More than 60 global companies, including Apple, Amazon, BYD, Salesforce, Mars, and Schneider Electric, are pushing back against proposed changes to global emissions reporting rules. The group is calling for more flexibility under the Greenhouse Gas Protocol (GHG Protocol), the most widely used framework for measuring corporate carbon footprints.
The companies submitted a joint statement asking that new requirements, especially those affecting Scope 2 emissions, remain optional rather than mandatory. Their letter stated:
“To drive critical climate progress, it’s imperative that we get this revision right. We strongly urge the GHGP to improve upon the existing guidance, but not stymie critical electricity decarbonization investments by mandating a change that fundamentally threatens participation in this voluntary market, which acts as the linchpin in decarbonization across nearly all sectors of the economy. The revised guidance must encourage more clean energy procurement and enable more impactful corporate action, not unintentionally discourage it.”
The debate comes at a critical time. Corporate climate disclosures now influence trillions of dollars in capital flows, while stricter reporting rules are being introduced across major economies.
The Rulebook for Carbon: What the GHG Protocol Is and Why It’s Being Updated
The Greenhouse Gas Protocol is the world’s most widely used system for measuring corporate emissions. It is used by over 90% of companies that report greenhouse gas data globally, making it the foundation of most climate disclosures.
It divides emissions into three categories:
- Scope 1: Direct emissions from operations
- Scope 2: Emissions from purchased electricity
- Scope 3: Emissions across the value chain
The current Scope 2 rules were introduced in 2015, but energy markets have changed since then. Renewable energy has expanded, and companies now play a major role in funding clean power.
Corporate buyers have already supported more than 100 gigawatts (GW) of renewable energy capacity globally through voluntary purchases. This shows how influential the current system has been.
The GHG Protocol is now updating its rules to improve accuracy and transparency. The revision process includes input from more than 45 experts across industry, government, and academia, reflecting its global importance.
Scope 2 Shake-Up: The Battle Over Real-Time Carbon Tracking
The proposed update would shift how companies report electricity emissions. Instead of using flexible systems like renewable energy certificates (RECs), companies would need to match their electricity use with clean energy that is:
- Generated at the same time, and
- Located in the same grid region.
This is known as “24/7” or hourly or real-time matching. It aims to reflect the actual impact of electricity use on the grid. Companies, including Apple and Amazon, say this shift could create challenges.
According to industry feedback, stricter rules could raise energy costs and limit access to renewable energy in some regions. It can also slow corporate investment in new clean energy projects.
The concern is that many markets do not yet have enough renewable supply for real-time matching. Infrastructure for tracking hourly emissions is also still developing.
This creates a key tension. The new rules could improve accuracy and reduce greenwashing. But they may also make it harder for companies to scale clean energy quickly.
The outcome will shape how companies measure emissions, invest in renewables, and meet net-zero targets in the years ahead.
Why More Than 60 Companies Oppose the Changes
The companies argue that stricter rules could slow climate progress rather than accelerate it. Their main concern is cost and feasibility. Many regions still lack enough renewable energy to support real-time matching. For global companies, aligning energy use across different grids is complex.
In their joint statement, the group warned that mandatory changes could:
- Increase electricity prices,
- Reduce participation in voluntary clean energy markets, and
- Slow investment in renewable energy projects.
They argue that current market-based systems, such as RECs, have helped scale clean energy quickly over the past decade. Removing flexibility could weaken that momentum.
This reflects a broader tension between accuracy and scalability in climate reporting.
Big Tech Pushback: Apple and Amazon’s Climate Progress
Despite their push for flexibility, both companies have made measurable progress on emissions reduction.
Apple reports that it has reduced its total greenhouse gas emissions by more than 60% compared to 2015 levels, even as revenue grew significantly. The company is targeting carbon neutrality across its entire value chain by 2030. It also reported that supplier renewable energy use helped avoid over 26 million metric tons of CO₂ emissions in 2025 alone.
In addition, about 30% of materials used in Apple products in 2025 were recycled, showing a shift toward circular manufacturing.
Amazon has also set a net-zero target for 2040 under its Climate Pledge. The company is one of the world’s largest corporate buyers of renewable energy and continues to invest heavily in clean power, logistics electrification, and low-carbon infrastructure.
Both companies argue that flexible accounting frameworks have supported these investments at scale.
The Bigger Challenge: Scope 3 and Digital Emissions
The debate over Scope 2 reporting is only part of a larger issue. For most large companies, Scope 3 emissions account for more than 70% of total emissions. These include supply chains, product use, and outsourced services.
In the technology sector, emissions are rising due to:
- Data centers,
- Cloud computing, and
- Artificial intelligence workloads.
Global data centers already consume about 415–460 terawatt-hours (TWh) of electricity per year, equal to roughly 1.5%–2% of global power demand. This figure is expected to increase sharply. The International Energy Agency estimates that data center electricity demand could double by 2030, driven largely by AI.
