While Scope 1 (direct emissions from the combustion of natural gas/fuel oil, refrigerant leaks, and vehicle fleets) and Scope 2 (indirect emissions from purchased energy—such as electricity for industrial refrigeration and steam) are often well identified, the real “giant” of their carbon footprint lies in Scope 3. For these food and beverage companies, the majority of emissions come from Category 1: “Purchases of goods and services,” i.e., the agricultural upstream sector. This category frequently accounts for more than 80% of their total carbon footprint, representing both their greatest risk and their most powerful lever for transformation.
But how can we measure this impact in a reliable, comparable, and, above all, verifiable way? How can we ensure that the regenerative agriculture efforts carried out with our partner farmers are properly accounted for?
The answer lies in two acronyms: the GHG Protocol the ISO 14067 standard. Far from being technical constraints, they form the foundation of a credible decarbonization strategy and serve as your ticket to showcasing your efforts.
Table of Contents
1️⃣ The GHG Protocol The Reference Accounting Framework (“The What”)
2️⃣ ISO 14067: The Technical Methodology (“The How”)
3️⃣ The Need for Synergy: Why You Need Both
4️⃣ The strategic challenge: Moving from “aggregate data” to “real-time management”
5️⃣ MyEasyCarbon: The MRV tool that digitizes ISO and GHG compliance
6️⃣ Conclusion
1. The GHG Protocol The Reference Accounting Framework ("The What")
The Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Protocol, or GHG-P, is the most widely used global initiative. Born out of a partnership between the World Resources Institute (WRI) and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), it is not a “standard” in the formal sense like ISO, but rather an accounting and reporting framework.
Its Main Role: Corporate Reporting
The best-known GHG-P standard is the “Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard.” It established the globally recognized classification into Scopes 1, 2, and 3, enabling companies to structure their overall emissions inventory.
Its "Children" Standards: Scope 3 the Product
To help companies calculate their Scope 3 emissions, the GHG-P has published two major additional guides:
- The "Corporate Value Chain (Scope 3) Standard": It outlines the 15 Scope 3 categories Scope 3 purchasing, transportation, product use, etc.) and the accepted calculation methods.
- The "Product Life Cycle Standard": It establishes the principles for calculating the carbon footprint of an individual product over its life cycle.
Why is it a must-have for you?
The GHG Protocol the backbone of the entire decarbonization ecosystem. Initiatives such as the SBTi (Science Based Targets initiative) and the CDP (Carbon Disclosure Project) require companies submitting targets or reports to them to do so in accordance with the GHG Protocol framework. It is the “language” spoken by investors, regulators, and major clients.
A Major Development: The “Land Sector and Removals Initiative”
This is the most important issue for our sector. The GHG Protocol currently finalizing a guide specifically for agriculture and forestry. This guide will finally clarify the complex rules for accounting for emissions related to land use (LUC) and, above all, carbon removals. This will make it possible to formally account for the positive impact of carbon storage in soils, which is central to regenerative agriculture practices.
In summary, the GHG Protocol what you need to measure within your company (Scopes 1, 2, and 3) and why (for your global reporting and SBTi targets). It provides the key principles, but for the detailed technical calculation of a product, it relies on more specific methodologies, including ISO 14067.
The GHG protocol strongly GHG protocol the use of primary data for material categories, particularly in the context of initiatives such as the SBTi FLAG.
2. ISO 14067: The Technical Methodology ("The How")
The standard ISO 14067:2018 ("Greenhouse gases — Carbon footprint of products") is radically different. It is a formal technical standard published by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) following a global consensus among experts.
Its Main Function: Calculating the Product Footprint.
While the GHG Protocol the framework, ISO 14067 provides the technical “instructions” (the “how”) for quantifying and reporting a Product Carbon Footprint (PCF). It is specifically designed to ensure robustness, transparency, and comparability of the results.
What it specifies (and why it’s vital for the agricultural sector): ISO 14067 is the “recipe book” that sets how :
- Defining the Functional Unit: This is the foundation. What are we talking about? “1 ton of wheat,” “1 liter of milk,” “1 hectare of crops”? The standard requires defining this unit so that calculations are comparable.
- Defining the System Boundaries: This requires defining a clear scope. For the agricultural upstream sector, the term “Cradle-to-Gate” is often used. This includes emissions upstream (fertilizer and energy production) and on-farm (fuel, direct soil emissions, enteric fermentation).
- Managing Data Quality: This is a key point. The standard establishes a clear hierarchy, requiring that prioritizing primary data (specific to the farmer and their plot) over secondary data (generic averages from databases). This is the only way to demonstrate the value of a change in practice.
- Apply the Allocation Rules: Agriculture produces “byproducts” (e.g., rapeseed yields oil and oilcake). The standard provides strict rules (physical and economic allocation) for distributing emissions among these co-products, preventing “omissions” or double counting.
- Ensuring Verifiability: Above all, the standard is designed to be audited.
Although both standards cover both corporate and product reporting, in industrial practice, the GHG Protocol comprehensive reporting (e.g., SBTi), while ISO 14067 is frequently used as a methodological reference for calculating verifiable product carbon footprints.
In short, ISO 14067 does not address corporate reporting as a whole, but it provides the most robust and widely recognized methodology in the world for calculating the “carbon footprint” of a ton of wheat purchased.
