Resources
The 5 Most Common Mistakes in GHG Reporting—and How to Avoid Them
2025-06-24
GHG Inventory Knowledge

Common mistakes in GHG reporting

Understanding your company’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is a key part of sustainable operations—but many businesses still get it wrong. Mistakes in GHG reporting don’t just skew internal metrics; they can lead to regulatory risks, poor investment decisions, and damaged reputation. Here’s how to avoid the most common errors.

1. Mistake: Overlooking Scope 3 Emissions

  • Many companies only report Scope 1 (direct) and Scope 2 (indirect from energy) emissions, ignoring the often largest category: Scope 3 emissions from the supply chain. These include upstream materials, transportation, and even product use.
    Fix: Start with a supply chain emissions map to identify hotspots. Focus on major contributors first—like purchased goods, business travel, or freight.

2. Mistake: Using Outdated or Generic Emission Factors

  • Default emission factors can be overly simplified or outdated. For example, “1 kWh = X kg CO₂” doesn’t account for regional electricity mixes or fuel-specific emissions.
    Fix: Use updated and activity-specific factors from recognized databases. Tailor emission calculations to local contexts for better accuracy.

3. Mistake: Manual Reporting and Spreadsheet Errors

  • Spreadsheets are prone to version control issues, hidden formula errors, and inconsistent formats, leading to reporting mistakes and inefficiencies.
    Fix: Use a centralized carbon accounting platform that automates calculations, tracks changes, and stores verifiable audit trails.

4. Mistake: Not Documenting Assumptions

  • If your reports lack transparency about data sources, calculation logic, or boundary definitions, they lose credibility—especially in audits or ESG ratings.
    Fix: Keep a log of all data assumptions, estimation methods, and organizational boundaries used. Include this in your final GHG report.

5. Mistake: Mixing Different Types of Data Without Clarity
  • Not all emissions data is the same—some are directly measured, others are estimated or based on industry averages. When these are combined without clear labeling, your final numbers can become misleading.
    Fix: Be transparent about the origin of each data point. Clearly distinguish between measured, estimated, and assumed values in your reports. This helps stakeholders understand the confidence level of your results and supports more informed decision-making.

By addressing these issues early, businesses can ensure more accurate, transparent, and actionable GHG reports—supporting both compliance and sustainability goals.

More Resources

CBAM certificate is the only legal voucher for EU carbon cost offset, requiring report-verification-purchase-write-off process; centralized sales start Feb 2027 (priced with EU ETS), settlement by Sep 30, full repurchase by Oct 31, unused 2-year-old certificates cancelled Nov 1 (no compensation).

CBAM

The EUDR-China-EU trade report (Fern-supported, BellaTerra-written) notes compliance core is supply chain control & traceability; classifies non-core (soybean for domestic use) and core industries (wood products exported to EU), and lists 3 compliance key points.

EUDR

Practical guide for enterprise carbon footprint quantification data, defining 6 core categories, regulating primary/secondary data use, offering 5-step collection framework & quality principles, adapting to CBAM, carbon labeling and ISO 14067, enabling efficient carbon data compliance.

Carbon Footprint

The final EU CBAM transition period reporting window is closing, the last drill before "taxation and compliance" phase; transition needs quarterly reports without payment, full phase requires carbon tariffs with reduced free allowances, dual responsibilities, mandatory verification, stricter penalties; enterprises confirm 6 products, strengthen data traceability, cooperate with EU importers.

CBAM

The core of EUDR compliance is establishing a low-cost and confidential evidence system, following the data minimization principle. It requires providing necessary data around three core issues, clarifying data boundaries and transmission norms, and avoiding compliance and confidentiality misunderstandings.

CBAM