Sept. 20, 2022
Calculation and monitoring of carbon emissions are becoming increasingly widespread within companies. As investors, customers and institutions are attracted to environmental issues, companies seek more transparency and rigor in carrying out their carbon footprint.
There are several methods for realizing a rigorous carbon balance to standardize the calculation of carbon footprints. This present document will compare the GHG Protocol and the ADEME’s methodology referred to as The Bilan Carbone. Also, you will understand how Tapio’s methodology helps you to better understand your carbon emissions.
The Bilan Carbone® method was created in 2004 by ADEME (the French Environment and Energy Management Agency) to quantify organizations’ GHG emissions, based on the recommendations of the IPCC. It takes into account all the greenhouse gases mentioned in the IPCC reports and accounts for all the physical flows related to the activity of the company or organization.
The GHG protocol was drafted in 1998 in order to establish an international standard to conduct a carbon assessment on the value chain of activity. It aims to simplify and reduce the costs of carbon reporting. This is the most widely used method internationally and will enable a better comparison of the carbon footprint between national and international entities.
Both methods are also available to be used at the territory scale. We can notice that other accounting methods exist for carbon reports such as ISO 14064.
The main differences between the two methods rely on their approach and their accuracy in certain activities. Both methods take into account all emissions from direct and indirect sources (Scope 1,2 & 3) .
You can find some differences between them in the table below.
By emission categories
Period limits & organizational perimeter
Organization description, period limits, flow mapping, organizational perimeter
Energy indirect emissions accounting is mandatory, other indirect emissions accounting is optional
All indirect emissions have to be taken into account
Exclusion of sources, sites or activities allowed with justification
Accounts for every purchase of the year
Inventory of every asset & amortization over the time life of the product
Investments & Franchises
Taken into account in scope 3
Not taken into account
End of life
Distinction if the product is rented
No distinction for rented or bought products
Transition risks & opportunities identification
Here is an explanation of the differences between the methods:
At Tapio, all our carbon experts are trained in the GHG protocol. We have based our methodology on this protocol but have considered some points that need to be improved.
The two methods mentioned offer an overall view of a company's carbon emissions, organized by Scope. At Tapio, we wanted to simplify the understanding and visualization of a carbon report for all users; we thus created our “emissions drivers” that regroup emissions sources by “sections”. Sections are made by common attributes and the same levers of reduction for the related emissions sources, which are themselves customizable by the client.
In our platform, you can visualize your results by scopes or by drivers. Scopes are useful to compare your results with other organizations and to understand if you have direct control on your emissions or not. When visualized by drivers, emissions are easier to understand and therefore, implement a reduction plan of action.