Why Product-Level Carbon Standards Matter

Understanding the carbon footprint of products is key to shaping effective climate policies, including and importantly in a global trade friendly way. Earlier this week at #COP29, I presented the Inclusive Forum on Carbon Mitigation Approaches’ (#IFCMA) new report tackling challenges in computing carbon intensity metrics and their application in trade-related climate policies. Carbon intensity metrics play an important role in assessing emissions associated with the volume of production of specific goods or sectors and have many potential applications. These metrics provide insights into progress on decarbonisation and are central to a growing range of trade-related climate policies, including green product standards and border carbon adjustments. The IFCMA’s analysis emphasises the need to address data gaps, prevent fragmentation in global supply chains and provide targeted support to SMEs and firms in developing countries. Our report provides a better shared understanding of these challenges and how they can be addressed to help boost international markets for low-carbon goods while ensuring fair and open trade to promote an inclusive, cost-effective transition. Currently with 59 members and the engagement of many more economies, the IFCMA can play a key role in bringing countries together to support international cooperation on the computation and use of carbon intensity metrics. Read the report here: https://oe.cd/5Ma | #OECDatCOP29

𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗱𝘂𝗰𝘁 𝗖𝗮𝗿𝗯𝗼𝗻 𝗔𝗰𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗦𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗮𝗿𝗱 The Greenhouse Gas Protocol (GHG Protocol) "Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting Standard", developed by the World Resources Institute (WRI) and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), remains one of the most important reference points in global product carbon accounting. It is not simply guidance, it is the architecture behind how credible Product Carbon Footprints are built and reported worldwide. 👏📜 For anyone working in #ESG, #LCA or #Scope3, this document quietly shapes what “credible” really means. 𝗔 𝗳𝗲𝘄 𝘁𝗮𝗸𝗲𝗮𝘄𝗮𝘆𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗺𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿: ➡️ Product carbon accounting must follow a life cycle and attributional approach boundaries are not optional. ➡️ Allocation choices (especially for recycling) can materially change results and must be transparently disclosed. ➡️ Data quality and uncertainty are not technical footnotes; they define reliability. ➡️ Offsets and avoided emissions cannot be netted off inventory results. Integrity comes first. ➡️ Assurance strengthens trust particularly as product-level disclosures enter regulation and green finance. 𝗪𝗵𝗼 𝗯𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗳𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗮𝗿𝗱? • Corporates developing Product Carbon Footprints or preparing EPDs • Sustainability leaders navigating CSRD and supply chain disclosures • Consultants and auditors designing methodologies • Policymakers shaping product-level climate frameworks • Procurement teams embedding carbon into purchasing decisions As value-chain transparency becomes the norm, product-level carbon accounting is no longer niche. It is foundational to climate governance. Ambition drives headlines. Standards drive accountability. #planetaryhealth #planetaryboundaries #sustainability #ClimateAction #carbonfootprint #NetZero #ClimateEmergency #SDG #ESG #GHG #netzero #GHGProtocol #ProductCarbonFootprint #LCA #Scope3 #ClimateGovernance

CBAM vs Corporate Carbon Footprint vs Product Carbon Footprint Carbon reporting is no longer “one size fits all. Today, companies are dealing with three very different carbon reports, each serving a distinct purpose: 1- CBAM (Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism) CBAM is not a sustainability report; it’s a trade and customs compliance mechanism. Focus: Imported products into the EU What it measures: Embedded CO₂ per imported good Level: Product-by-product (CN code) Outcome: Direct financial cost (CBAM certificates from 2026) Audience: Customs authorities, finance & trade teams - CBAM answers: “How much carbon is embedded in this imported product and how much must I pay for it?” 2- Corporate Carbon Footprint (CSRD / GHG Protocol) This is the organisation-level climate disclosure most companies are familiar with. Focus: The entire company What it measures: Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions Level: Organisational Outcome: Regulatory compliance, ESG credibility, access to finance Audience: Regulators, investors, lenders, boards - Corporate footprint answers: “What is the total climate impact of our business?” 3- Product Carbon Footprint (ISO 14067 / LCA) This is the most granular and technically detailed of the three. Focus: A single product What it measures: Lifecycle emissions (cradle-to-gate or cradle-to-grave) Level: Process, supplier, and unit level Outcome: Market differentiation, B2B requirements, pricing power Audience: Customers, procurement teams, supply-chain partners - Product footprint answers: “How carbon-intensive is this specific product?” Why does this matter? These three reports are complementary, not interchangeable: - CBAM drives carbon cost at the border - Corporate footprint drives strategy, disclosure, and capital access - Product footprint drives supply-chain transparency and competitiveness Companies that treat them as separate silos will struggle. Companies that align product data → corporate reporting → CBAM compliance will be ahead of the curve. Carbon reporting is no longer just about measurement. It’s about regulatory readiness and commercial resilience. #GHG #ISO #CBAM #compliance #resilience

