GHG accounting tool - The Sustainability Management Wiki

Authors: Fynn Ermen, Eric Keller, Jonas Strauch, Ole Sütering
Edited by:
Last updated: June 22, 2026

Executive summary

Greenhouse gas (GHG) accounting helps organizations understand, manage, and reduce the emissions for which they are directly or indirectly responsible. By documenting emissions systematically, organizations can create transparency, identify major emission sources, avoid merely symbolic climate action, support external reporting, and build credible reduction strategies aligned with climate goals.

The article explains the GHG Protocol as the central methodological basis for corporate emissions accounting. It distinguishes between Scope 1 direct emissions from owned or controlled sources, Scope 2 indirect emissions from purchased energy, and Scope 3 value chain emissions. Scope 3 is often the most difficult to measure because it requires data from suppliers, partners, customers, or downstream product use and disposal.

Several accounting methods are described. Spend-based methods provide a quick but relatively imprecise estimate based on financial data. Activity-based methods use operational data, such as fuel consumption or kilometers traveled, and are more accurate but require more data collection. Primary data methods are the most precise because they rely on direct company- or supplier-specific measurements, but they are also the most resource-intensive.

The article compares three existing tools. The EPA Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator is a free Excel-based entry-level tool that is useful for smaller organizations but limited for complex Scope 3 analysis. Persefoni offers a scalable cloud platform with reporting capabilities and regulatory alignment, but advanced functions and detailed analyses may require paid versions and substantial setup. CoZero provides a modular cloud-based platform for logging emissions, planning decarbonization actions, and sharing reports, but it depends on data maturity, onboarding, and potentially costly advanced modules.

The new Excel-based GHG accounting tool is designed around the three GHG Protocol scopes. It uses separate input sheets for Scopes 1, 2, and 3, a database sheet with emission factors, and a front-end reporting sheet. Drop-down menus, color-coded input fields, automatic unit display, and embedded calculations guide users through data entry and reduce errors. The front end aggregates emissions by scope and category, supports hotspot analysis, and can be exported as a concise PDF report for internal or external communication.

The tool’s main strengths are accessibility, transparency, structured reporting, and practical support for identifying emission hotspots. Its limitations include the lack of automatic updates for emission factors and company data, Excel performance constraints, limited scalability for very large data volumes, and uneven availability of emission factors across categories and countries. Future improvements could include integration with emission reduction planning tools, automated database links, API connections to company systems, and broader country- and unit-specific emission factor coverage.

1 Motivation and background

The discourse on climate change has undergone a transformation, shifting from a primarily scientific topic to a broader societal conversation. This text will provide a comprehensive overview of the latest scientific research on the role of actors, especially companies, in the ecological crisis, and will offer suggestions as to how they can respond accordingly. Companies are of particular interest in this regard, given that they are responsible not only for direct emissions resulting from their production processes, but also for a significant contribution to greenhouse gas emissions through their indirect supply chains and services. In order to achieve the objectives of the Paris Climate Agreement, namely, to limit global warming to below 2°C, it is essential to establish climate management for companies.¹

The foundation for effective climate management is the comprehensive documentation of all pertinent greenhouse gas emissions that a company produces or for which it is responsible. It is on this basis that a company can respond appropriately to reduce emissions. The establishment of emissions measurements is further motivated by the necessity to quantify climate protection, thereby averting the potential for companies to make merely symbolic gestures. A variety of instruments are available for measuring corporate emissions. Thematically, these are assigned to carbon or greenhouse gas accounting. Greenhouse gas (GHG) accounting is a pivotal element of a company’s sustainability management strategy. For a company, the tool, which systematically collects, structures and processes emissions data into a coherent inventory, fulfills a number of functions, but above all it is intended to engender transparency and provide a detailed overview of total emissions and their causes within the company.²

In the ensuing paper, following the classification of the GHG Accounting Tool in terms of content and the highlighting of its methodology, the focus will be directed towards the presentation of the accounting tool that has been developed. A comparison of competing tools with the tool under discussion will also be conducted.

1.2 GHG-Inventory

The method used to record greenhouse gas emissions within the GHG Accounting Tool is based on an internationally recognized standard. This standard is referred to as the Greenhouse Gas Protocol (GHG Protocol). The protocol incorporates a methodological approach for the identification, classification and quantification of emissions. The measurement of emissions is divided into three different scopes. The categorization of these scopes is predicated on geographical area and proximity to the company’s internal business.³

Figure 1: GHG categories, source: own illustration based on Carbon Chain⁴

Scope 1 encompasses all emissions that arise directly from the company’s activities. This encompasses emissions from industrial processes that result in the release of CO₂ or other greenhouse gases. It also includes emissions that arise from the operation of company-owned vehicles or from the combustion of fossil fuels in heating systems. The process of monitoring and recording these emissions is not overly onerous, primarily since the relevant data is usually available within companies, enabling direct monitoring by the company itself.⁵ As illustrated schematically in Figure 1, Scope 1 emissions are represented by a red circle in the center.

Scope 2, in turn, encompasses the company’s indirect emissions. These relate to emissions caused by the purchase of electricity, heat, or steam. Despite the fact that these emissions are not physically produced directly by the company, they are attributable to the company due to the purchase of electricity, for example. As Schaltegger and Csutora observe, a company’s energy consumption frequently constitutes a significant source of emissions.⁶

The third scope area encompasses all other emissions that arise along the value chain. These include, for example, upstream processes such as the production of purchased materials, transport, or business travel. These emissions are referred to as “upstream emissions” within Scope 3. However, it is important to note that downstream processes can also be attributed to the company as emissions, as these are generated when the products are used or disposed of by end customers. These emissions are referred to as “downstream emissions.” The most challenging aspect of this process is the recording of Scope 3 emissions, which frequently necessitates the procurement of data from external entities such as suppliers or partners in the supply chain.⁷ Scope 3 emissions are displayed in green in Figure 1 and are divided into downstream and upstream emissions.

The distinction between different scopes of emissions is both a methodological and strategic imperative. This enables the systematic recording of emission sources, facilitating a response by the company. The differentiation between scopes is also conducive to external reporting and the fulfilment of regulatory requirements.⁸ Furthermore, consistency in data collection is imperative. Only a uniform methodological approach over several years allows progress to be documented credibly and climate strategies to be evaluated.⁹ It is imperative to acknowledge the significance of transparency and comparability as fundamental requisites. The prevailing expectation among stakeholders is for the publication of emissions data in a standardized form, with the objective of facilitating meaningful comparisons between companies and mitigating the risk of accusations of greenwashing.⁸

1.3 Accounting method

The classification of corporate emissions into discrete groups (scopes) is a pivotal aspect of environmental management, facilitating the identification of specific emissions and the subsequent implementation of appropriate mitigation strategies. However, it is imperative to note that the process of classification can only be initiated after the preliminary processing of the data. There are a variety of methodologies for the quantification of emissions data.

