What is Carbon Reporting?

As we face increasing worries about climate change, keeping track of carbon emissions has become an essential tool for companies trying to reduce their impact on the environment. Measuring and transparently disclosing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is no longer optional; it's a crucial mandate for companies striving to meet regulatory requirements, resonate with evolving stakeholder values, and, most importantly, drive meaningful climate action.

This comprehensive guide will dissect the world of carbon reporting using current frameworks, dissecting regional regulations, addressing implementation challenges, and illuminating the strategic opportunities inherent in this critical practice. We will draw upon established global standards and real-world applications to provide an expert perspective on everything you need to know about carbon reporting.

‍

What is carbon reporting?

So, what is carbon reporting in its essence? At its core, carbon reporting represents a standardized, rigorous process dedicated to quantifying, meticulously analyzing, and publicly disclosing an organization’s GHG emissions across the entirety of its operations and sprawling value chain. This is not merely about ticking a box; it's about adopting a structured approach to comprehensively understanding an organization's carbon impact. Effective carbon reporting empowers companies to achieve several critical sustainability objectives:

• Demonstrate Progress Toward Net-Zero Commitments: Transparently showcase tangible progress in reducing emissions over time, build credibility with stakeholders, and reinforce commitment to long-term sustainability goals. Carbon reporting acts as the verifiable evidence of this journey.
• Identify Emission Hotspots: Pinpointing the areas within their operations and value chain that contribute most significantly to their carbon footprint. This granular understanding is the first step towards targeted and impactful reduction strategies.

‍

Deciphering the three scopes of emissions in carbon reporting

A cornerstone of effective carbon reporting for organizations is categorizing emissions into three distinct scopes meticulously defined by the globally recognized GHG Protocol. Understanding these scopes is paramount for comprehensive and accurate carbon reporting:

1. Scope 1: Direct Emissions. These emissions are the most directly controlled by an organization. They originate from sources that are owned or directly controlled by the reporting entity, such as:
   
   • Direct emissions from the combustion of fuels on-site. This includes burning natural gas in company buildings for heating or manufacturing processes, as well as using gasoline or diesel in company-owned vehicles.
   • Process emissions stemming from industrial processes. For example, chemical reactions during manufacturing release GHGs directly into the atmosphere.
   • Fugitive emissions are unintentional releases of GHGs, such as leaks from refrigeration and air conditioning equipment or methane leaks from oil and gas operations.
   • Example: A manufacturing plant utilizing fossil fuels to power its production machinery and emitting CO₂ directly from these processes.

‍

2. Scope 2: Indirect Energy Emissions. These emissions are indirectly linked to an organization’s energy consumption. Specifically, Scope 2 encompasses indirect emissions resulting from the generation of purchased electricity, steam, heating, and cooling consumed by the organization.
   
   • Crucially, while these emissions are physically released at the power plant or energy provider’s facility, they are attributed to the organization that consumes the energy. carbon reporting under Scope 2 requires organizations to track their purchased energy consumption and apply relevant emission factors (which vary by region and energy source) to calculate the associated GHG emissions.
   • Example: A corporate office building relying on electricity purchased from the grid, even if the grid is powered by coal-fired power plants, incurs Scope 2 emissions for its carbon reporting.

‍

3. Scope 3: Other Indirect Emissions. This scope represents the most comprehensive and often the most challenging aspect of carbon reporting. Scope 3 encompasses all other indirect emissions that occur across a company’s extensive value chain, encompassing both upstream and downstream activities. This broad category includes a wide array of sources:
   
   • Upstream Emissions: Emissions associated with goods and services purchased by the reporting company, including raw materials, components, and services from suppliers.
   • Downstream Emissions: Emissions linked to the use and end-of-life disposal of products sold by the reporting company. This can include emissions from customer use of products, transportation and distribution of sold goods, and the disposal or recycling of products at the end of their life.
   • Other categories within Scope 3 are business travel, employee commuting, waste generated in operations, and investments.
   • Example: For a fashion brand, Scope 3 emissions in carbon reporting would include emissions from textile production by suppliers (upstream), transportation of finished goods, consumer use of clothing (e.g., washing and drying), and the eventual disposal of garments (downstream).

It's critical to note that while Scope 1 and 2 emissions are typically more direct and relatively straightforward to measure, Scope 3 emissions often constitute the lion's share – approximately 70%-99% for many sectors – of an organization's total carbon footprint.

Despite their significance, Scope 3 emissions remain the most challenging to quantify accurately in carbon reporting due to data gaps, complexity in supply chain mapping, and the sheer number of actors involved. This often leads companies to use a spend-based approach for reporting scope three emissions. This may be effective for reporting but undermines reduction efforts, necessitating a decrease in spending if companies want to decrease emissions.

