strengthen the standard or retreat? And will companies willing to meet tighter rules gain competitive advantage, or will easier accounting prevail?