A particularly well-established approach is the spend-based method. Emissions are estimated on the basis of specific financial values within the company. For instance, the estimated emissions are calculated based on the value of each euro transferred. This method is superficial and thus well suited to rapidly gaining an overview of total emissions without detailed information about specific activities. However, the accuracy of this method is limited by the failure to consider thematic factors in isolation, as financial considerations dominate the analysis.¹⁰

An alternative approach involves the calculation and estimation of emissions based on the activities of the company in question. This approach is also referred to as the activity-based method and utilizes more detailed data. For instance, the kilograms of carbon dioxide per transported goods unit or per kilowatt hour of electricity consumed are calculated. In this instance, the specific data from the activities are initially aggregated, for instance the liters of fuel consumed or the kilometers traveled by transport. The data is then multiplied by emission factors. These factors are provided by environmental authorities or correspond to international standards. This approach to emissions assessment has been shown to be significantly more accurate and to provide more precise results. Nevertheless, this approach is not without its drawbacks, primarily the increased effort demanded for data collection. For instance, numerous activities are not systematically documented and must first be summarized in a series of smaller steps.¹¹

The third method corresponds to the primary data method. Unlike the first two methods, this method uses primary data. Primary data is defined as data based on direct measurements of emissions or electricity consumption and is typically specific to a company or supplier. This method of data collection is precise and enables emissions to be clearly attributed to their sources. The primary disadvantage of this method is the considerable expense associated with data preparation. In particular, collaboration with suppliers with regard to the monitoring of their emissions has been shown to be a very time-consuming process.⁹

It is generally accepted that the activity-based method is significantly more accurate than the expenditure-based calculation. However, it is acknowledged that the former is considerably more complex. Primary data, which is considered to ensure the highest possible accuracy and thus optimal tracking, is regarded as “best practice” if available and is therefore most recommended.¹¹

2 Existing tools

To figure out where this tool fits in the current market, we need to compare it with what’s already out there. In this paper, we’ll look at three well-known competitors and check out how they work, along with their strengths and weaknesses.

2.1 EPA Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (SGEC)

The EPA Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (SGEC) is an Excel-based tool developed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This tool offers small organizations and companies in particular an easy way to calculate their own greenhouse gas emissions. Organizations with comparatively low emissions benefit most from this tool.¹² First and foremost, users who do not have extensive resources or in-depth expertise in carbon accounting will benefit from this tool. It therefore serves more as an introduction to the systematic recording and assessment of emissions. Available free of charge and easy to use, this tool is already widely used for calculating annual emissions and covering Scope 1, 2, and selected Scope 3 sources. The non-profit sector, small businesses, and municipal institutions in particular use this tool.

The tool is provided as an Excel workbook and contains several worksheets that are clearly divided into input, calculation, and result areas. Users begin by defining the organizational and operational boundaries to determine which sites, activities, and emission sources are included in the calculation.¹³ Next, the annual activity data is entered, such as energy consumption in kilowatt hours, the number of kilometers traveled by company vehicles, or the amount of fossil fuels consumed. The data fields are highlighted in color in the workbook to make it easier to use.

In the background, the tool accesses an extensive database of standardized emission factors that are regularly updated and provided by the EPA in the GHG Emission Factor Hub.¹⁴ The factors are based on scientific studies, industry-specific data, and government-validated sources. The aim of this project is therefore to create a consistent and robust calculation framework. The calculations are performed automatically. For each input, the corresponding emission factor is determined from the stored database, multiplied by the specified activity quantity, and converted into CO₂ equivalents (CO₂e).

Calculation and reporting are carried out in accordance with the internationally established three-part division into scopes. Scope 1 covers direct emissions from own or controlled sources, such as natural gas boilers or company-owned vehicle fleets.¹⁵ Scope 2 takes into account indirect emissions from purchased energy. The underlying electricity factors are derived from eGRID or are available via the GHG Emission Factors Hub.¹⁴ Scope 3 covers selected additional indirect sources, such as business travel, commuting, or transportation. The EPA refers to supplementary programs and tools outside the SGEC for complex, sector- or supply chain-specific processes.¹⁵

Within the scope of Scope 2, the EPA guideline is based on the Greenhouse Gas Protocol requirement to report both location-based and market-based emissions values (dual reporting). This approach is documented in the EPA Guidance 4 and complies with the GHG Protocol Scope Guidance.¹⁶

The results are presented as a total in metric tons of CO₂e and broken down by scope and source. The data from the summary sheet can be transferred directly to the EPA form for annual inventory and target tracking. It is possible to consistently compare both absolute emissions and intensity indicators (e.g., per employee or per square meter) over a longer period of time. The export, traceability, and customization functions of the Excel environment are generally straightforward.¹²

The practical application follows a clear sequence: (1) Download and open the Excel tool; (2) Define the organizational boundaries and select the sources and locations to be included; (3) Collect the activity data; (4) Enter the data in the designated, color-coded fields; (5) Automatic quantification in CO₂e based on EPA emission factors; (6) Evaluate the tabular and graphical summaries; (7) Export and transfer to reports, target systems, or action plans. These steps are described in detail in the official EPA quick guide and accompanying document.¹⁵

The SGEC covers the seven most significant greenhouse gases. Conversion to CO₂e is carried out in accordance with the underlying global warming potentials (GWP). The EPA explains this in its Guidance and in the Emission Factors Hub, where the factors used and methodological assumptions are documented transparently.¹⁵

From a user perspective, the SGEC offers a low-threshold entry point into emissions management: the tool is free of charge, methodologically aligned with the GHG Protocol, and backed by EPA factors. This enables even small organizations without extensive IT infrastructure or specialist knowledge to quickly produce a reliable emissions inventory. However, the EPA points out that supplementary, specialized approaches are required for very complex use cases (e.g., detailed Scope 3 supply chain analyses or industry-specific process emissions). In this respect, the SGEC is particularly suitable as an entry-level and basic inventory on which further strategies and reduction paths can be built.¹⁵

Although the advantages of the SGEC mentioned above are evident, there are also certain limitations associated with it. The Excel workbook is divided into numerous sheets separated by topic, which prolongs the input process and makes it difficult to use, especially for inexperienced users.¹⁵ Furthermore, only selected Scope 3 categories such as business travel, commuting, and waste are included, while key emission sources such as “purchased goods and services” are not represented. However, since this category accounts for a significant proportion of total emissions in many organizations, the tool quickly reaches its limits in such cases. It is essential that the analysis of the available data is carried out with the utmost care.¹⁵

The structure of the input masks is also somewhat complex and inconsistent in places, making the tool less beginner-friendly.¹³ Furthermore, emissions are not shown separately for each activity in all sheets, but are often only presented in summary tables. This makes it difficult to track individual results.¹⁵ Finally, the results are mainly presented in CO₂ equivalents, but in some areas individual values are also given, which potentially reduces comparability between categories.¹⁵ Overall, SGEC remains primarily an entry-level tool that is suitable for an initial emissions assessment, but should be supplemented by specialized software solutions for complex requirements.

