New InfluenceMap analysis finds a rift in advocacy by the Technology Sector on the issue of Scope 2 emissions accounting. Advocacy on these issues comes at a time of rapidly increasing energy demand linked to the proliferation of data centers. As energy consumption grows to meet this demand, the integrity of the Greenhouse Gas Protocol – the primary methodology for companies to report their operational emissions – becomes even more critical as a trusted source for corporate emissions data.
Meta and Amazon are advocating in support of emissions matching, an accounting framework that focuses on the “avoided emissions” resulting from corporate clean energy procurement. Peer companies Google and Microsoft are advocating in favor of granular accounting, with the goal of driving 24/7 carbon-free energy procurement. Apple, Oracle, and Nvidia have notably not taken public positions on the issue. Several of these companies are directly involved in the GHG Protocol. Representatives from Microsoft and Google serve on the Scope 2 Technical Working Group. Apple, Google, Meta and Microsoft are each listed as current funders of the GHG Protocol, while Amazon and Salesforce are listed as recent funders.
Emissions Accounting Positions and Engagement Intensity
A high portion of evidence used in this analysis reflects indirect influence through industry associations and coalitions. The Emissions First Partnership – whose members include Amazon, Meta, Salesforce, and Intel—is actively engaged on the Scope 2 revision process in support of emissions matching. The Clean Energy Buyers Association (CEBA)—whose members include Amazon, Apple, Google, Intel, Meta, Microsoft, Oracle, and Salesforce—also exhibits active engagement. A representative from CEBA serves on the Scope 2 Technical Working Group. Other examples of relevant industry groups and initiatives include the Granular Certificate Trading Alliance, the 24/7 Carbon-Free Energy Compact, ZEROgrid, and the Clean Energy Accounting Project.
Sponsored research appears to be a primary avenue by which companies are attempting to advance their positions on emissions accounting. InfluenceMap has independently assessed over 25 studies and white papers on this topic, including 16 corporate-funded studies. Most of the corporate-funded research has been published since the GHG Protocol began its Scope 2 revision process in November 2022.
Several corporate sponsored studies argue that emissions matching maximizes emissions reductions. However, other research has raised concerns about the methodologies used to reach these conclusions, and instead suggests that emissions matching may allow companies to report net-zero emissions while continuing to directly power their operations with fossil fuels.
Numerous studies have suggested that granular accounting more accurately represents companies’ Scope 2 emissions, and drives investment in carbon-free energy development that more closely aligns with IPCC recommendations for transitioning the energy mix and meeting global temperature targets. However, other studies have suggested that granular accounting carries a significant cost premium relative to other matching strategies, which may hinder corporate participation in voluntary clean energy procurement.
*Funded by entity whose own funding is not clear.
**Funded by government, multilateral body, or academic institution.
InfluenceMap is a non-profit think tank providing objective and evidence-based analysis of how companies and financial institutions are impacting the climate and biodiversity crises. Our company profiles and other content are used extensively by a range of actors including investors, the media, NGOs, policymakers, and the corporate sector. InfluenceMap does not advocate or take positions on government policy. All our assessments are made against accepted benchmarks, such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Our content is open source and free to view and use (https://influencemap.org/terms).
*Funded by entity whose own funding is not clear.