Limit corporate influence, nonprofits tell GHG Protocol and other standard-setters 

Do sustainability’s key standard-setters need to raise their own standards?

More than 40 nonprofits, including the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Union of Concerned Scientists, have called on the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Protocol and others to do more to manage conflicts of interest and related integrity issues. The move follows controversies around corporate influence over ongoing GHG Protocol efforts to create new rules for emissions from forests and electricity.

The nonprofits named the protocol, together with the Science Based Targets initiative and the International Organization for Standardization, in last month’s unveiling of the Principles for Good Governance in Corporate Standards, a list of 10 statements covering transparency, representation of different interests and related topics.

“The rules that decide whether corporate climate claims can be trusted are being rewritten right now and the companies those rules are meant to hold to account are seeking a hand in writing them,” said Brice Böhmer, climate and environment lead at Transparency International, one of the signatories to the call. “No credible system lets the regulated pick the referee.”

A spokesperson for the GHG Protocol told Trellis that the organization already has procedures in place that address many of the principles. “We are reviewing the principles and look forward to engaging with the coordinators of them in due course,” the spokesperson added.

Degrees of influence 

The call illustrates differences in opinion over how the standard-setters should operate. Sustainability professionals often call for greater corporate involvement, arguing that the organizations behind the standards would otherwise create rules that many businesses would find impossible to follow.

The rift was apparent in recent disputes over an update to how companies account for the emissions associated with electricity use. A GHG Protocol proposal that companies match their electricity consumption with renewables on an hourly basis in order to claim emissions reductions has garnered support from some academics and nonprofits, who say it would accelerate decarbonization of the power sector. Many companies disagree, arguing that the overly complex rules would have the opposite effect.

That dispute has taken place largely within sustainability circles, but a parallel fight over forest accounting reached a wider audience this summer after integrity concerns prompted two academics to sever ties with the GHG Protocol. Experts working on the rules have characterized the disagreement as also pitting researchers against industry representatives.

Operating system

The governance principles advocated for by the nonprofits include multiple mechanisms designed to manage such conflicts, including a commitment to prevent any single interest group from exerting disproportionate influence; being clear about “who is at the table” and why they are there; and transparency about how outcomes are reached. “Stakeholders should not have to guess at the rationale behind significant decisions,” the principles state. 

The proposed commitments stem from a review of the GHG Protocol and other key standard setters by University of Oxford researchers. The study, published last month, concluded that the organizations ran “robust, evidence led and inclusive” processes, but also noted gaps in traceability of decision-making and shortcomings in ensuring stakeholder balance.