2.2 Persefoni Climate Management and Accounting Platform (CMAP)

The Persefoni Climate Management & Accounting Platform (CMAP) is a cloud-based solution for carbon accounting and climate management developed by the US company Persefoni AI Inc. The platform offers organizations and financial institutions in particular a wide range of functionalities for recording and reporting their greenhouse gas emissions. Companies that are subject to regulatory requirements such as the EU CSRD, the ISSB standard, or disclosure requirements in California benefit most from this tool.¹⁷ The primary beneficiaries are users who need consistent and audit-proof emissions data without having to rely on their own databases or in-depth expertise in methodology. Persefoni therefore serves as both an entry point and a scalable solution for the systematic recording and evaluation of emissions. The basic version is available free of charge, while the enterprise version offers advanced functionality.

The tool is provided as a web-based SaaS (Software as a Service) platform, which contains various modules divided into input, calculation, and results areas. First, users define the organizational and operational boundaries to determine which sites, activities, and emission sources are included in the calculation.¹⁸ The annual activity data is then imported, for example, on energy consumption, business travel, supply chain information, or investment portfolios. The design of the platform’s data fields and workflows aims to simplify operation through guided entries and supporting functions such as the AI-powered co-pilot.

The platform draws on an extensive database of standardized emission factors in the background, which is regularly updated and linked to international frameworks such as the GHG Protocol and PCAF.¹⁷ The factors are based on scientific studies, industry-specific data, and recognized standards. The goal is to create a consistent and robust calculation framework. The necessary calculations are performed automatically. For each input, the corresponding emission factor is determined from the stored database, multiplied by the specified activity amount, and converted into CO₂ equivalents (CO₂e).

Calculation and reporting are carried out in accordance with the internationally established three-part division into scopes. Persefoni refers to supplementary modules and integrations outside the core system in order to map particularly complex, sector- or supply chain-specific processes.¹⁹

Within the scope of Scope 2, the platform follows the Greenhouse Gas Protocol’s requirement to report both location-based and market-based emissions values (dual reporting). The procedure described can be found in the Persefoni documentation and complies with the GHG Protocol Scope Guidance.¹⁶

The results are presented as a total in metric tons of CO₂ and broken down by scope and source. The data can be transferred directly to the relevant disclosure formats such as CSRD, CDP, or SEC-compliant reports. It is possible to consistently compare both absolute emissions and intensity indicators (e.g., per employee or per revenue) over a longer period of time. Export, traceability, and adjustment functions are generally easy to use.¹⁷

The practical application follows a clear sequence: (1) Setting up and opening a user account on the platform; (2) Defining the organizational boundaries and selecting the sources and locations to be included; (3) Collecting and importing activity data; (4) Entering data into the designated workflows and modules; (5) Automatic quantification in CO₂e based on emission factors; (6) Evaluation of tabular and graphical summaries; (7) Export and transfer to reports, target systems, and action plans. These steps are described in detail in the official Persefoni resources.¹⁸ Like other tools, Persefoni converts emissions to CO₂e based on the underlying global warming potentials (GWP)

From the user’s perspective, Persefoni offers a scalable entry point into emissions management: the platform is methodologically aligned with the GHG Protocol, backed by verified emission factors, and supplemented by AI functions. As a result, even organizations without extensive data infrastructure or specialist knowledge can create a reliable emissions inventory. However, Persefoni points out that for very complex use cases, such as detailed Scope 3 analyses or financial market-specific disclosures, supplementary, specialized modules are required. In this respect, CMAP is particularly suitable as a basic inventory and, at the same time, as a long-term infrastructure on which further strategies and decarbonization paths can be built.¹⁷

However, it should be noted that some advanced features are only available in the paid version. Detailed analyses, such as the breakdown of emissions by individual greenhouse gases or the creation of structured GHG metrics reports, can only be used in the Enterprise version. In the free version, emissions are recorded according to all three scopes and supported by a report builder, but the evaluation is limited to a general overview. Furthermore, different types of export formats incur costs, which limits the scope of use of the basic version.¹⁷

In addition, the platform requires comprehensive setup for initial use. Before automated calculation can begin, organizational parameters such as locations, vehicles, and technical equipment must be entered into the system manually. This step can be very time-consuming and represents a significant barrier to entry, especially for smaller organizations. Registration is required to use the platform. The free version provides an analysis of total emissions according to Scope 1, 2, and 3, with detailed evaluations and advanced reporting options only available in the paid version.¹⁸

2.3 CoZero Climate Action Platform (CAP)

The CoZero Climate Action Platform (CAP) is a cloud-based solution for carbon accounting and climate management developed by Berlin-based CoZero GmbH. The tool offers companies of all sizes, particularly those in the industrial, logistics, and complex value chain sectors, a comprehensive way to record, analyze, and report their greenhouse gas emissions. Organizations subject to regulatory requirements such as the EU CSRD, CBAM, or the GHG Protocol benefit particularly from this platform.²⁰ Users do not need to have their own emissions factor databases, nor do they need in-depth specialist knowledge, as CAP provides standardized methods. CoZero therefore acts as an entry-level solution and a scalable method for the systematic recording, evaluation, and reduction of emissions.

The tool is provided as a web-based SaaS platform and is divided into three central modules: The phases of the process include data collection and emissions calculation (Log), the planning and implementation of decarbonization measures (Act), and reporting and communication (Share). In the first step, users define the organizational and operational boundaries to determine which locations, activities, and emission sources are included in the calculation. You can then integrate activity data, such as energy consumption, transport, and supply chain information, via bulk upload, API, or Excel. The platform is designed to be easy to use and have a clear structure thanks to guided workflows and digital twins.

