A commentary on E-liability: does it bring something new to GHG accounting?
E-liability is a proposed new approach for corporate-level greenhouse gas accounting, winning the 2022 Harvard Business Review-McKinsey Award for “groundbreaking management thinking”. It is actively promoted by the E-liability Institute and piloted by major international companies, such as Hitachi a...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Taylor & Francis Group
2024-12-01
|
| Series: | Carbon Management |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/10.1080/17583004.2024.2372331 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1850246559108694016 |
|---|---|
| author | Matthew Brander Marian Gatzweiler |
| author_facet | Matthew Brander Marian Gatzweiler |
| author_sort | Matthew Brander |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | E-liability is a proposed new approach for corporate-level greenhouse gas accounting, winning the 2022 Harvard Business Review-McKinsey Award for “groundbreaking management thinking”. It is actively promoted by the E-liability Institute and piloted by major international companies, such as Hitachi and Tata Steel. The intention is that E-liability should replace the widely adopted GHG Protocol Corporate Accounting & Reporting Standard, which underpins recent regulatory standards including the IFRS Climate-related Disclosures Standard, and the European Sustainability Reporting Standards. It is therefore important to ask what is new and what are the merits of E-liability? One positive feature of E-liability that could be adopted or enhanced in the established GHG Protocol approach is the direct requirement for suppliers to disclose cradle-to-gate data to downstream customers. However, one of the major limitations with E-liability is the limited provision of information on downstream emissions, which reduces the usefulness of disclosures for managing the abatement of these emissions, and for assessing company exposure to climate-related risk. Our analysis concludes that much of what is proposed in the E-liability method is not new, and that the key aspects that are new result in a detrimental loss of information. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-ec9befbcf33448ecb1f718fecadaa700 |
| institution | OA Journals |
| issn | 1758-3004 1758-3012 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2024-12-01 |
| publisher | Taylor & Francis Group |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Carbon Management |
| spelling | doaj-art-ec9befbcf33448ecb1f718fecadaa7002025-08-20T01:59:09ZengTaylor & Francis GroupCarbon Management1758-30041758-30122024-12-0115110.1080/17583004.2024.2372331A commentary on E-liability: does it bring something new to GHG accounting?Matthew Brander0Marian Gatzweiler1Centre for Business, Climate Change and Sustainability, University of Edinburgh Business School, Edinburgh, UKUniversity of Edinburgh Business School, Edinburgh, UKE-liability is a proposed new approach for corporate-level greenhouse gas accounting, winning the 2022 Harvard Business Review-McKinsey Award for “groundbreaking management thinking”. It is actively promoted by the E-liability Institute and piloted by major international companies, such as Hitachi and Tata Steel. The intention is that E-liability should replace the widely adopted GHG Protocol Corporate Accounting & Reporting Standard, which underpins recent regulatory standards including the IFRS Climate-related Disclosures Standard, and the European Sustainability Reporting Standards. It is therefore important to ask what is new and what are the merits of E-liability? One positive feature of E-liability that could be adopted or enhanced in the established GHG Protocol approach is the direct requirement for suppliers to disclose cradle-to-gate data to downstream customers. However, one of the major limitations with E-liability is the limited provision of information on downstream emissions, which reduces the usefulness of disclosures for managing the abatement of these emissions, and for assessing company exposure to climate-related risk. Our analysis concludes that much of what is proposed in the E-liability method is not new, and that the key aspects that are new result in a detrimental loss of information.https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/10.1080/17583004.2024.2372331E-liabilitycritiquecorporate GHG accountingGHG protocolscope 1, 2, and 3 |
| spellingShingle | Matthew Brander Marian Gatzweiler A commentary on E-liability: does it bring something new to GHG accounting? Carbon Management E-liability critique corporate GHG accounting GHG protocol scope 1, 2, and 3 |
| title | A commentary on E-liability: does it bring something new to GHG accounting? |
| title_full | A commentary on E-liability: does it bring something new to GHG accounting? |
| title_fullStr | A commentary on E-liability: does it bring something new to GHG accounting? |
| title_full_unstemmed | A commentary on E-liability: does it bring something new to GHG accounting? |
| title_short | A commentary on E-liability: does it bring something new to GHG accounting? |
| title_sort | commentary on e liability does it bring something new to ghg accounting |
| topic | E-liability critique corporate GHG accounting GHG protocol scope 1, 2, and 3 |
| url | https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/10.1080/17583004.2024.2372331 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT matthewbrander acommentaryoneliabilitydoesitbringsomethingnewtoghgaccounting AT mariangatzweiler acommentaryoneliabilitydoesitbringsomethingnewtoghgaccounting AT matthewbrander commentaryoneliabilitydoesitbringsomethingnewtoghgaccounting AT mariangatzweiler commentaryoneliabilitydoesitbringsomethingnewtoghgaccounting |