Keep avoided emissions separate from your carbon inventory

Report an avoided-emissions estimate as a comparison with a defined alternative, not as an automatic deduction from the organisation's carbon inventory. Explain the service being compared, the reference scenario, time period and assumptions. Without that context, a single savings number can suggest a certainty or boundary the analysis does not support.

This guide is for New Zealand product, sales and sustainability teams explaining potential climate benefits. GHG Protocol's comparative-emissions working paper discusses how to estimate and disclose positive and negative product impacts. It is a methodological resource, not a carbon-credit programme or a blanket approval of a marketing claim. GHG Protocol estimating and reporting avoided emissions

Start with an equivalent service and a credible comparison. Show assumptions and adverse effects as well as potential benefits. Keep corporate inventory totals separate. Review the proposed wording with appropriate technical and legal support before making consequential public claims.

State what the product or service does, for whom and over what period. Two alternatives should provide a sufficiently comparable function for the proposed analysis. A lower-emission option that delivers half the service is not automatically a like-for-like comparison.

Explain why the reference scenario is plausible. Consider whether the customer would otherwise use the stated alternative and whether the comparison changes across locations. A New Zealand electricity context may differ from that of an overseas customer. Do not apply one country assumption worldwide without a defensible basis.

Identify the relevant life-cycle stages, data sources and exclusions for the chosen method. Explain which results are measured and which depend on future use, customer behaviour or market assumptions. Keep the comparison period consistent and test assumptions that materially influence the result.

The GHG Protocol working paper recommends separate reporting of comparative impacts rather than using them to net down inventory emissions. Our implementation approach is to maintain a separate comparison file with its own version, reviewer and claim wording. Comparative emissions working paper

Assume an invented analysis estimates 100 tonnes of CO2 equivalent for a reference service and 70 tonnes for an alternative over the same defined period and functional output. Under those invented assumptions, the difference is 30 tonnes, or 30 percent of the reference estimate. These figures are not product measurements or a real client result.

Now assume the reporting company's own inventory is 500 tonnes for the year. The comparison does not automatically turn that inventory into 470 tonnes. The two figures answer different questions. The comparison file should also explain who uses the alternative, what adoption is assumed and whether other parties might describe the same estimated benefit.

If a different plausible reference produces 85 tonnes, the comparison difference becomes 15 tonnes. Showing that sensitivity helps readers understand how much the headline depends on the chosen alternative. It is more informative than presenting the original 30 tonnes without qualification.

Keep the reference, scope and period close to the headline result. Distinguish an estimated potential effect from an observed effect. Avoid implying that every purchaser will achieve the same outcome when usage and local conditions vary.

Have the reviewer check that the wording matches the calculation and evidence, including material limitations. The article on green claims and supplier evidence offers a complementary substantiation approach, but its UK legal context should not be transplanted into New Zealand law. Local advertising and reporting requirements need their own assessment.

Assign an owner to review changes in product design, use patterns, reference technology and source data. Record when a claim must be updated or withdrawn. Preserve earlier versions and explain material corrections to anyone relying on them.

Do not turn a comparison into an offset or tradable credit by changing its label. Claims about credits, neutrality or target progress require the specific applicable method and evidence. Where the comparison cannot support a clear, bounded statement, publish the underlying information or hold the quantified claim.

Not automatically. A change within a defined inventory and a comparison against a hypothetical alternative use different accounting questions and boundaries.

They may have different roles, but attribution and potential double counting must be explained. Do not imply exclusive ownership without evidence and an appropriate method.

No. The result depends on the reference, life-cycle boundary, performance and use assumptions. Evaluate adverse impacts and uncertainty as well as expected benefits.

GHG Protocol estimating and reporting avoided emissions — Working-paper framework for comparative product impacts, not a credit issuance rule or replacement corporate inventory standard.

Comparative emissions working paper — Working paper; separate comparative impacts from inventory totals and disclose comparison assumptions.

QSE Advisory is part of the QSE Advisory brand family. Preparation included AI-assisted research and drafting. Examples are hypothetical.

This article is general information. Verify current requirements and seek qualified advice for your specific circumstances.

Spotted an issue? Contact our editorial desk.