CAP uses an extensive database with over 40,000 standardized emission factors for this purpose. These factors are derived on the basis of scientific studies, industry-specific data, and recognized standards. The factors are also updated regularly. In addition, it is possible to add company-specific factors. For each entry, the system determines the corresponding emission factor, multiplies it by the activity quantity, and automatically converts the result into CO₂ equivalents (CO₂e).²⁰ The goal is to create a consistent and robust calculation framework.

The results are presented in metric tons of CO₂e, both as a total and broken down by scope and source. In addition, it is possible to calculate intensity indicators, for example per revenue or per employee, and compare them over several years. The platform enables the immediate transfer of results into regulatory reporting formats such as CSRD or CDP reports. Export, audit, and traceability functions are integrated in a user-friendly manner.²⁰

The practical application follows a clear sequence: (1) Setting up the user account and mapping the company structure using digital twins; (2) Defining the organizational boundaries and relevant emission sources; (3) Collecting and importing activity data; (4) Automatic quantification in CO₂e based on the stored emission factors; (5) Analysis and scenario planning for decarbonization; (6) Evaluation of tabular and graphical results; (7) Export of results to target systems, reports, and action plans. These steps are documented in the official CoZero resources.²¹ Like other tools, CoZero converts emissions to CO₂e based on GWP, with transparent documentation and the option to add company-specific factors.²²

From the user’s perspective, CAP offers a scalable and practical introduction to emissions management. The platform is methodologically aligned with the GHG Protocol, backed by verified emission factors, and supplemented by digital functions such as API integrations and digital twins. As a result, even organizations without extensive data infrastructure or specialized knowledge can create a reliable emissions inventory. However, CoZero emphasizes that supplementary modules are required for highly complex use cases, such as detailed supply chain analyses or industry-specific disclosures. Overall, the Climate Action Platform has proven itself both as a basic inventory for getting started and as a long-term infrastructure on which decarbonization strategies and climate targets can be systematically built.²⁰

Although the Climate Action Platform offers a wide range of functionalities, certain limitations are nevertheless apparent. As it is a cloud-based solution, companies are dependent on a stable data infrastructure and continuous maintenance and updating of the platform. In addition, the use of the enterprise version in particular incurs licensing costs, which can be a significant barrier for smaller organizations with limited resources. Although implementation is facilitated by workflows and digital twins, structured onboarding is required at the outset to integrate the platform into existing business processes.¹⁶ This requires staff resources and, if necessary, accompanying consulting services from CoZero or partner companies.²³

Another disadvantage is that highly complex Scope 3 analyses, such as in-depth supply chain assessments or industry-specific process emissions, cannot be fully automated despite the high level of coverage. Implementing this requires additional modules or external tools, which entails increased implementation costs.²⁴ CoZero explicitly points out that the accuracy of the calculations depends to a large extent on the quality of the activity data provided. If this information is missing or incomplete, the results can only be based on estimates.²⁴ The platform is therefore particularly suitable for companies with a certain level of data maturity, while organizations with highly fragmented or unavailable data sets may encounter limitations.²¹

3 New tool

3.1 Structure and design

The new carbon accounting tool is divided into the following Excel sheets: Introduction, Input Scope 1, Input Scope 2, Input Scope 3, the database, and the front end. The first sheet displayed to the user is “Introduction”. This sheet is shown first so that the user can understand the structure and functionality of the tool. It briefly explains the objectives of the tool and the individual data sheets. The tool’s workflow is then described so that users can quickly and easily understand it and start calculating.

The tool’s input files were created based on the three scopes of the GHG Protocol. This means that the tool allows data to be entered for each scope. On the one hand, this is because the GHG Protocol is the standard according to which companies calculate their emissions and is recognized as such.²⁵

On the other hand, this helps with the clarity and usability of the tool, as it is clearly specified which emissions can be calculated in which data sheet. For the same reasons, the input mask has been kept to a minimum, so that although all the necessary input fields are available, the mask has not been provided with additional options, enabling quick and simple input for the calculation. The fields that must be filled in are marked in green and also have a comment so that it is clear at a glance what needs to be filled in. The same applies in a gray color and a comment for the fields that are filled in automatically and therefore should not be edited.

The “category” and “subcategory” fields have been created to be interdependent, so that a selection in the ‘category’ field results in a more specific selection in “subcategory.” This process guides the user through the tool and allows them to find the desired emission factor more quickly than if all emission factors were simply listed in a drop-down menu. The categories were also created based on the GHG Protocol. After selecting the “subcategory”, the necessary unit is automatically displayed in which the user must enter their data for the emission calculation. The emission calculation is performed for each calculation in each scope in the input mask itself, so that the total emissions can be tracked afterwards.

At the same time, however, the emissions are also aggregated in the “Front End” data sheet. This data sheet has two functions. On the one hand, it is intended to serve as an emissions report so that it can be used for external communication, for example. The data sheet is structured in such a way that it can be exported as a PDF with just a few clicks. The result is a one-page document containing the most common information for carbon accounting in accordance with the GHG Protocol standard. On the other hand, the data sheet also serves for internal reporting and can function as a controlling instrument. The reporting of emissions per category of the respective scopes and, in particular, the hotspot analysis are suitable for this purpose. This allows companies to see how their emissions are distributed and where there are potential starting points for reducing emissions.

Furthermore, the data sheet displays other important information, such as the company name and the time period, both of which can be changed manually and are relevant for understanding in external and internal communication. This means that a single document makes it clear what the boundaries are in terms of business unit and reporting period. In addition, information about the individual scopes is provided so that stakeholders who are unfamiliar with the topic of emissions accounting have an idea of what lies behind the individual scopes. The entire process for using the tool can be simplified as follows:

Finally, there is the “Database” sheet. This was created separately for visual and practical reasons. This sheet should not be used by the user as far as possible, as this is where the formulas, emission factors, and calculations take place. However, the user can view the various emission factors in a table here. These are listed including category and source, which is advantageous in the case of an audit, for example, in order to enable traceability of the emissions calculation.²⁶

The rest of the data sheet is of no further relevance to the user and is only used to create the drop-down menus and to aggregate the individual scopes and subcategories that are displayed in the front end. For clarity, it should be noted that the assignment of emission factors to the individual categories and scopes is also based on the GHG Protocol. Emission factors can also belong to different categories and, in some cases, even different scopes, depending on the use of the respective good/service.²⁷ An example from the tool’s database would be the emission factor: “Food waste for treatment: biogasification and land application.” This can occur both in the “Stationary combustion” category in Scope 1 and in category 3.5: “Waste generated in operations,” depending on the organizational and operational boundaries of the company. That depends on whether the company itself operates a biogas plant, for example. If this is the case, the emissions must be reported in Scope 1. If the waste is disposed of outside the company’s own organization by a third-party provider, it falls under Scope 3.

