GLOBAL BLOCKCHAIN
BUSINESS COUNCIL
DC Location:

1629 K St. NW, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20006

Geneva Location:
Rue de Lyon 42B
1203 Geneva
Switzerland

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary

5

CET Standard Purpose Statement, Guiding Principles, and Scoping

6

1.0 Introduction

8

1.1 Challenges of existing GHG emissions management9

1.2 Opportunities for use of DLT for GHG emissions

10

1.3 Vision and Goals

11

1.4 CET Protocol, data component development and ongoing governance11

1.4.1 IWA Taskforce

11

1.4.2 Leveraging existing protocols, standards and frameworks

12

1.4.3 Ongoing governance of the CET Protocol

12

2.0 Fundamentals of the CET
2.1 Foundational token characteristics

13
14

2.1.1 CET classification

14

2.1.2 CET behaviors

15

2.1.3 Token property sets

21

2.2 CET market roles

22

2.2.1 Emissions Generator / CET Owners

22

2.2.2 Third-party verifiers

22

2.2.3 Exchange or marketplace provider

23

2.2.4 Offset suppliers

23

2.3 Process overview from data collection to tokenization of emissions

23

2.3.1 Data collection and/or direct measurement of emissions

23

2.3.2 Data storage

23

2.3.3 Data validation

23

2.3.4 Mapping and calculations

23

2.3.5 Data and emissions results verification

24

2.3.6 Tokenization

24

3.0 CET Participant Requirements
3.1 Protocol and guiding principle

25
25

3.2 Data quality and emissions assurance and verification

26

3.2.1 Data quality definitions and guidelines30

3.2.2 Emissions assurance and verification30

3.2.3 Reporting

32

3.3 Temporal boundary

34

3.4 Scope and categories

34

3.4.1 Scope 2 calculation methodology

34

3.4.2 Scope 3 or Value Chain Emissions

35

3.5 Organizational boundary36

3.6 Global Warming Potential

36

4.0 CET Data Elements Summary

38

4.1 Carbon Emission Generator Object(EGO)

38

4.2 Carbon Emission Scope and Properties

39

4.3 Carbon Emission Attributes

40

5.0 Key Risks and Challenges to the DLT CET
Ecosystem

42

5.1 Hierarchy of Risks

42

5.2 Transferable Benefits Accounting

43

5.3 Double Counting

44

5.4 Data availability and accuracy

45

6.0 Confidentiality in Attributes & Asset Generation

46

7.0 Emission Allocation Protocol

48

8.0 Moving Forward

48

Appendices49

Appendix A. Scope 3 Emissions Categories

50

Appendix B. Future Opportunities

53

Appendix C. List of Acronyms

54

Appendix D. Glossary

55

Appendix E. Miscellaneous References

58

Contributors

59

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Carbon Emissions Token standards enable organizations, including enterprises, NGOs, and governments to implement
programs built on a series of technical specifications. The InterWork Alliance’s (IWA) Carbon Emissions Token (CET)
Taskforce aims to advance emissions reporting through technical guidance, specifications, and best practices oftokenized carbon emissions and related data structures (e.g. digital measurement, reporting, and verification, or dMRV,
information related to CETs).
The reporting of emissions is often complex and has challenges in data granularity, inconsistent reporting approaches
that are often based on estimates, proprietary supply chain data streams, and an overall opacity to the process, forwhich distributed ledger technology (DLT) can help solve.
Tokenization, along with linked information through dMRV, presents an exciting opportunity to act as a public balance
sheet, enabling consistency on technical structure using ledgers for their properties in auditability, discoverability, andultimately liquidity when offsetting is applied1. While the CET will have requirements as to how ecological claims are
made for the clarity of this document, this Taskforce will defer any technical offsetting standards to our sister Taskforce,the Voluntary Ecological Markets Taskforce.

