Choosing the right organisational and operational boundary.
As part of calculating your carbon footprint, you must set an organisation and operational boundary which effectively defines what emissions you include and exclude in your calculation.
All organisations when measuring emissions under the GHGP have a choice of whether to set their organisational boundary from an equity-share or control perspective.
For the vast majority of SMEs, the measurement will be the same regardless of the choice.
For larger organisations with complex group structures across subsidiaries, joint ventures and minority interests - what you should include and exclude in your calculations is more complex and your choice has implications.
Here, an organisation takes proportional responsibility for anything they own.
This is done by calculating every relevant entity's emissions, and then accounting for this by multiplying it by the % ownership that you have in that entity.
For example, any 100% subsidiaries would have 100% of their emissions included. 50/50 Joint Ventures would measure the Joint Venture’s emissions, and account for 50%. A 5% minority interest holding, would account for just 5% of that entity’s emissions.
Here, an organisation will measure and include the emissions of any entity that it has control over. It will not include any emissions from an entity in which it owns a part but does not control.
The guidance has a subtle additional choice - you may choose to draw the line where you have financial control or operational control, but this is normally only applicable in shipping and oil & gas sectors, with complex asset leasing structures.
For most organisations, it is simple. In the 5% minority interest example we mentioned above, with the equity-share approach they include 5% of the emissions in their accounts, under the control approach, as they do not control the entity, they include 0%.
Once an organisation has set their organisation boundary, it must choose what to measure, often referred to as the ‘operational’ boundary.
One of the core principles of the GHGP is completeness, and they expect you to measure everything. They also do not agree with using a materiality threshold; to know whether something is material or not you must measure it, and if you have measured it, by completeness, the GHGP states it should be included in your carbon accounts.
In this regard, the GHGP requires all organisations to measure the entirety of their scope 1 and 2 emissions and to make their best effort at scope 3. The GHGP understands the task of collecting the data for measurement for scope 3 is extremely difficult and is therefore lenient, allowing organisations to set an ‘operational boundary’ of their choosing, and to report and disclose emissions they measure.
However, this is fast-changing, and Consequence does not expect organisations to have a choice of their operational boundary within years. For example, any Science-Based Target with SBTi requires full measurement of scope 3, and this is fast becoming the de facto target setting standard across the world.
The GHGP cares far more about you applying your choice consistently across your entire organisation than it does about the particular choice. Consistency is a core principle of the GHGP.
How Consequence helps
For most small and medium-sized organisations, boundaries are largely irrelevant. For larger groups, Consequence allows you to choose the boundary approach you wish - and can help you choose which is most appropriate.