3.2 How the tool works

The best way to explain how the tool works is to look at the input files. These are all structured in the same way, so the explanation applies equally to all of them. The user is first prompted to select the category. A drop-down menu has been created for this purpose, which is available for each scope in the “Database” sheet. Once the user has selected one of the categories here, they must then select a subcategory in the next step. Here, too, a drop-down menu appears, based on the selection in the category. The whole thing was created based on conditional formatting in Excel. Category and subcategory are therefore dependent on each other in this context. To do this, it was necessary to create a list for each scope with the respective categories. In the second step, a list of all emission factors had to be created for each category so that the assignments in the drop-down menu are clear. These lists were then named using the name manager in Excel. Subsequently, the selection in “category” was linked to a list with the categories for the respective scope. The selection in subcategory then outputs the respective emission factors that match the “category.” All data management for this takes place in the “Database” tab.

There are two main reasons for choosing a drop-down menu. Firstly, it provides the user with a good overview and an intuitive mechanism that helps them to select the appropriate emission factor quickly and easily. The division into three input sheets and the preselection of a category thus narrows down the selection and helps the user to search for a specific emission factor. Furthermore, the selection via a drop-down menu is a means of avoiding errors. The fact that only correctly named emission factors can be used ensures that emissions are actually calculated. If this option were not available, spelling mistakes, for example, could prevent the formulas from being applied and thus also prevent the emissions from being calculated.

Similarly, the formula for displaying the unit in which the data is specified is based on the “Database.” This is where all emission factors are managed. The formula for this compares the designation in ‘subcategory’ with column A in the “Database” and outputs the corresponding value from row D, in which the unit is specified. In addition, the column for the unit is formatted in such a way that if it encounters an error, usually because no data has been entered in the previous fields, it simply remains empty to avoid confusion for the user.

The calculation of emissions in column F works in a similar way. Here too, if there is an error, the formula is designed so that the cell remains empty. The same applies to the selection of the emission factor for calculating emissions. The formula searches the “Database” sheet for the emission factor that is also available in the “subcategory” column and outputs the corresponding emission factor from column B of the database for emission factors. The emissions are then divided by 1000 to show the emissions in tons, as this is the common unit for companies due to the usually high number of emissions caused. The whole principle works because all emission factors have been converted to kg CO₂e beforehand.

The third important part for understanding how the tool works is the “front end.” Here, the user or company is provided with a list of all the important details about their emissions. This begins with a basic overview of the total emissions and the emissions per scope. The calculation per scope is based on the sums of columns F in the respective input sheets. The totals of the three scopes are calculated for the total emissions.

For the pie charts in Scope 1 & 2, the emissions per subcategory were simply added up in the Database sheet. This allocation is also based on the input sheets and the subcategory entered and is aggregated in the “Database” sheet. This aggregation is more complex in Scope 3. Due to the large number of categories, only the 5 largest emission categories are displayed dynamically here. This is done using several formulas in the “Database” sheet, in which the emissions are first sorted by size. Only the 5 largest categories are then displayed. The pie chart refers to this list in column BA, as does the list of categories below it. Any changes are thus reflected in the list and chart.

The same structure applies to the hotspot analysis. Here, a list of all categories was first created. In the next step, this list was also sorted, and then a list was created that only shows the five largest emission drivers. The chart refers to this list, making it dynamic.

As already described, it should also be possible to send the front end as a PDF report to external parties. This can be done by clicking on “File” in the top left corner of Excel. Then click on ‘Export’ and select “Create PDF/XPS Document.” It may now be necessary to select “PDF” as the file type. In the final step, the PDF can then be saved by clicking on ‘Save’ or “Publish”.

3.3 Shortcomings of the tool and avenues for future work

When comparing this tool with those offered by competitors, it becomes apparent that the tool described here covers most of the features that other tools, some of which are paid, also offer (reporting, detailed emission processing into individual subcategories, hotspot analysis, etc.). Other tool providers link the existing carbon inventory with a target setting tool for the emissions balance, for example. In this respect, linking to the “Emission Reduction Tool” also created as part of the module would be a useful addition, as such a tool is usually based on a carbon inventory.

Linking these tools would enable scenario analyses to be used. This would allow companies to set emission reduction targets based on their emissions within the company with the help of the tool. In the third step, it would be possible to analyze various measures and their effect on total emissions and the individual scopes. An example of this would be the switch from fossil fuels to solar energy. The analysis would then show the emission reduction potential and the impact on the scope. This addition and link would give a company not only a tool for accounting, but also enable it to move directly into planning measures.

One aspect that is limited in this Excel tool is automatic updates. This applies both to emission factors and to a company’s input data. There is no API interface to the individual databases, which means that the emission factors are updated regularly (ideally annually). In addition, newly added emission factors are not automatically added. This can be done through a recurring manual process or by establishing a link to the database of, for example, Exiobase.

The same applies to the company data to be used in the tool. Other tool providers set up interfaces to enable regular and automated emissions reporting. This means that data only needs to be entered once, as in these cases it would be automatically transferred to GHG accounting. For this purpose, systems such as the warehouse management system are linked to an API in order to record changes directly in GHG accounting.²⁸

Furthermore, the fact that it is an Excel tool is also a limiting factor. In theory, it is possible for Excel to handle infinitely large amounts of data. In practice, however, performance drops can occur when data volumes are too large. This means delays in calculations, frozen tabs, and even Excel closing down.²⁹ For this reason, each input sheet is limited to 5000 calculations.

It should also be mentioned that although emission factors are available for each category, one disadvantage of the databases used is that they did not distribute their focus equally across all categories. This is because individual categories vary in terms of the complexity of their calculations.³⁰ Examples of this are the “Use of sold products” category. In practice, the life cycle assessments of companies are usually used here, which are complex, highly individual, and time-consuming. The situation is similar for cooling, leased assets, franchises, and investments.³¹ The emission factors also originate from three different countries. In the future, it would be helpful to have emission factors for several countries in order to enable the most accurate calculation possible. The same applies to the type of emission factors, as the majority of factors are based on euros. It would be helpful if these were also available in kilograms, for example. However, such complex databases are usually only available for a fee.

