For corporate reporting, two distinct approaches can be used to consolidate GHG emissions: the equity share and the control approaches. If the reporting company wholly owns all its operations,its organizational boundary will be the same whichever approach is used.
For companies with joint operations, the organizational boundary and the resulting emissions may differ depending on the approach used. In both wholly owned and joint operations, the choice of approach may change how emissions are categorized when operational boundaries are set.
Under the equity share approach, a company accounts for GHG emissions from operations according to its share of equity in the operation.
Under the control approach, a company accounts for 100 percent of the GHG emissions from operations over which it has control. It does not account for GHG emissions from operations in which it owns an interest but has no control. Control can be defined in either financial or operational terms.
The consolidation of GHG emissions data will only result in consistent data if all levels of the organization follow the same consolidation policy. In the first step, the management of the parent company has to decide on a consolidation approach (i.e., either the equity share or the financial or operational control approach). Once a corporate consolidation policy has been selected, it shall be applied to all levels of the organization.
When two or more companies hold interests in the same joint operation and use different consolidation approaches (e.g., Company A follows the equity share approach while Company B uses the financial control approach), emissions from that joint operation could be double counted. This may not matter for voluntary corporate public reporting as long as there is adequate disclosure from the company on its consolidation approach. However, double counting of emissions needs to be avoided in trading schemes and certain mandatory government reporting programs