‍

The escalating imperative of carbon reporting: why now?

The rising prominence of carbon reporting is not merely a fleeting trend but a reflection of profound shifts in the global regulatory, stakeholder, and risk landscape. Several converging drivers are propelling organizations to embrace carbon reporting with increasing urgency:

‍

Regulatory drivers mandating transparency

Governments worldwide are no longer relying solely on voluntary initiatives; they are actively implementing mandatory carbon reporting frameworks to accelerate climate action aggressively. This regulatory push is a significant catalyst driving corporate carbon reporting:

• United Kingdom (UK): Streamlined Energy and Carbon Reporting (SECR): The SECR mandate in the UK compels large companies to annually disclose detailed Scope 1 and 2 emissions in their carbon reporting, alongside reporting on energy efficiency actions undertaken. This regulatory framework provides a structured energy and carbon reporting approach for major businesses.
  
  
• European Union (EU): Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD): The groundbreaking CSRD in the EU significantly expands the scope of carbon reporting mandates, encompassing over 50,000 companies. Crucially, CSRD enforces “double materiality assessments,” requiring companies to consider not only the financial impacts of climate change on their business but also the environmental and social impacts of their business on the world. This directive represents a paradigm shift in corporate responsibility and carbon reporting expectations.
  
  
• United States (US): Proposed SEC Rules: The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in the US has proposed rules that would mandate public companies to disclose Scope 1 and 2 emissions in their carbon reporting. Phase-in requirements for Scope 3 reporting are also proposed for situations where these emissions are deemed “material” to investors. While still in the proposal stage, this development signals a significant move towards mandatory carbon reporting in the US financial markets. 
  • However, California SB 253 mandates reporting of all Scope 3 emissions for companies exceeding $1 billion in revenue, regardless of materiality. Newly proposed legislation similar to California’s SB 253, come from New York with their S3456 - Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act and Colorado’s HB25-1119 - Climate Disclosures.

• Canada: Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP): Canada’s GHGRP requires facilities emitting 10,000 tonnes of CO₂e or more annually to engage in mandatory carbon reporting. Moreover, expanded reporting requirements are being introduced for high-emission sectors such as cement and petroleum refining, reflecting a targeted approach to carbon reporting in key industries.
  
  

These are just a few examples illustrating a global trend: mandatory carbon reporting is becoming increasingly prevalent across jurisdictions, underscoring its critical importance for international businesses.

‍

Stakeholder expectations demanding accountability

Beyond regulatory pressures, evolving stakeholder expectations are equally powerful drivers for carbon reporting. Investors, consumers, and supply chain partners are increasingly demanding environmental transparency and accountability:

• Investors Prioritize ESG Performance: A significant $40 trillion of Global ESG assets under management by 2030, representing more than 25% of the global assets under management. Carbon reporting data is a crucial component of the ‘E’ in ESG. Investors actively utilize platforms like CDP (Carbon Disclosure Project) scores and reports aligned with the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) framework to rigorously assess climate-related risks and opportunities within their portfolios. Robust carbon reporting is therefore vital for attracting and maintaining investor confidence.
  
  
• Consumers Demand Sustainable Brands: Modern consumers are increasingly environmentally conscious. An impressive 78% of US consumers say they feel better when they buy products that are sustainably produced. Transparent carbon reporting allows companies to communicate their environmental performance credibly and meet this growing consumer demand for sustainable products and services.
  
  
• Supply Chains Cascade Accountability: Major multinational corporations are extending carbon reporting expectations throughout their supply chains. Leading companies like Microsoft and Apple now mandate that their suppliers, often across multiple tiers, engage in carbon reporting. This creates a cascading effect of accountability, driving carbon reporting adoption throughout entire industry ecosystems.
  
  

Risk management benefits beyond compliance

Proactive carbon reporting is not simply about adhering to regulations or satisfying stakeholders; it offers tangible risk management benefits that directly contribute to organizational resilience and long-term value creation:

• Avoiding Penalties and Fines: Non-compliance with mandatory carbon reporting regulations can result in significant financial penalties. For instance, the EU’s CSRD framework can impose fines of up to €75,000 euros for non-compliance. Robust carbon reporting is a crucial risk mitigation strategy in this increasingly regulated environment.
  
  
• Mitigating Physical and Transition Risks: Climate change poses both physical risks (e.g., damage to assets from extreme weather events like floods) and transition risks (e.g., carbon pricing mechanisms increasing operational costs). Carbon reporting enables organizations to understand their exposure to these risks, assess vulnerabilities, and develop proactive adaptation and mitigation strategies.
  