References

1
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Adoption of the Paris Agreement. FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/Rev.1. https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/l09r01.pdf (accessed 26 Aug 2025). ↩︎
2
Burritt, R. & Schaltegger, S. Sustainability accounting and reporting: fad or trend? *Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal* 23, 829–846 (2010). ↩︎
3
World Resources Institute & World Business Council for Sustainable Development. The Greenhouse Gas Protocol: A Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard. Revised Edition. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC (2004). ↩︎
4
Carbon Chain. What are Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions? https://www.carbonchain.com/carbon-accounting/scope-1-2-3-emissions (accessed 20 Aug 2025). ↩︎
5
Downie, J. & Stubbs, W. Evaluation of Australian companies’ scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions disclosures. *Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal* 25, 654–687 (2012). ↩︎
6
Schaltegger, S. & Csutora, M. Carbon accounting for sustainability and management. Status quo and challenges. *Journal of Cleaner Production* 36, 1–16 (2012). ↩︎
7
Matthews, H. S., Hendrickson, C. T. & Weber, C. L. The importance of carbon footprint estimation boundaries. *Environmental Science & Technology* 42, 5839–5842 (2008). ↩︎
8
Kolk, A. Trajectories of sustainability reporting by MNCs. *Journal of World Business* 45, 367–374 (2010). ↩︎
9
World Resources Institute. Technical Guidance for Calculating Scope 3 Emissions. GHG Protocol, Washington, DC (2013). ↩︎
8
Kolk, A. Trajectories of sustainability reporting by MNCs. *Journal of World Business* 45, 367–374 (2010). ↩︎
10
Hertwich, E. G. & Peters, G. P. Carbon Footprint of Nations: A Global, Trade-Linked Analysis. *Environmental Science & Technology* 43, 6414–6420 (2009). ↩︎
11
Pandey, D., Agrawal, M. & Pandey, J. S. Carbon footprint: current methods of estimation. *Environmental Monitoring and Assessment* 178, (2011). ↩︎
9
World Resources Institute. Technical Guidance for Calculating Scope 3 Emissions. GHG Protocol, Washington, DC (2013). ↩︎
11
Pandey, D., Agrawal, M. & Pandey, J. S. Carbon footprint: current methods of estimation. *Environmental Monitoring and Assessment* 178, (2011). ↩︎
12
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator. https://www.epa.gov/climateleadership/simplified-ghg-emissions-calculator (accessed 9 Sep 2025). ↩︎
13
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Calculator Resources for the Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator. https://www.epa.gov/climateleadership/calculator-resources (accessed 9 Sep 2025). ↩︎
14
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). GHG Emission Factors Hub. https://www.epa.gov/climateleadership/ghg-emission-factors-hub (accessed 9 Sep 2025). ↩︎
15
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Simplified Guide to Greenhouse Gas Management for Organizations. https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-09/Simplified_Guide_GHG_Management_Organizations.pdf (accessed 9 Sep 2025). ↩︎
14
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). GHG Emission Factors Hub. https://www.epa.gov/climateleadership/ghg-emission-factors-hub (accessed 9 Sep 2025). ↩︎
15
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Simplified Guide to Greenhouse Gas Management for Organizations. https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-09/Simplified_Guide_GHG_Management_Organizations.pdf (accessed 9 Sep 2025). ↩︎
16
GHG Protocol. Scope 2 Guidance. World Resources Institute. https://ghgprotocol.org/sites/default/files/2023-03/Scope%202%20Guidance.pdf (accessed 9 Sep 2025). ↩︎
12
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator. https://www.epa.gov/climateleadership/simplified-ghg-emissions-calculator (accessed 9 Sep 2025). ↩︎
15
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Simplified Guide to Greenhouse Gas Management for Organizations. https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-09/Simplified_Guide_GHG_Management_Organizations.pdf (accessed 9 Sep 2025). ↩︎
15
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Simplified Guide to Greenhouse Gas Management for Organizations. https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-09/Simplified_Guide_GHG_Management_Organizations.pdf (accessed 9 Sep 2025). ↩︎
15
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Simplified Guide to Greenhouse Gas Management for Organizations. https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-09/Simplified_Guide_GHG_Management_Organizations.pdf (accessed 9 Sep 2025). ↩︎
15
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Simplified Guide to Greenhouse Gas Management for Organizations. https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-09/Simplified_Guide_GHG_Management_Organizations.pdf (accessed 9 Sep 2025). ↩︎
15
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Simplified Guide to Greenhouse Gas Management for Organizations. https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-09/Simplified_Guide_GHG_Management_Organizations.pdf (accessed 9 Sep 2025). ↩︎
