Jose Traub

The methodology used to attribute greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to nations profoundly influences perceived climate action burdens, raising critical questions about equity in global climate governance. This study systematically evaluates current production-based accounting (PBA) by comparing it with three alternative frameworks: consumption-based accounting (CBA), historical cumulative-based accounting (HBA), and per capita-based accounting (PCBA). We conducted a comprehensive SWOT analysis using multi-stream evidence synthesis, analyzing 23 major emitting countries representing over 80% of global emissions. Data sources included UNFCCC documents, historical emission datasets, consumption-based emission data, and World Bank population estimates. Results reveal dramatic redistributions of national positioning across frameworks, with countries experiencing extreme ranking volatility—India dropped 19 places from 4th under PBA to 23rd under PCBA, while Saudi Arabia rose from 11th to 1st. Our analysis demonstrates that while accounting frameworks provide factual measurements of different emissions dimensions, their selection for policy purposes constitutes a normative choice with distributional consequences. We explicitly map each framework to the responsibility principles it operationalizes, revealing that current over-reliance on PBA creates systematic blind spots in the policy context and climate governance.

Corporate carbon emissions reporting is central to climate accountability, yet significant gaps remain in transparency, completeness, and methodological rigor. This study introduces the Carbon Integrity Index (CIX), a structured framework for assessing disclosure quality through ten indicators covering Scopes 1, 2, and 3. Unlike existing standards focused on reporting requirements, the CIX evaluates how well emissions are reported, addressing methodological transparency, scope coverage, and treatment of uncertainty. Applied to 2022 sustainability reports from companies listed in Spain’s IBEX 35 index, the framework reveals an average score of 5.7/10, with 69% of firms achieving passing results. While Scope 2 reporting was generally robust (mean: 0.82), Scope 3 disclosures—often representing the majority of emissions—and uncertainty assessments were systematically weak (mean: 0.08). Findings provide empirical support for legitimacy and institutional theory, showing how formal compliance can mask performative compliance that limits meaningful accountability. Sectoral differences suggest that institutional pressures and operational complexity shape divergent transparency pathways, raising concerns that universal standards may entrench reporting disparities. The CIX offers regulators, investors, and companies a practical tool for distinguishing symbolic from substantive disclosure, enabling more informed decision-making and strengthening the role of reporting in driving the transition to net-zero business models.