Sustainability Atlas
Climate Tech & Data·9 min read·

Case Study: Carbon Accounting & MRV — A Sector Comparison with Benchmark KPIs

Compare carbon accounting and MRV practices across energy, manufacturing, and agriculture sectors with benchmark KPIs and verification standards.

Case Study: Carbon Accounting & MRV — A Sector Comparison with Benchmark KPIs

The carbon accounting software market reached $23.53 billion in 2025 and is projected to hit $78.75 billion by 2030, growing at a 27.33% CAGR. Behind this surge is the growing recognition that effective Measurement, Reporting, and Verification (MRV) systems are no longer optional — they're essential infrastructure for climate action. Yet adoption rates and maturity levels vary dramatically across sectors. This case study examines how energy, manufacturing, and agriculture approach carbon accounting differently, with benchmark KPIs that reveal both leaders and laggards.

Why It Matters

Ninety-two percent of Fortune 500 companies now use the GHG Protocol as their carbon accounting foundation, yet only 23% provide complete Scope 3 reporting. This gap between adoption of frameworks and actual comprehensive measurement represents both a challenge and an opportunity.

The regulatory landscape is accelerating this shift. The EU's Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) mandates third-party-assured Scope 1-3 emissions reporting for over 50,000 firms, including 10,000 non-EU multinationals. In the US, SEC climate disclosure rules and California's Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act are creating compliance pressure from multiple directions. Companies without robust MRV systems face fines, civil liability, and reputational damage.

Beyond compliance, effective carbon accounting drives operational efficiency. Organizations that track emissions at the transaction level identify waste streams, optimize energy consumption, and reduce costs. Digital MRV platforms are cutting verification cycle times by up to 90%, transforming what was once an annual audit burden into continuous operational intelligence.

Key Concepts

The MRV Framework

MRV — Measurement, Reporting, and Verification — forms the backbone of credible carbon accounting. Each component serves a distinct function:

Measurement involves quantifying greenhouse gas emissions across all relevant sources. The GHG Protocol's three-scope framework provides the standard classification: Scope 1 covers direct emissions from owned or controlled sources (company vehicles, boilers, fugitive emissions); Scope 2 addresses indirect emissions from purchased electricity, steam, heat, or cooling; Scope 3 encompasses all other indirect emissions across the value chain, spanning 15 categories from purchased goods to end-of-life treatment of sold products.

Reporting translates measurement data into standardized disclosures that stakeholders can compare and analyze. Key reporting frameworks include CDP (Carbon Disclosure Project), TCFD (Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures), and the emerging ISSB standards. Reporting quality depends on consistency, completeness, and transparency of methodology.

Verification provides third-party assurance that reported data accurately represents actual emissions. ISO 14064-3 offers the primary guidance for GHG verification, while PAS 2060 addresses carbon neutrality claims. Independent audits validate both data quality and methodological rigor, increasing stakeholder confidence.

Verification Standards Landscape

The ecosystem of verification standards includes:

  • GHG Protocol Corporate Standard: The foundational framework used by 92% of Fortune 500 companies
  • ISO 14064-1: Organization-level accounting requirements
  • ISO 14064-3: Third-party verification and auditing guidance
  • PAS 2060: Carbon neutrality demonstration, requiring all Scope 1, 2, and significant Scope 3 emissions
  • TCFD: Climate-related financial disclosure recommendations covering material emissions

What's Working

Digital MRV Transformation

Cloud-deployed carbon accounting platforms now represent 73.3% of the market, growing at 28.9% annually. This shift enables real-time emissions tracking, automated Scope 1-3 data capture, and pre-configured templates for CSRD, SEC, and IFRS reporting.

Companies like Microsoft, IBM, and SAP have integrated carbon intelligence directly into ERP systems, treating emissions as "operational currency" tracked at the purchase-order level. Persefoni, which raised $23 million in March 2025, exemplifies the specialized platform approach with APIs designed for enterprise integration.

Satellite and IoT Integration

Remote sensing technology has matured to enable continuous monitoring without on-site auditors. Satellite-based methane detection, IoT sensors for energy consumption, and blockchain for credit traceability are becoming standard components of enterprise MRV stacks. These technologies address the data accuracy challenge that 83% of companies report struggling with.

Regional Leaders in Scope 3

Europe leads global Scope 3 reporting adoption at 78%, compared to 45% in North America and 31% in East Asia. This reflects the regulatory push from CSRD but also demonstrates that comprehensive value chain accounting is operationally feasible when mandated.

What Isn't Working

The Scope 3 Data Gap

While over 40% of companies globally measure Scope 1 and 2 emissions, only about 10% provide comprehensive Scope 3 reporting according to BCG estimates. The primary barrier is supplier data: 70% of companies cite lack of supplier information as their main challenge, while 53% struggle with inconsistent methodologies across their value chain.

Most troubling, 66% of companies still rely on spreadsheets for Scope 3 tracking, raising serious questions about accuracy and scalability. This manual approach cannot support the transaction-level granularity that effective carbon management requires.

Verification Bottlenecks

Third-party verification remains optional for most companies, and many treat it as an annual compliance exercise rather than continuous assurance. The shortage of qualified auditors and the cost of verification create barriers for mid-sized companies attempting to build credible carbon inventories.

Inconsistent Methodologies

The GHG Protocol allows significant flexibility in calculation approaches, leading to incomparable results across companies even within the same sector. Emission factors, allocation methods, and organizational boundary definitions vary widely, undermining benchmark comparisons.