This creates a major reporting challenge. Even with cleaner electricity, total emissions can rise as digital demand grows.
Climate Reporting Rules Are Tightening Globally
The pushback comes as climate disclosure requirements are expanding and becoming more standardized across major economies. What was once voluntary ESG reporting is steadily shifting toward mandatory, audit-ready climate transparency.
In the European Union, the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) is now active. It requires large companies and, later, listed SMEs, to share detailed sustainability data. This data must match the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS). This includes granular reporting on emissions across Scope 1, 2, and increasingly Scope 3 value chains.
In the United States, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) aims for mandatory climate-related disclosures for public companies. This includes governance, risk exposure, and emissions reporting. However, some parts of the rule face legal and political scrutiny.
The United Kingdom has included climate disclosure through TCFD requirements. Now, it is moving toward ISSB-based global standards to make comparisons easier. Similarly, Canada is progressing with ISSB-aligned mandatory reporting frameworks for large public issuers.
In Asia, momentum is also accelerating. Japan is introducing the Sustainability Standards Board of Japan (SSBJ) rules that match ISSB standards. Meanwhile, China is tightening ESG disclosure rules for listed companies through updates from its securities regulators. Singapore has also mandated climate reporting for listed companies, with phased Scope 3 expansion.
A clear trend is forming across jurisdictions: climate disclosure is aligning with ISSB global standards. There’s a growing focus on assurance, comparability, and transparency in value-chain emissions.
This regulatory tightening raises the bar significantly for corporations. The challenge is clear. Companies must:
- Align with multiple evolving disclosure regimes,
- Ensure emissions data is verifiable and auditable, and
- Expand reporting across complex global supply chains.
Balancing operational growth with compliance is becoming increasingly complex as climate regulation converges and intensifies worldwide.
A Turning Point for Global Carbon Accounting
The outcome of this debate could shape global carbon accounting standards for years.
If stricter rules are adopted, emissions reporting will become more precise. This could improve transparency and reduce greenwashing risks. However, it may also increase compliance costs and limit flexibility.
If the proposed changes remain optional, companies may continue using current accounting methods. This could support faster clean energy investment, but may leave gaps in reporting accuracy.
The new rules could take effect as early as next year, making this a near-term decision for global companies.
The push by Apple, Amazon, and other companies highlights a key tension in climate strategy. On one side is the need for accurate, real-time emissions reporting. On the other is the need for flexible systems that support large-scale clean energy investment.
As digital infrastructure expands and energy demand rises, how emissions are measured will matter as much as how they are reduced. The next phase of climate action will depend not just on targets—but on the systems used to track them.
The post Apple, Amazon Lead 60+ Firms to Ease Global Carbon Reporting Rules appeared first on Carbon Credits.
Nature-based carbon investments deserve consideration when they address a specific business dependency and produce outcomes you can measure. Imagine Moonbucks, a global coffee roaster planning next season’s espresso blend. It is considering natural Grade 4 coffee from Jimma, in southwestern Oromia, Ethiopia. Its sourcing decisions affect the roasting schedule and the cash tied up in coffee purchases. Moonbucks needs to understand which measures could protect that supply, what they would cost and how it would judge the results.
1. Define the sourcing problem before choosing a project
Moonbucks needs a dependable component for its espresso blend. Its procurement team wants continuity of volume and an agreed cup profile. Replacing a shipment at short notice could require new sample approval and changes to the blend, and given the schedules for cultivation, processing, and freight delivery, is practically impossible. Moonbucks needs to get this right, and its initial concern is inconsistent deliveries. It commissions an assessment of the supplying farms and post-harvest chain. The questions cover land condition, harvest availability and whether drying or storage problems are affecting saleable lots.
This distinction changes the investment brief. A tree-planting proposal cannot be assumed to fix drying problems. Better storage cannot restore eroded land. The team must establish which problem exists before selecting the response.
CCC’s guide to finding nature-based solutions in your supply chain explains where to look. Here, the next task is to turn a broad concern into a testable proposal.
2. Develop nature-based carbon investments around the actual supply chain
The assessment would trace Moonbucks’ purchases back through the exporter and supplying producer groups. Which farms supply the contracted lots? Who controls land-management decisions? How long does the buyer expect to maintain the purchasing relationship?
Furthermore, Jimma natural Grade 4 cannot be treated as interchangeable with every Ethiopian coffee. Moonbucks would need to test any substitute against its own blend and quality requirements.
Suppose Moonbucks’ assessment identifies an opportunity to maintain shade trees and restore vegetation along exposed streambanks. The IPCC describes agroforestry as a way to store carbon in vegetation and soil, with potential benefits for erosion control and water quality.1 Moonbucks would need local advice on species, growing conditions and maintenance before deciding how these measures fit its sourcing plan.
The proposal now has a defined sourcing connection and a candidate intervention. The next steps are to test its effect on production, assess carbon eligibility and build the financial case.