13
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Calculator Resources for the Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator. https://www.epa.gov/climateleadership/calculator-resources (accessed 9 Sep 2025). ↩︎
15
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Simplified Guide to Greenhouse Gas Management for Organizations. https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-09/Simplified_Guide_GHG_Management_Organizations.pdf (accessed 9 Sep 2025). ↩︎
15
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Simplified Guide to Greenhouse Gas Management for Organizations. https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-09/Simplified_Guide_GHG_Management_Organizations.pdf (accessed 9 Sep 2025). ↩︎
17
Persefoni. What are Climate Management & Accounting Platforms? https://www.persefoni.com/blog/what-are-climate-management-and-accounting-platforms (accessed 9 Sep 2025). ↩︎
18
Persefoni. Carbon Footprint Measurement & Analytics. https://www.persefoni.com/business/carbon-footprint-measurement-analytics (accessed 9 Sep 2025). ↩︎
17
Persefoni. What are Climate Management & Accounting Platforms? https://www.persefoni.com/blog/what-are-climate-management-and-accounting-platforms (accessed 9 Sep 2025). ↩︎
19
CDP. Partners – Persefoni. https://www.cdp.net/en/partners/persefoni (accessed 9 Sep 2025). ↩︎
16
GHG Protocol. Scope 2 Guidance. World Resources Institute. https://ghgprotocol.org/sites/default/files/2023-03/Scope%202%20Guidance.pdf (accessed 9 Sep 2025). ↩︎
17
Persefoni. What are Climate Management & Accounting Platforms? https://www.persefoni.com/blog/what-are-climate-management-and-accounting-platforms (accessed 9 Sep 2025). ↩︎
18
Persefoni. Carbon Footprint Measurement & Analytics. https://www.persefoni.com/business/carbon-footprint-measurement-analytics (accessed 9 Sep 2025). ↩︎
17
Persefoni. What are Climate Management & Accounting Platforms? https://www.persefoni.com/blog/what-are-climate-management-and-accounting-platforms (accessed 9 Sep 2025). ↩︎
17
Persefoni. What are Climate Management & Accounting Platforms? https://www.persefoni.com/blog/what-are-climate-management-and-accounting-platforms (accessed 9 Sep 2025). ↩︎
18
Persefoni. Carbon Footprint Measurement & Analytics. https://www.persefoni.com/business/carbon-footprint-measurement-analytics (accessed 9 Sep 2025). ↩︎
20
CoZero GmbH. Discover the Climate Action Platform. https://www.cozero.io (accessed 9 Sep 2025). ↩︎
20
CoZero GmbH. Discover the Climate Action Platform. https://www.cozero.io (accessed 9 Sep 2025). ↩︎
20
CoZero GmbH. Discover the Climate Action Platform. https://www.cozero.io (accessed 9 Sep 2025). ↩︎
21
CoZero GmbH. Platform Overview & Resources. https://www.cozero.io/platform (accessed 9 Sep 2025). ↩︎
22
CoZero GmbH. Carbon Accounting Guidance. https://www.cozero.io/blog (accessed 9 Sep 2025). ↩︎
20
CoZero GmbH. Discover the Climate Action Platform. https://www.cozero.io (accessed 9 Sep 2025). ↩︎
16
GHG Protocol. Scope 2 Guidance. World Resources Institute. https://ghgprotocol.org/sites/default/files/2023-03/Scope%202%20Guidance.pdf (accessed 9 Sep 2025). ↩︎
23
GetApp. CoZero Carbon Management Software Review. https://www.getapp.com/operations-management-software/a/cozero (accessed 9 Sep 2025). ↩︎
24
EcoTransIT World. The Climate Action Platform by CoZero. https://www.ecotransit.org (accessed 9 Sep 2025). ↩︎
24
EcoTransIT World. The Climate Action Platform by CoZero. https://www.ecotransit.org (accessed 9 Sep 2025). ↩︎
21
CoZero GmbH. Platform Overview & Resources. https://www.cozero.io/platform (accessed 9 Sep 2025). ↩︎
25
Kasperzak, R., Kureljusic, M., Reisch, L. & Thies, S. Accounting for Carbon Emissions—Current State of Sustainability Reporting Practice under the GHG Protocol. *Sustainability* 15, 994 (2023). ↩︎
26
Yang, B. The Carbon Emission Liability Mechanism. A New Solution for Global Carbon Neutrality. Springer, Singapore (2025). ↩︎
27
World Business Council for Sustainable Development & World Resources Institute. The Greenhouse Gas Protocol: A Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard. WBCSD & WRI, Geneva & Washington, DC (2004). ↩︎
28
Luers, A. et al. Make greenhouse-gas accounting reliable – build interoperable systems. Nature 607, 653–656 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-02033-y ↩︎
29
Rahman, S. et al. Benchmarking Spreadsheet Systems. Proc. Int. Conf. Software Engineering, 1589–1599 (2020). ↩︎
30
Agyei Boakye, A. A. et al. At the intersection of life cycle assessment and indirect greenhouse gas emissions accounting. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 28, 321–335 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-023-02137-1 ↩︎
31
Vieira, L. C., Longo, M. & Mura, M. Impact pathways: the hidden challenges of Scope 3 emissions measurement and management. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 44, 326–334 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-01-2024-0049 ↩︎

