...
- Can we trust the data that the company has provided?
- Can we trust judgement calls, made by either the company or a certifying entity, about which activities are not relevant and thus do not require data and auditing?
- How do we know if the company is in fact working on its emissions reduction plan?
- Can consumers and investors trust that the certifying entity is objective?
Meanwhile, major institutional investors such as the Net Zero Asset Owner Alliance have a different trust issue as well, but from a different perspective. Institutional investors . They are used to more in-depth analysis and independent verification of companies' claims, and carbon neutral certifications do not have the same level of detail as other financial ratings they are accustomed to. For example, when investing in bonds, they typically require credit ratings by more than it's not enough that one rating agency, such as Standard & Poors or Moody's, considers a bond "investment grade. The ratings themselves are not binary but instead go " They typically require credit ratings by more than one rating agency, and the ratings are in tiers from AAA (highest credit quality) to CCC (high default risk.) As As climate neutrality becomes important to them, they would probably demand the same level of detail in ratings of corporate climate action.
...
- Create a Hyperledger permissioned chain
- Set up separate channels for different organizations
- Allow data to be published to the channels and signed. The data would include basic information about the organization and digitally obtained energy usage data, for example from utility bills.
- Deploy chain code to calculate the organizations' GHG emissions
- Publish the GHG emissions as a token or asset.
Questions:
- How should the verified carbon content or carbon neutrality claim be published for use down the value chain or by consumers, investors, and the general public? Should they be in a token? In JSON format on IPFS?