01/06/2025
ISO 14064-1 vs GHG Protocol: What’s Common, What’s Not, and Why It Matters for Net Zero:
Both share several common features. They classify emissions into Scope 1 (direct), Scope 2 (indirect from energy), and Scope 3 (other indirect emissions); offer guidance on setting organizational and operational boundaries; and emphasize core accounting principles such as relevance, completeness, consistency, transparency, and accuracy.
However, the key differences lie in purpose and usability. ISO 14064-1 is a prescriptive, auditable standard designed for compliance and verification, with a strong emphasis on emissions and removals. It is often adopted by organizations preparing for third-party validation. In contrast, the GHG Protocol is a flexible, guidance-based framework widely used for voluntary disclosures, such as CDP and Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) reporting. It provides detailed tools and sector-specific guidance, making it more accessible and user-friendly for companies across sectors.
When it comes to net-zero standards, ISO 14064-1 faces some limitations. It does not provide sector-specific decarbonization pathways or mitigation targets aligned with climate science. Its focus on removals may lead to premature reliance on offsets rather than actual emissions reductions. Additionally, it lacks built-in guidance for tracking science-based progress or aligning with 1.5°C trajectories.
This is why CDP and SBTi do not accept ISO 14064-1 as a standalone reporting framework. They require disclosures aligned with the GHG Protocol, which supports transparency, comparability, and progress-tracking across global value chains.
In conclusion, while ISO 14064-1 offers rigor for emissions accounting and verification, the GHG Protocol remains the preferred tool for climate action and net-zero commitments due to its flexibility, sectoral depth, and global alignment.