1
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Adoption of the Paris Agreement. FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/Rev.1. https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/l09r01.pdf (accessed 26 Aug 2025). ↩︎
2
Burritt, R. & Schaltegger, S. Sustainability accounting and reporting: fad or trend? *Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal* 23, 829–846 (2010). ↩︎
3
World Resources Institute & World Business Council for Sustainable Development. The Greenhouse Gas Protocol: A Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard. Revised Edition. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC (2004). ↩︎
4
Carbon Chain. What are Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions? https://www.carbonchain.com/carbon-accounting/scope-1-2-3-emissions (accessed 20 Aug 2025). ↩︎
5
Downie, J. & Stubbs, W. Evaluation of Australian companies’ scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions disclosures. *Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal* 25, 654–687 (2012). ↩︎
6
Schaltegger, S. & Csutora, M. Carbon accounting for sustainability and management. Status quo and challenges. *Journal of Cleaner Production* 36, 1–16 (2012). ↩︎
7
Matthews, H. S., Hendrickson, C. T. & Weber, C. L. The importance of carbon footprint estimation boundaries. *Environmental Science & Technology* 42, 5839–5842 (2008). ↩︎
8
Kolk, A. Trajectories of sustainability reporting by MNCs. *Journal of World Business* 45, 367–374 (2010). ↩︎
9
World Resources Institute. Technical Guidance for Calculating Scope 3 Emissions. GHG Protocol, Washington, DC (2013). ↩︎
8
Kolk, A. Trajectories of sustainability reporting by MNCs. *Journal of World Business* 45, 367–374 (2010). ↩︎
10
Hertwich, E. G. & Peters, G. P. Carbon Footprint of Nations: A Global, Trade-Linked Analysis. *Environmental Science & Technology* 43, 6414–6420 (2009). ↩︎
11
Pandey, D., Agrawal, M. & Pandey, J. S. Carbon footprint: current methods of estimation. *Environmental Monitoring and Assessment* 178, (2011). ↩︎
9
World Resources Institute. Technical Guidance for Calculating Scope 3 Emissions. GHG Protocol, Washington, DC (2013). ↩︎
11
Pandey, D., Agrawal, M. & Pandey, J. S. Carbon footprint: current methods of estimation. *Environmental Monitoring and Assessment* 178, (2011). ↩︎
12
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator. https://www.epa.gov/climateleadership/simplified-ghg-emissions-calculator (accessed 9 Sep 2025). ↩︎
13
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Calculator Resources for the Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator. https://www.epa.gov/climateleadership/calculator-resources (accessed 9 Sep 2025). ↩︎
14
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). GHG Emission Factors Hub. https://www.epa.gov/climateleadership/ghg-emission-factors-hub (accessed 9 Sep 2025). ↩︎
15
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Simplified Guide to Greenhouse Gas Management for Organizations. https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-09/Simplified_Guide_GHG_Management_Organizations.pdf (accessed 9 Sep 2025). ↩︎
14
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). GHG Emission Factors Hub. https://www.epa.gov/climateleadership/ghg-emission-factors-hub (accessed 9 Sep 2025). ↩︎
15
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Simplified Guide to Greenhouse Gas Management for Organizations. https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-09/Simplified_Guide_GHG_Management_Organizations.pdf (accessed 9 Sep 2025). ↩︎
16
GHG Protocol. Scope 2 Guidance. World Resources Institute. https://ghgprotocol.org/sites/default/files/2023-03/Scope%202%20Guidance.pdf (accessed 9 Sep 2025). ↩︎
12
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator. https://www.epa.gov/climateleadership/simplified-ghg-emissions-calculator (accessed 9 Sep 2025). ↩︎
15
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Simplified Guide to Greenhouse Gas Management for Organizations. https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-09/Simplified_Guide_GHG_Management_Organizations.pdf (accessed 9 Sep 2025). ↩︎
15
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Simplified Guide to Greenhouse Gas Management for Organizations. https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-09/Simplified_Guide_GHG_Management_Organizations.pdf (accessed 9 Sep 2025). ↩︎
15
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Simplified Guide to Greenhouse Gas Management for Organizations. https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-09/Simplified_Guide_GHG_Management_Organizations.pdf (accessed 9 Sep 2025). ↩︎
15
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Simplified Guide to Greenhouse Gas Management for Organizations. https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-09/Simplified_Guide_GHG_Management_Organizations.pdf (accessed 9 Sep 2025). ↩︎
15
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Simplified Guide to Greenhouse Gas Management for Organizations. https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-09/Simplified_Guide_GHG_Management_Organizations.pdf (accessed 9 Sep 2025). ↩︎
13
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Calculator Resources for the Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator. https://www.epa.gov/climateleadership/calculator-resources (accessed 9 Sep 2025). ↩︎
15
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Simplified Guide to Greenhouse Gas Management for Organizations. https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-09/Simplified_Guide_GHG_Management_Organizations.pdf (accessed 9 Sep 2025). ↩︎
15
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Simplified Guide to Greenhouse Gas Management for Organizations. https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-09/Simplified_Guide_GHG_Management_Organizations.pdf (accessed 9 Sep 2025). ↩︎
17
Persefoni. What are Climate Management & Accounting Platforms? https://www.persefoni.com/blog/what-are-climate-management-and-accounting-platforms (accessed 9 Sep 2025). ↩︎
18
Persefoni. Carbon Footprint Measurement & Analytics. https://www.persefoni.com/business/carbon-footprint-measurement-analytics (accessed 9 Sep 2025). ↩︎
17
Persefoni. What are Climate Management & Accounting Platforms? https://www.persefoni.com/blog/what-are-climate-management-and-accounting-platforms (accessed 9 Sep 2025). ↩︎
19
CDP. Partners – Persefoni. https://www.cdp.net/en/partners/persefoni (accessed 9 Sep 2025). ↩︎
16
GHG Protocol. Scope 2 Guidance. World Resources Institute. https://ghgprotocol.org/sites/default/files/2023-03/Scope%202%20Guidance.pdf (accessed 9 Sep 2025). ↩︎
17
Persefoni. What are Climate Management & Accounting Platforms? https://www.persefoni.com/blog/what-are-climate-management-and-accounting-platforms (accessed 9 Sep 2025). ↩︎
18
Persefoni. Carbon Footprint Measurement & Analytics. https://www.persefoni.com/business/carbon-footprint-measurement-analytics (accessed 9 Sep 2025). ↩︎
17
Persefoni. What are Climate Management & Accounting Platforms? https://www.persefoni.com/blog/what-are-climate-management-and-accounting-platforms (accessed 9 Sep 2025). ↩︎
17
Persefoni. What are Climate Management & Accounting Platforms? https://www.persefoni.com/blog/what-are-climate-management-and-accounting-platforms (accessed 9 Sep 2025). ↩︎
18
Persefoni. Carbon Footprint Measurement & Analytics. https://www.persefoni.com/business/carbon-footprint-measurement-analytics (accessed 9 Sep 2025). ↩︎
20
CoZero GmbH. Discover the Climate Action Platform. https://www.cozero.io (accessed 9 Sep 2025). ↩︎
20
CoZero GmbH. Discover the Climate Action Platform. https://www.cozero.io (accessed 9 Sep 2025). ↩︎
20
CoZero GmbH. Discover the Climate Action Platform. https://www.cozero.io (accessed 9 Sep 2025). ↩︎
21
CoZero GmbH. Platform Overview & Resources. https://www.cozero.io/platform (accessed 9 Sep 2025). ↩︎
22
CoZero GmbH. Carbon Accounting Guidance. https://www.cozero.io/blog (accessed 9 Sep 2025). ↩︎
20
CoZero GmbH. Discover the Climate Action Platform. https://www.cozero.io (accessed 9 Sep 2025). ↩︎
16
GHG Protocol. Scope 2 Guidance. World Resources Institute. https://ghgprotocol.org/sites/default/files/2023-03/Scope%202%20Guidance.pdf (accessed 9 Sep 2025). ↩︎
23
GetApp. CoZero Carbon Management Software Review. https://www.getapp.com/operations-management-software/a/cozero (accessed 9 Sep 2025). ↩︎
24
EcoTransIT World. The Climate Action Platform by CoZero. https://www.ecotransit.org (accessed 9 Sep 2025). ↩︎
24
EcoTransIT World. The Climate Action Platform by CoZero. https://www.ecotransit.org (accessed 9 Sep 2025). ↩︎
21
CoZero GmbH. Platform Overview & Resources. https://www.cozero.io/platform (accessed 9 Sep 2025). ↩︎
25
Kasperzak, R., Kureljusic, M., Reisch, L. & Thies, S. Accounting for Carbon Emissions—Current State of Sustainability Reporting Practice under the GHG Protocol. *Sustainability* 15, 994 (2023). ↩︎
26
Yang, B. The Carbon Emission Liability Mechanism. A New Solution for Global Carbon Neutrality. Springer, Singapore (2025). ↩︎
27
World Business Council for Sustainable Development & World Resources Institute. The Greenhouse Gas Protocol: A Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard. WBCSD & WRI, Geneva & Washington, DC (2004). ↩︎
28
Luers, A. et al. Make greenhouse-gas accounting reliable – build interoperable systems. Nature 607, 653–656 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-02033-y ↩︎
29
Rahman, S. et al. Benchmarking Spreadsheet Systems. Proc. Int. Conf. Software Engineering, 1589–1599 (2020). ↩︎
30
Agyei Boakye, A. A. et al. At the intersection of life cycle assessment and indirect greenhouse gas emissions accounting. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 28, 321–335 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-023-02137-1 ↩︎
31
Vieira, L. C., Longo, M. & Mura, M. Impact pathways: the hidden challenges of Scope 3 emissions measurement and management. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 44, 326–334 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-01-2024-0049 ↩︎