ISCC GHG x GHG Protocol: What changes and when to use each
If you work with biofuels or corporate inventories, sooner or later it will bump into the Comparison between ISCC GHG calculator and GHG Protocol. Although both deal with greenhouse gas emissions (GEE), They solve different problems, with units, own borders and rules. This article shows, in a practical way, where each approach shines - and how to avoid framing errors when reporting results. At the end of, You will have clear to Comparison between ISCC GHG calculator and GHG Protocol to decide what to apply to each project.
In a sentence: different scopes
- ISCC GHG (ISCC EU 205): Methodology and audit rules to calculate and check Biofuels chain emissions according to RED II/RED III of the EU - result expressed in Co.₂e/MJ fuel and used to CONFORMITY AND CERTIFICATION.
- GHG Protocol: Accounting Standards for corporate inventories (Scopes 1, 2 e 3) and for product life cycles (Product Standard). It is a framework, not a specific calculator.
As calculated: Fórmula vs. scopes
ISCC / II–III (Biofuels chains)
RED establishes the LCA formula for biofuels/bioliquids:
E = EEEC + he + ep + etd + I - ESCA - ECCS - ECCR, with the result expressed in Co.₂E/MJ Fuel. Elements include cultivation (eec), Earth Use Change (he), processing (ep), Transport/Distribution (etd), EMISSIONS IN USE (eu, that in RED rules is parameterized and often zero for biofuels), and soil management credits (bait) and carbon capture/recycling (eccs/eccr).
A ISCC EU 205 operationalize these rules: allow Total Values Default, Default disaggregates Where real values (actual values), as long as the RED's technological path be respected; furthermore, sampling, FACTORS AND DATA They need to be auditory by certifying agency.
GHG Protocol (Organizations and Products)
No Corporate Standard, emissions are organized in Scope 1 (direct), 2 (acquired energy) e 3 (too indirect), with organizational boundary defined by equity share Where control (Financial/Operational).
O Scope 3 Standard Pede report by category and recommends treating CO₂ Biogenic separately.
For products, O Product Life Cycle Standard Works with functional unit, admit cradle-to-gate Where cradle-to-grave and requires transparency on allocation e use of data.
Unit of Analysis and Comparability
- ISCC/RED: the result Always wrong you Co.₂e/MJ fuel (or final energy for Bioliquids), which makes it easier to compare energy routes at the same basis.
- GHG Protocol - Product: The unit is the product function (functional unit) - for example, “1,000 washes/year” for a detergent - defined to reflect utility, durability and quality.
- GHG Protocol - Corporate: The focus is on Total Total in TCO₂e scope, Not by MJ.
Practical implication: convert a result ISCC (Co.₂e/MJ) in corporate metrics requires combining Production/Energy fuel with corporate factors - And the reverse also asks adaptations.
Data, Issuance factors and verifiability
- ISCC: prioritize Red values (default/disaggregated) e real values supported by official factors (ex.: Annex IX of the Execution Regulation 2022/996), banks as Ecoinvent, e traceability by statements of sustainability. Everything must be Audit Verifiable (including producers sampling and calculation documentation).
- GHG Protocol: define which report and What Establish borders/data quality, but it does not impose a unique repository of factors. Companies can use official sources, sectoral and methodologies consistent with the standard, reporting hypotheses and uncertainties.
System border
- ISCC/RED: copper crop (eec), Earth Use Change (he), process (ep), transport (etd) and adjustments/credits (bait, eccs, eccr). O use (eu) is treated according to RED rules and the result reported LEG MJ, including references to fossil comparators e Saving minimum criteria in the directive.
- GHG Protocol - Product: The border can be cradle-to-gate (Unused and end of life) Where cradle-to-grave, with explicit justification, separating flows Biogenic x nonbogenic.
- GHG Protocol - Corporate: The border is organizational (equity/controle) e operational (1, 2, 3).
Certification and Audit
- ISCC is certifiable: calculations, factors, sampling and documentation are inspected by certification bodies; There are detailed rules for the use of RED defaults and for verification of real values.
- GHG Protocol does not certify for itself: It is a standard Used by external programs/seals and audits, but it is not its own certification scheme - the text itself points out that the focus is Accounting and Report.
Quick Difference Table
| Aspect | ISCC GHG (ISCC EU 205) | GHG Protocol |
| Purpose | Compliance and certification biofuels | Accounting and corporate and products |
| Unit | Co.₂e/MJ (Fuel/Energy) | tCO₂e scope (corp.) / functional unit (product) |
| Border | eec, he, ep, etd, eu, - ESCA - ECCS - ECCR | Scopes 1, 2, 3 (corp.) / cradle-to-gate/grave (prod.) |
| Factors | Defaults/disaggregates from RED, Where real values auditory | Diverse sources, with transparency and methodological coherence |
| Verification | Audit and ISCC traceability | Optional Assurance for Third Parties; It is not a certification scheme |
| Typical use | Chains of bioenergy for European market | Inventories ESG, goals and footprint of products |
When to use each (with examples)
- Export ethanol, HVO or Biomethane for the EU?
Use a ISCC GHG to produce the value in GCO₂e/MJ according to RED and generate certifiable documentation along the chain (Sustainability Declarations, Defaults/Real Values). It is the natural choice for Regulated markets e are some of the answers. - ESG Report, Decarbonization and SBTI goals?
Use GHG Protocol – Corporate to inventory scopes 1, 2 e 3, define borders (equity/controle) and report by scope category 3, Separating Biogenic CO₂. - Eco-Design and Environmental Labeling of a Product (not only fuels)?
Use GHG Protocol – Product with functional unit and border cradle-to-grave, allowing to compare versions and focus on critical points of the life cycle.
Common errors (and how to avoid)
- Mixture: compare Co.₂e/MJ (ISCC) with tCO₂and/year (corporate) without normalizing by production/energy leads to misleading conclusions. Standardize the base before.
- Apply defaults outside the scope: Defaults Red only valid when Routes/inputs hit with Annex V/VI; otherwise, calculate real values It's documents.
- Misaligned: in product, declare if it is cradle-to-gate and justify; non -corporate, clarify equity vs. control.
Conclusion: A Comparison between ISCC GHG calculator and GHG Protocol It is not “apple with apple”: one is Audit track for fuels on the European regulated market; The other is Universal Accounting Language for companies and products. Use each one in the right context - and translate results between bases (MJ ↔ Functional unit/tons) When you need to reconcile compliance with ESG and product design.
Learn more about these carbon inventories in our blog.
More about ISCC on here, and about the GHG Protocol, on here.