PCF Standards: TfS, ISO 14067 & GHG Protocol

With great success, an Introduction to Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) and Product Carbon Footprint (PCF) and a video were launched to understand their concepts, the differences and the complexity of both. Later on, a brochure was launched explaining what are the standards/approaches that are out there and the relation of those with different tools. The brochure listed around 30 tools, software and methodologies/standards.

In the following meetings, the taskforce concluded that the next step was to shorten the list to what is relevant for FINAT. It was agreed that for an accountable value a clear methodology / standard shall be used. Since a tool (which could be a software) is meant to assure that a methodology is in place, links the utilized the database and facilitates the calculation, the taskforce decided to focus the selection on the 12 methodologies/standards stated on the list. The first filter resulted in three methodologies. This document is meant to show a comparison among these three methodologies. 
•    Greenhouse gas (GHG) Protocol 
•    ISO 14067 
•    Together for Sustainability (TfS)

General Information



ISO 14067

GHG Protocol

GHG Protocol

The Tfs guideline follows the international standards ISO 14040:2006+A1:2021 and ISO 675 14044:2006+A2:2020 for Life Cycle Assessment.

ISO is a slightly more general/generic and allows more scope for interpretation.

GHG guidelines are even more general/generic with a strong focus on accounting and reporting at company level.

Derived from these generic standards, the guideline follows 676 ISO 14067:2018 for Product Carbon footprints. It also draws from other guidelines such as the GHG protocol 677

Accordingly, the TfS guideline defines a few gray areas more precisely than ISO.


GHG Protocol vs ISO 14064/14067

The GHG protocol identifies, explains and offers options for establishing a company´s greenhouse gas footprint, while the ISO 14064/14067 set more minimum standards for compliance with best practices partially on product level.

The GHG protocol accordingly offers significantly more generic instructions, examples and guidance for quantification.


GHG Protocol


The GHG protocol was issued in 1998 …to standardize carbon accounting.

The ISO 14064 respectively 14067 were published in 2006 respectively 2018

…to determine an organization´s greenhouse gas emissions and to create a corporate respectively product carbon footprint.

The key aspects for conducting a greenhouse gas analysis according to ISO 14064/14067 are generally consistent, and in most cases derived from those of the GHG protocol.

Content Structure

GHG Protocol

ISO 14064/14067

The GHG protocol has a 5-stage process from identification to consolidation and is divided into three so-called “scopes” for recording GHG emissions:

  • Scope 1: Direct GHG emissions arise from sources owned or controlled by the company.
  • Scope 2: GHG emissions from the generation of purchased electricity, steam and heat consumed by the company.
  • Scope3: Optional reporting category that allows all other indirect emissions to be addressed.
    • Scope 3 emissions are a result of the company´s activities but come from sources not owned or controlled by the company.

ISO 14064/14067 contain minimum requirements for GHG emissions that provide a framework against which credible and consistent independent verification can be carried out. It goes from identification to quantification. The ISOs are divided into direct and indirect emissions:

  • Direct emissions correspond to Scope 1 of the GHG protocol
  • Indirect emissions are based on Scope 2 (Scope 2 is limited to electricity, heat/cold or steam). In the ISOs, energy from fossil fuels and energy products are included in the indirect emissions – in the vast majority of cases ISO these are the same. However, in some specific cases there may be discrimination between companies depending on the emission factors used.
  • Other indirect emissions correspond to Scope 3. The ISOs contain a judgement on which methods of estimation are more accurate, from identification to consolidation.

The GHG protocol focuses more on public and transparent reporting on emissions reductions, not as explicitly as the ISOs. The focus of GHG reporting is therefore on disclosure and transparency and should contain an overview of the chosen organizational boundaries, the chosen consolidation approach and the reporting period covered.

ISO focus reporting on user needs

Despite some minor differences, the GHG and the ISO standards are complementary documents. The ISO standards tells you what to do and the GHG explains how to do it.

TfS & ISO 14064


ISO 14064

TfS follows the guidelines of three generic standards: ISO 14067, ISO 14044 (for LCA) and GHG Protocol.

Globally accepted standard

Pro - Intended define gray areas ISO 14064 left open. Eg. waste treatment, carbon allocation, carbon trapping. If a limitation is presented, all TfS' members can give feedback to TfS.

Con - The inflexibility may present some challenges with the implementation.

Pro - more flexible and can be applied to a wide range of products

Con - this openess can lead to gray areas open to interpretation

Several FINAT upstream members are already using this standard Some members are inclined for a more flexible approach