Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
(8% of all large company signatories) reported
actual decreases in emissions. Similarly, only 12
firms (5% of the total) report improvements in
intensity. We have yet to see broad climate benefits
generated by the C4C program.
Nevertheless, the survey of other voluntary
reporting programs and the investigation into
C4C data both demonstrate that when a com-
pany is provided with clearly defined rules and
guidelines on how to define its system boundary,
count emissions, and report in a manner that is
uniform, the emissions data is more useful for
managing and reducing emissions (Smith, Mor-
reale, & Mariani, 2008). This study would not
have been able to draw the minimal conclusions
it had in the absence of some useful data. When
firms have clear guidance, and adhere to it, the
data can actually be compared across companies
and across reporting years, allowing observers to
understand whether or not real emissions reduc-
tions are occurring.
However, the reporting system that the UNGC
has in place via the COPs does not lead to uniform
data that can be compared between companies.
COPs vary widely from company to company:
some have detailed reports on their numbers and
targets and progress toward goals, while others
are no more than public relations communications.
Currently companies do not receive guidelines on
exactly what to report, what units to use, how to
define their system boundaries, etc. Therefore,
companies report using a wide range of frame-
works. The results of this data are scattered and
disjointed.
Due to all of the irregularities in data reporting
in both the C4C and CDP, we are not at a point
where data from these reporting platforms can be
used to compare performance between companies.
In order to improve this situation, there is a need for
improved restrictions on exactly how companies
fill out the online emissions databases. Measures
must be taken to make these systems error-proof
and uniform if we want to be able to accurately
and less confusing if the standards were to merge
into one set of guidelines, similar to the Gener-
ally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) for
financial accounting. This would not restrict the
number of reporting and reduction programs, it
would just standardize the carbon accounting so
that there would be opportunity for fair comparison
between companies. In addition to this standard-
ized reporting structure, it would be ideal if there
were a licensing program such as the Certified
Public Accountant (CPA) title that accountants
obtain. This would create a network of qualified
and certified carbon professionals that all operate
the same way to measure emissions.
All of this shows us that the field of accounting
for and communicating GHG emissions remains
an immature field and much work is needed in
order to improve data quality and reliability.
Traditional business accounting took over 100
years to develop and people still make mistakes
on and cheat on their tax forms. However, carbon
accounting does not have the luxury of taking 100
years to develop. We need an improvement in this
system now. Over the past few years, programs
have started to converge and consolidate. For
example Wal-Mart has decided to use the CDP
to track emissions of their suppliers (Carbon
Disclosure Project, 2010). In addition, the World
Resources Institute and World Business Council
for Sustainable Development have partnered
together for 10 years to develop the Greenhouse
Gas Protocol (Pankaj & Ranganathan, 2004). In
order to improve carbon reporting quality there
is a need for this trend to continue.
In the absence of uniform rules for measuring
emissions and defining system boundaries, fair
evaluations of companies based on the numbers
they voluntarily report is not possible. Some
companies are very clear and explicit in their
measurements, but others have measured limited
portions of their operations and/or value chain and
still more have joined voluntary initiatives, but
failed to disclose any data at all. In the same way