  
• Uncovering Operational Inefficiencies and ROI: The very process of carbon reporting, when implemented effectively, can reveal operational inefficiencies and cost-saving opportunities within an organization. Energy-saving measures identified through carbon reporting often deliver a Return on Investment (ROI) within a relatively short timeframe, typically 2–3 years. This demonstrates that carbon reporting is not just a cost center but can be a driver of operational improvements and bottom-line benefits.
  
  

Navigating the carbon reporting landscape: frameworks & standards

To ensure comparability, credibility, and consistency in carbon reporting, organizations increasingly align their disclosures with globally recognized frameworks and standards. These frameworks provide detailed guidance on methodologies, reporting boundaries, and disclosure requirements, creating a level playing field for carbon reporting:

‍

‍

The CDP reporting process exemplifies a rigorous and widely respected disclosure pathway:

1. Questionnaire Submission: Companies complete CDP’s detailed questionnaires, providing comprehensive data on their emissions inventory, reduction strategies, climate risk governance, and related environmental information.
2. Scoring and Evaluation: CDP rigorously evaluates company responses based on completeness, data quality, and alignment with TCFD recommendations. Companies receive scores ranging from A (leadership) to F (failure to disclose), providing a clear benchmark of their carbon reporting maturity.
3. Benchmarking and Transparency: CDP’s 2024 data reveals that only a tiny fraction – around 12% – of reporting firms achieved a top ‘A’ score, highlighting that there is substantial room for improvement in corporate carbon reporting practices globally. CDP scores are publicly available, fostering transparency and peer-to-peer benchmarking.

‍

Best practices for effective carbon reporting implementation

Moving beyond frameworks, implementing truly effective carbon reporting requires adherence to best practices across various facets of the reporting process:

• Define Clear Organizational Boundaries: Establishing precise organizational boundaries is foundational to accurate carbon reporting. Organizations must adopt either the equity share approach (based on percentage ownership in operations) or the control approach (based on operational or financial control over entities) to meticulously define which emissions sources are included within their reporting perimeter. This is essential to avoid double-counting emissions across different entities. Microsoft’s 2022 carbon reporting serves as an example of best practice, encompassing 100% of controlled entities and key suppliers within their Scope 3 boundary, enabling truly comprehensive value chain emissions tracking.
  
  
• Implement Robust Data Collection Systems: High-quality carbon reporting relies on robust and reliable data collection methodologies. This necessitates:
  
  
  
  • Automation for Scope 1 & 2: Leveraging automated meter readings for energy consumption and integration with Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems to seamlessly capture real-time Scope 1 and 2 emissions data . This minimizes manual data entry, reduces errors, and improves data accuracy.
  • Tiered Approaches for Scope 3: Acknowledging the complexity of Scope 3, a tiered approach to data collection is often necessary. This involves prioritizing primary data collection from strategic, high-impact suppliers, while utilizing industry average data or spend-based estimations for less critical suppliers where primary data collection may be infeasible.
• Leverage Carbon Accounting Software Solutions: Specialized carbon reporting software platforms are now essential tools for streamlining the entire reporting process. Platforms like Arbor offer functionalities such as:
  
  
  
  • Automated Emissions Calculations: Automatically converting activity data (e.g., kilowatt-hours of electricity consumed, kilometers traveled in vehicles) into CO₂e emissions using region-specific and fuel-specific emission factors . This greatly simplifies the complex calculations inherent in carbon reporting.
  • Robust Audit Trails: Maintaining detailed, version-controlled records of all data inputs, calculations, and assumptions, creating a comprehensive audit trail that is crucial for regulatory reviews and third-party verification .
  • Scenario Modeling Capabilities: Allowing organizations to simulate the potential impact of various emission reduction initiatives, such as transitioning to low-carbon materials or electrifying vehicle fleets. This enables data-driven decision-making for emissions reduction strategies.
• Ensure Third-Party Verification for Credibility: Independent third-party verification is increasingly recognized as a best practice to enhance the credibility and reliability of carbon reporting. Adhering to the ISO 14064-3 standard provides a robust framework for verification guidelines, ensuring audit quality and consistency.
  
  

Navigating the Challenges in Carbon reporting Implementation

Despite the growing maturity of Carbon reporting frameworks and technologies, organizations still encounter significant challenges in implementation:

‍

Scope 3 Complexity: The Data Gap

A 2024 CDP study highlights the persistent challenge of Scope 3 carbon reporting, revealing that only 38% of companies fully report Scope 3 emissions. Companies cite difficulties in supplier engagement and ensuring data quality across vast and often opaque supply chains as major hurdles. Potential solutions include:

• Collaborative Supplier Data Platforms: Adopting industry-specific or multi-company platforms designed to facilitate secure and efficient data sharing between organizations and their suppliers for carbon reporting purposes.
• Hybrid Calculation Models: Combining spend-based calculation methodologies (using economic data to estimate emissions) with more granular activity-based calculations (utilizing specific operational data) to create hybrid models that balance accuracy with data availability for Scope 3 carbon reporting.