3. Compare the proposal with other ways to protect supply
WBCSD’s Nature-based Solutions Blueprint recommends comparing nature-based options with other responses across their benefits and costs.2 For Moonbucks, that means evaluating the landscape proposal alongside drying improvements, storage controls and alternative sourcing arrangements.
The product’s natural-process designation matters. Moonbucks should examine the drying and dry-milling chain alongside land conditions. Its team would check storage practices, contamination risks and incoming-lot quality to see whether problems arise before or after the coffee leaves the farms.
The revised proposal might combine land stewardship with separate post-harvest controls. Each component needs its own purpose and budget. A sustainability label should not obscure which activity is expected to solve which problem.
The project develops as the evidence improves. Its scope should follow the diagnosis rather than preserve the first idea unchanged.
4. Establish what the carbon outcome could count toward
Moonbucks’ sustainability team now tests the proposed carbon case separately from the sourcing case. Is the objective a measurable change in Moonbucks’ value-chain emissions, verified credits for separate voluntary use, or distinct outcomes under carefully defined arrangements?
Scope 3 covers value-chain emissions. A purchasing relationship alone does not prove that a farm intervention can be included in Moonbucks’ inventory. The team needs an applicable accounting method, defensible boundaries and evidence supporting attribution.
SBTi’s FLAG Guidance (forest, land and agriculture), version 1.2, says purchased credits used as offsets cannot meet near-term FLAG or energy and industry targets. Eligible land-based removals are subject to accounting requirements.3 Moonbucks needs to test its proposal against those rules before including an outcome in its targets.
For Moonbucks’ Jimma proposal, maintaining existing trees and establishing new vegetation could involve different carbon questions. Specialists must examine the baseline and additionality, meaning what changes because the project proceeds. They must also assess measurement and the risk that stored carbon is lost. CCC’s MRV and additionality article introduces those tests.
Until that work is complete, Moonbucks should not budget an assumed Scope 3 reduction or credit-sale receipt. Direct emissions reductions remain the priority.
5. Build a financial case that survives weaker assumptions
Moonbucks’ finance team would now build a multi-year budget. UNEP’s State of Finance for Nature 2023 compares current finance with the investment needed to meet climate, biodiversity and land-restoration goals.4 The company would cost its proposed activities, farmer participation and ongoing monitoring. Verification, where required, is a separate expense. Maintenance and responsibility for replacing failed plantings must remain visible after the initial establishment budget ends.
Operational benefits need equally careful treatment. If fewer rejected lots reduce emergency purchasing, count that saving once. Do not add “supply resilience” as another financial benefit when it represents the same avoided cost.
Moonbucks should compare a base case with slower benefits, higher implementation costs and no carbon revenue. It should also distinguish production outcomes from quality and shipment outcomes. A single good harvest would not prove that the landscape intervention caused better delivery performance.
A project can remain worth funding even when its carbon case needs more work. That decision must rest on the operational evidence and the company’s objectives, without unsupported environmental claims.
6. Fund a pilot with a clear expansion decision
Moonbucks’ first approval would fund a bounded pilot, rather than commit the entire sourcing program. Before spending, Moonbucks would agree on participating farms, responsibilities and the evidence needed at review.
Its scorecard could track farmer participation, implementation costs and plant survival, alongside accepted coffee volumes and lot-quality results. Carbon measurements would follow the selected method. Farm-level traceability must connect the intervention to the actual sourcing relationship.
Suppose Moonbucks’ review later finds that storage changes explain most quality improvements, while the land measures need longer observation. Those findings would shape the next decision: expand the proven component, adjust the landscape work or pause further spending. They would not justify crediting all improvements to tree planting.
This gives nature-based carbon investments a practical place in a multi-year strategy. Funding increases as the evidence supports it, and the project can change direction before a larger commitment.
Discuss a sourcing opportunity with CCC
Carbon Credit Capital’s nature-based supply-chain investment service uses its Dual-Value Model to examine supply-chain economics alongside potential sustainability outcomes.
Schedule a consultation to discuss your sourcing exposure and the questions to resolve before allocating capital.
Sources
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change, Chapter 7, Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Uses, section 7.4.3.3 (Agroforestry).
- World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), Nature-based Solutions Blueprint, 5 June 2024.
- Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi), Forest, Land and Agriculture Science-Based Target-Setting Guidance, version 1.2, March 2026, section 3.1.4, pp. 37–38.
- United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), State of Finance for Nature 2023, 2023.
A plastic credit funds the collection of plastic waste in places where no formal system exists to collect it. Each credit represents a measured, independently audited quantity of plastic taken out of the environment or returned to use, tracked on a public registry.
EU carbon credit claims changed on 27 September 2026, the day the Directive (EU) 2024/825 began to apply across the European Union. The change is narrow. It changes how a company can talk about the credits it buys. A product can no longer be called neutral on the strength of compensation alone; however, every specific, evidenced statement about what a company measured, reduced, and funded stays fully available.