Sector Comparison: Benchmark KPIs

Energy Sector

The energy sector accounts for 31% of global GHG emissions, making accurate measurement critical. UK offshore oil and gas operations demonstrate emerging best practices with an emissions intensity of 24 kg CO₂e per barrel of oil equivalent (boe) in 2023, though this rose from 22 kg CO₂e/boe in 2022 as production declined faster than emissions.

Key Sector KPIs:

  • Emissions Intensity: 22-24 kg CO₂e/boe (oil and gas operations)
  • Methane Intensity: 1 kg CO₂e/boe (UK) vs 16 kg (global avg) — critical differentiator
  • Platform Power: 79% of offshore emissions — primary reduction opportunity
  • Flaring: 17% of emissions — secondary reduction target
  • Reduction Targets: 50% by 2030 vs 2018 (North Sea Transition Deal)

The UK's methane intensity of 1 kg CO₂e/boe versus the global average of 16 kg CO₂e/boe illustrates how MRV enables targeted interventions. Companies measuring methane separately from CO₂ can identify and address leakage points that represent low-cost abatement opportunities.

Manufacturing Sector

Manufacturing represents 12% of US GHG emissions and one-fifth globally. The sector reduced emissions intensity by 15% between 2002-2019, but projections show a 17% increase in absolute emissions between 2024-2050 due to growth in emissions-intensive industries.

Key Sector KPIs:

  • Steel (Blast Furnace): 1.6-2.0 tonnes CO₂/tonne (Electric Arc: near-zero possible)
  • Cement: 0.6 tonnes CO₂/tonne (mid-sized plant: 300k tonnes CO₂/yr)
  • General Manufacturing: 35 tCO₂e/€m revenue (leading performers: under 30 tCO₂e/€m)
  • Fuel Combustion: 75% of emissions — direct process heat
  • Industrial Processes: 25% of emissions — chemical reactions

The 75/25 split between fuel combustion and process emissions shapes decarbonization strategy: electrification addresses combustion, while carbon capture may be required for process emissions in cement and steel.

Agriculture Sector

Agriculture accounts for 11% of global emissions (19% including land use), with US agriculture representing 10.6% of national GHG emissions in 2021. Unlike manufacturing, agricultural emissions stem primarily from biological processes rather than combustion.

Product Carbon Footprint Benchmarks:

  • Beef: 60-100 kg CO₂e/kg — highest impact
  • Cheese: ~20 kg CO₂e/kg — high impact
  • Pork: ~12 kg CO₂e/kg — medium impact
  • Poultry: 7-10 kg CO₂e/kg — medium-low impact
  • Rice: 4-5 kg CO₂e/kg — low impact
  • Legumes: ~1 kg CO₂e/kg — lowest impact

Agricultural MRV faces unique challenges: enteric fermentation from livestock, nitrous oxide from fertilizers, and soil carbon dynamics require measurement approaches distinct from industrial settings. Satellite monitoring of land use change and remote sensing of methane from rice paddies are emerging as scalable solutions.

Action Checklist

  • Map current emissions sources across all three scopes and identify data gaps in Scope 3 categories
  • Select carbon accounting platform with API integration capabilities and pre-configured regulatory templates
  • Establish sector-specific intensity metrics (per unit output, per revenue) for meaningful benchmarking
  • Implement supplier engagement program for Scope 3 categories representing >80% of value chain emissions
  • Schedule independent third-party verification aligned with ISO 14064-3 standards
  • Deploy IoT sensors or remote monitoring for continuous measurement of high-intensity emission sources
  • Set science-based reduction targets with annual milestones tied to operational KPIs

FAQ

Q: How do Scope 3 emissions typically compare to Scope 1 and 2 for most companies?

A: For most companies, Scope 3 emissions represent 70-90% of their total carbon footprint. This is particularly true in sectors like manufacturing, where purchased goods and services (Category 1) and use of sold products (Category 11) dominate. Financial services companies may see even higher Scope 3 ratios due to financed emissions in their investment portfolios.

Q: What's the difference between carbon accounting and carbon footprinting?

A: Carbon accounting refers to the ongoing organizational practice of measuring, tracking, and reporting GHG emissions across defined boundaries and time periods. Carbon footprinting typically describes a point-in-time assessment of total emissions for a product, service, or entity. Accounting implies continuous management systems; footprinting is often a snapshot for reporting or product labeling.

Q: Which verification standard should a company prioritize?

A: Start with alignment to the GHG Protocol Corporate Standard, as it's the foundation for most regulatory frameworks. For third-party assurance, ISO 14064-3 provides the most widely recognized verification guidance. If making carbon neutrality claims, PAS 2060 offers the relevant certification pathway. Companies subject to EU regulations should ensure CSRD readiness, which builds on these existing standards.

Q: How accurate are current carbon accounting methods?

A: Accuracy varies significantly by scope and methodology. Scope 1 emissions from metered fuel consumption can achieve ±5% accuracy. Scope 2 depends on whether companies use location-based or market-based methods and the quality of grid emission factors. Scope 3 often relies on spend-based estimates or industry averages, potentially introducing ±30-50% uncertainty. Moving from estimates to activity-based calculations dramatically improves accuracy but requires supplier cooperation.

Sources

Topics

carbon accountingMRVGHG protocolemissions verificationScope 1 2 3carbon intensitysector benchmarksclimate disclosureISO 14064CDP reporting

Related Articles