‍

Regulatory Fragmentation

• The evolving global regulatory landscape for carbon reporting is characterized by fragmentation, with divergent requirements across regions, complicating carbon reporting for multinational organizations:
• Organizations must develop flexible carbon reporting systems and strategies that can adapt to this dynamic and fragmented regulatory environment, potentially requiring tailored reporting approaches for different jurisdictions.

‍

Greenwashing Risks: Ensuring Authenticity

The increasing scrutiny of environmental claims has brought “greenwashing” – misleading or unsubstantiated sustainability claims – into sharp focus. Vague or unsubstantiated claims, such as “carbon neutral” without verified offsets, have led to legal challenges and reputational damage for major retailers.

Among others, the EU’s 2024 Green Claims Directive directly responds to this risk, mandating third-party certification for all environmental labels and claims, including those related to carbon reporting. Transparency and robust verification are now essential to mitigate greenwashing risks in carbon reporting and sustainability communications.

The future trajectory of carbon reporting

Carbon reporting is not a static practice; it is evolving rapidly, driven by technological advancements, regulatory convergence, and a deeper integration with core business functions:

1. Integration with Financial Reporting: A major paradigm shift on the horizon is the integration of carbon reporting with mainstream financial reporting. The newly established International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) is spearheading this convergence, with mandates for combined financial and climate-related disclosures anticipated as early as 2026. This will effectively eliminate the historical divide between ESG considerations and traditional fiduciary duty, firmly embedding carbon reporting within the core financial reporting landscape.
   
   
2. AI-Driven Analytics Revolutionizing Carbon Accounting: Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) are poised to revolutionize carbon reporting methodologies:
   
   
   
   • Predictive Emissions Modeling: AI algorithms can analyze historical operational data, production schedules, and external factors to create sophisticated predictive models that forecast future emissions with increasing accuracy, enabling proactive emission management.
   • Real-Time Anomaly Detection: AI-powered systems can continuously monitor carbon reporting data streams, flagging inconsistencies and anomalies in real-time, significantly improving data quality control and accuracy.
3. Blockchain for Enhanced Supply Chain Transparency: Blockchain technology, with its inherent characteristics of immutability and transparency, is emerging as a powerful tool to address Scope 3 data gaps and enhance supply chain traceability in carbon reporting. Pilot projects, particularly in sectors with complex supply chains like automotive manufacturing, are exploring the use of blockchain to track embedded emissions across multiple tiers of suppliers, creating a more transparent and verifiable record of value chain emissions.

‍

Product-level carbon reporting

Beyond organizational-level carbon reporting, companies are increasingly focusing on product carbon footprint (PCF) assessments. This granular approach quantifies the emissions associated with individual products throughout their entire lifecycle.

Frameworks like ISO 14067, PAS 2050, and the GHG Protocol’s Product Standard provide methodologies for this detailed product-level carbon reporting. This is particularly critical for sectors like apparel, footwear, electronics, and consumer goods, where the majority of emissions are often embedded in the product lifecycle.

For retail companies, even a small 2-3% reduction in PCF can translate to a substantial reduction in total emissions, sometimes more than their scopes 1 & 2 combined!

‍

Summary

Carbon reporting has undeniably transitioned from a voluntary practice to a strategic imperative in the modern business world. The sheer volume of sustainability-linked loans – $130 billion globally in 2024 alone – tied to corporate emission targets underscores the financial significance now intertwined with carbon reporting. Organizations that master the intricacies of carbon reporting stand to gain significant competitive advantages:

• Enhanced Investor Confidence: A remarkable 65% of green bonds now necessitate carbon reporting aligned disclosures, indicating the direct link between transparency and access to sustainable finance.
• Improved Supply Chain Resilience: Proactive suppliers engaged in robust carbon reporting demonstrate 23% lower climate-related supply chain disruptions, highlighting the operational benefits of environmental transparency within value chains.
• Unlocking Innovation Opportunities: Detailed carbon reporting data provides invaluable insights that drive Research & Development (R&D) efforts focused on circular economy business models and low-carbon product innovation.

As regulatory pressures intensify and stakeholder expectations continue to rise, companies must approach carbon reporting not merely as a compliance exercise, but as a fundamental cornerstone of long-term value creation, resilience, and competitive differentiation.

The journey towards a net-zero future begins with accurate measurement – and for businesses worldwide, the time to act on carbon reporting is unequivocally now.

Measure your emissions with Arbor

‍