top of page

Insights

Stay up-to-date with the latest happenings in the industry by reading about the most recent news and updates.

Carbon 101: Choosing between ISO 14064 or the GHG Protocol.

Updated: Sep 27

A conversation we often have with our clients, or prospective clients, is whether to carbon footprint under ISO or the GHG Protocol. We understand that many marine organisations are new to carbon footprinting, or reporting under a specific standard, and many people feel daunted in the decision and a big pressure to make sure its done correctly.


In this advisory piece we look at the pros and cons of both reporting methodologies to give you a better idea of what would be the best fit for your company.


ships compass which way to go for carbon accounting

What are the GHG Protocol and ISO 14064?


Both the GHG Protocol and ISO 14064 are widely recognized and highly regarded standards for calculating and reporting carbon footprints. They are internationally known and respected, and really considered the gold standard of carbon reporting. What is less well known is that actually the ISO14064 standard is based off, and aligns to, the GHG Protocol.


While broadly similar, these standards have some differences in their approaches, scope, and applications. Here's a comparison to help determine which might be better suited for specific needs:


GHG Protocol


Pros:

  1. Widely Used: The GHG Protocol is one of the most widely used standards globally, providing comprehensive guidelines for measuring and managing greenhouse gas emissions. Really importantly, the GHG Protocol is aligned to the EU's Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), which we know is going to be impacting marine companies operating or trading in the EU.

  2. Detailed Guidance: It offers detailed methodologies for calculating emissions from various sources and sectors, making it easier to standardize reporting.

  3. Corporate and Project Standards: It includes both Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standards and Project Protocols, allowing for flexibility in application.

  4. Scope 1, 2, and 3 Emissions: It clearly defines and differentiates between direct (Scope 1), indirect (Scope 2), and other indirect (Scope 3) emissions, which is beneficial for comprehensive reporting.


Cons:

  1. Complexity: The detailed guidance can be complex and require significant effort to implement, especially for organizations new to carbon accounting.

  2. Resource Intensive: Implementation can be resource-intensive, requiring dedicated personnel and expertise.


ISO 14064


Pros:

  1. International Recognition: ISO 14064 is an internationally recognized standard, providing credibility and uniformity across different countries and industries.

  2. Modular Structure: It consists of three parts—ISO 14064-1 (organization-level), ISO 14064-2 (project-level), and ISO 14064-3 (validation and verification), allowing for targeted application depending on the organization’s needs.

  3. Flexibility: ISO 14064 offers flexibility in its approach, allowing organizations to tailor the methodology to their specific circumstances.

  4. Focus on Verification: Part 3 of ISO 14064 focuses on validation and verification, which can enhance the credibility of the reported data.


Cons:

  1. General Guidelines: It provides general guidelines that might require additional interpretation and customization, potentially leading to inconsistencies.

  2. Less Detailed: Compared to the GHG Protocol, it may offer less detailed methodologies, which might necessitate additional resources to develop organization-specific procedures.


Which is Better?

  • For Comprehensive and Detailed Guidance: The GHG Protocol may be better suited for organizations seeking detailed and standardized methodologies for a wide range of emission sources and sectors. It is especially useful for those needing to report Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions comprehensively.

  • For International Standardization and Flexibility: ISO 14064 might be preferable for organizations that require an internationally recognized standard with flexible guidelines. It is particularly useful for those looking to implement modular and potentially less resource-intensive approaches.


Practical Considerations

  1. Industry Norms: Consider what is commonly used in your industry or by your stakeholders, as alignment with industry standards can facilitate benchmarking and reporting.

  2. Regulatory Requirements: Check if there are any regulatory or market-driven requirements that require, or favor, one standard over the other.

  3. Internal Capabilities: Evaluate your organization’s internal capabilities and resources, as implementing these standards can vary in complexity and resource requirements.


In conclusion, the choice between the GHG Protocol and ISO 14064 depends on your organization’s specific needs, industry practices, and resource availability. Both standards offer robust frameworks for carbon footprinting, but they cater to different priorities and levels of detail.


How we can can help


The SEAOtool is a purpose built marine ESG platform. Accessible by subscription, it enables the user to measure, manage and report emissions data that fits with both GHG Protocol and ISO 14064 standards. This enables companies to structure their reporting to either, or both, standards. Having access to your own data and analytics through the platform gives a huge advantage to any company. Our team is on hand to talk and walk you through the process.


In addition, we provide specialist marine carbon accounting and reporting consultancy.


To learn more about the GHG Protocol head here - https://ghgprotocol.org/

To learn more about ISO 14064-1 head here - https://www.iso.org/standard/66453.html



bottom of page