3. The Need for Synergy: Why You Need Both
The most common mistake is to try to pit them against each other. In reality, they are perfectly aligned and complement each other.
The simplest analogy:
If the GHG Protocol is the “tax code” (the law that requires you to report your total revenue—your Scope 3), thenISO 14067 is the “accounting code” (the technical manual that explains how to calculate the value of each invoice so that the total is accurate and auditable).
How they fit together (The Formula):
Your Scope 3 Category 1), as required by the GHG Protocol, is the sum of the carbon footprints of all the products you purchase. TheISO 14067 is the method you use to calculate the footprint of each of these products. The Scope 3 Cat. 1) formula must avoid any risk of double counting.
Your Scope 3 Cat. 1) = [ISO 14067 footprint of 1 ton of wheat] x [Tons of wheat purchased] + [ISO 14067 footprint of 1 ton of corn] x [Tons of corn purchased] + …
This formula is, of course, a compliance model : it demonstrates how the aggregation required by the GHG Protocol on the methodological precision of ISO 14067 to ensure that the final result is auditable and robust.
So you don't have to choose. You use the GHG Protocol framework for your corporate reporting (the SBTi target) and use the ISO 14067 methodology to ensure the robustness and verifiability of the “product” data that feeds into this reporting.
4. The Strategic Challenge: Moving from "Aggregate Data" to "Real-Time Management"
This is where the difference lies between passive carbon accounting and a proactive decarbonization strategy.
The Glass Ceiling: The Dead End of "Average Data" (Secondary Data)
Until recently, most companies calculated their Scope 3 emissions using secondary emission factors (e.g., “the average carbon footprint of wheat in France is 350 kg CO2e/ton,” taken from a public database). While this approach has its merits, it has now become a strategic dead end.
It poses three major risks to businesses:
- A Risk of Non-Compliance and "Greenwashing": Regulators (CSRD) and initiatives (SBTi) are demanding greater transparency and accuracy. Using “average data” is a “black box”: it does not reflect the reality of companies’ supply chains and is becoming increasingly difficult to justify to auditors and stakeholders, who view it as an approximation that may mask inaction.
- The Inability to Measure Progress (The “Investment Waste”): This is the most critical point. If a company invests 1 million euros to help 100 farmers adopt no-till farming and cover crops, its Scope 3 carbon footprint, calculated using average data, will remain completely unchanged. This is an investment in a transition for which the company is structurally unable to measure the carbon return on investment (ROI).
- Disengagement from the Supply Chain: By applying a single rate to all its suppliers, the company treats farmers practicing regenerative agriculture in the same way as those using intensive conventional methods. This sends a demotivating message that provides no incentive for transition and undermines the relationship within the supply chain.
The Strategic Leap: Management Based on "Primary Data" (Specific)
The adoption of an approach aligned with ISO 14067 and GHG Protocol—based on the collection of primary data (actual data on the farming practices of partner farmers)—is a game-changer.
This is the only way to transform Scope 3 cost center (reporting) into a value center (management).
- The Key to “Insetting”: This is the only way to measure, verify, and claim emission reductions resulting from insetting programs (reductions within one’s own value chain). The company will finally be able to prove that its “Low-Carbon Wheat” program has reduced emissions from 350 kg CO2e/ton to 280 kg CO2e/ton.
- Creating an Economic Incentive: By relying on real, verifiable results, companies can develop value-sharing programs. It will be possible to justify paying a bonus to farmers not based on mere intent, but on measured performance (whether based on practices or carbon outcomes).
- Building Credible Claims: This is the foundation of marketing communication. It’s no longer enough to say, “We support agriculture,” but rather, “Our final product contains wheat with a carbon footprint of 280 kg CO2e/ton, which is 20% lower than the national average, and here is the audited proof.”
- Risk and Resilience Management: Analysis of primary data provides companies with a detailed understanding of the key drivers. This reveals that “nitrogen fertilization” is the primary challenge. It will therefore be possible to target investments and support measures to mitigate this risk, which is both a carbon risk and a risk of economic volatility.
5. MyEasyCarbon: The MRV tool that digitizes ISO and GHG compliance
Calculating a field-level carbon footprint in accordance with ISO 14067 and the GHG Protocol thousands of hectares is a massive human and technical challenge. MyEasyCarbon is the MRV (Monitoring, Reporting, Verification) solution designed to automate this rigorous process:
- Seamless data collection: By connecting directly to field management tools, machine consoles, and satellite data, we capture raw data at the source, eliminating the need for farmers to enter data manually.
- A proven calculation engine: Our engine natively incorporates the emission factors and methodologies recommended by both standards.
Mastering the GHG Protocol ISO 14067 is not merely a reporting requirement. It is a strategic opportunity to transform Scope 3 static figure into a lever for sustainable performance.
This is what enables us to demonstrate the credibility of our approach, actively steer the transition, provide economic value for the efforts of our partner farmers, and communicate with confidence to customers, investors, and regulators.
At MyEasyFarm, we are proud to provide the agri-food industry with an MRV tool capable of translating the complexity of these standards into verifiable impact and shared value.
Are you looking to organize your Scope 3 reporting project, ensure the accuracy of your raw material carbon footprint calculations, or prepare for your first audit?