From Cradle-to-Grave to Gate-to-Gate: Reframing Carbon Accounting, Diluting Accountability In response to a call from the newly formed Carbon Measures “business coalition” to establish a “more accurate carbon accounting framework”, a joint statement https://lnkd.in/d9A3xgGu signed by some senior figures from finance, business leadership, civil society, and academia urges a simple course: strengthen our commons, i.e. the shared corporate carbon accounting framework (notably developed by World Resources Institute and WBCSD – World Business Council for Sustainable Development), improve product accounting within the existing ISO - International Organization for Standardization – Greenhouse Gas Protocol (GHG Protocol) work, and avoid fragmenting standards. I support it. Mandatory disclosure of value-chain emissions (#Scope3) has already been derailed at the U.S. federal level, narrowed under pressure in the EU, and is now being fought in court, including in California. This is not accidental. Fossil fuel interests have actively lobbied against climate disclosure rules, challenged them politically, and increasingly turned to litigation to block or delay them. The next step is now visible: delegitimise Scope 3 itself. The ploy: - Turn real limitations of Scope 3 data into a claim that Scope 3 is fundamentally unfit for purpose. - Weaponise “double counting” as if shared value-chain accountability were an accounting error. - Advance “gate-to-gate” product-ledger approaches that have the effect of narrowing corporate responsibility and shifting it downstream. Let me be clear: better product-level standards are welcome and necessary. They matter for regulation, including #CBAM and other embedded-emissions regimes for traded goods, for procurement, and for operational decarbonisation across value chains. Product-level data, when specific, comparable, and exchangeable, should strengthen value-chain measurement and mitigation, not displace accountability. We also need complementary metrics. Scope 3 emissions data alone are not always the right steering instrument for value chains, and are not a sound basis for portfolio construction, at least not as framed in recent European regulation. But acknowledging these nuances, as I have done since 2020, sometimes at the cost of being called a villain, does not justify pushing parallel standards. Nor should we repeat a familiar pattern: using “better measurement” narratives to fragment frameworks, multiply disclosure requirements, and divert scarce regulatory capacity. (For those interested, I will point to related analytical work in the comments.) In a #climateemergency, diverting attention from implementation and enforcement is not a technical detail. It is a strategy. Strengthen the system. Do not fragment it. Focus on decarbonisation, carbon pricing phase-in and fossil fuel phase-out.

𝗚𝗛𝗚 𝗔𝗰𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗜𝘀𝗻’𝘁 𝗢𝗻𝗲-𝗦𝗶𝘇𝗲-𝗙𝗶𝘁𝘀-𝗔𝗹𝗹 GHG information must be fit for purpose. There is no single “best” way to account for emissions—only methods suited to different decisions. • 𝗖𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗹𝗲-𝘁𝗼-𝗴𝗮𝘁𝗲 GHGs support Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanisms (CBAMs) and comparisons of production-related emissions across companies. • 𝗖𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗹𝗲-𝘁𝗼-𝗴𝗿𝗮𝘃𝗲 GHGs are needed to compare products with different downstream emissions, assess full life-cycle impacts, and support mitigation and disclosure. • 𝗖𝗼𝗿𝗽𝗼𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗚𝗛𝗚 𝗶𝗻𝘃𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗼𝗿𝗶𝗲𝘀 underpin internal emissions management, target-setting, disclosure, and risk assessment. This is not an either-or debate. These approaches are complementary. The 𝗚𝗛𝗚 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝘁𝗼𝗰𝗼𝗹 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗱𝘂𝗰𝘁 𝗦𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗮𝗿𝗱 already supports cradle-to-gate and cradle-to-grave accounting, while the 𝗖𝗼𝗿𝗽𝗼𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗦𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗮𝗿𝗱 guides organizational GHG accounting and is being refreshed. 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁’𝘀 𝗻𝗲𝗲𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝗻𝗲𝘅𝘁: stronger product category rules—and collaboration between industry and existing standard setters. Encouragingly, ISO - International Organization for Standardization and Greenhouse Gas Protocol (GHG Protocol) have launched a joint process to combine their Product Standards, moving us toward the convergence and harmonization we need.