Large number of stakeholders
in the ecosystem with complex
data relationships andreporting requirements

Tracking emissions ischallenging across participants,
regions, and value chainsleading to inaccuracies andinefficiency

Validation of Scope 3
emissions data, reported
emissions, and supportingdata

1 https://www.hbarfoundation.org/blog-post/to-effectively-address-climate-change-we-need-innovative-greenhouse-gas-ghg-and-energy-accounting-methods

5This Taskforce and its members see the value of leveraging DLT to enable better outcomes for emissions tracking which
include:1. Transparency, accuracy, and quality in data for inter-organizational and intra-organizational emissions
following verifiable methodologies and rulesets for accounting
2. Referenceability across parties for indirect emissions reporting
3. A clear aggregate view of the ecological footprint of emitters globally
The initial CET specification standardizes definitions, behaviors, and attributes for CETs and is aimed to further dialogue
around token implementations in emissions accounting, agnostic of web3 protocol. This Taskforce is recommending thispaper as a guide in the discourse for specific regulator, country, or industry standards bodies that are considering howreporting may be enabled for their constituencies. This Taskforce does not attempt to define environmental accounting
rules, methodologies, or the science behind them, but does focus on the implementation of these rules and bestpractices to achieve robust capabilities and systems that enable comparison and transparency with precise taxonomies
so organizations can implement methodologies, and their rulesets, allowing for clear reporting for use inenterprise systems.
Tokenization of emissions provides the foundation for sharing and allocating emission ownership through complex value
chains and enable 3rd parties to audit emission flows while preserving its lineage which is useful for the most widelyadopted Greenhouse Gas Protocol2 accounting framework, but also provides a path to evolve carbon accounting andsupport initiatives like E-liability3.
DISCLAIMER: This document is intended as an introduction and basis for further dialogue and cooperation with all relevant
stakeholders. Neither the individual taskforce members nor their organizations have agreed to or adopted this document in
its entirety. The following is an incomplete, pioneering work in progress intended to cultivate further cooperative effort on the
keystone elements and best practices with the intention to align around a common governance set of standards, specifications andclassification systems. We encourage participation and collaboration with other organizations and actors within the industry as well as
regulators and welcome their feedback and commentary for the next version. The taskforce members do not presently endorse any
specific regulatory treatment, and do not formally endorse or ratify any particular independent efforts to develop market governanceframeworks.
We encourage those that can join us in the GBBC/IWA, or that are already members not currently active in our group, to reach out
and engage with us.

CET STANDARD PURPOSE STATEMENT, GUIDING PRINCIPLES ANDSCOPING
PurposeDefine a technology- and industry-agnostic standard for carbon emissions tokenization that will facilitate interoperable
emissions data referenceability across value streams and serve as a single source of truth for an organization’s carbon
ledger.

Guiding principles

2
3•

Educate and clearly define a token (e.g., the properties and behaviors), in non-technical and cross-industry
terms using real world, everyday analogies that can be used by business, technical, and regulatory
participants to speak the same language.

•

Establish a base Token Classification Hierarchy (TCH) driven by metadata that is simple to understand andnavigate for anyone interested in learning and discovering Tokens and underlying implementations.

•

Produce standard artifacts and control message descriptions mapped to the taxonomy that are
implementation neutral and provide base components and controls that consortia, start-ups, platforms or
regulators can use to work together.

•

Be used in taxonomy workshops for defining existing or new tokens which results in a contribution back to
the framework to organically grow and expand across industries for maximum re-use.

https://ghgprotocol.org/
https://e-liability.institute/

6

The CET specification is NOT:
•
•
•
•

#
1

2

3

4

5

Specific to any DLT protocol but applies to any shared medium - whether it be a DLT or database
A legal or regulatory framework - but it does establish common groundA reporting tool - but does support reporting and validation of ESG claims
Complete, in that it is understood to be a living document which may be modified or expanded overtime.

“In-scope” Items
Classification of the token

Behavior of the token

Data elements for Token Metadata

Data quality guidelines/expectations basedon existing protocols and frameworks

Examples of use cases the standard cansupport7

Methods to handle tokenization of different
emission scopes

9

1

2

3

4

“Out-of-scope” Items
Reporting requirements for various jurisdictions

A Legal or regulatory framework - but it does
establish common ground

Specific implementation level details

To "reinvent the wheel" on the existing protocols
and frameworks (e.g., GHG Protocol, Pathfinder
Framework, ISO, etc.)

Emissions methodology guidelines/
expectations based on existing protocols
and frameworks

6

8

#

Risks and challenges in implementation

Supports reporting, validates ESG claims71.0 INTRODUCTION

Converging inter-governmental, national, and private-sector efforts to mitigate the impacts of climate change havecreated market pressure for increased transparency around GHG emissions and mitigation activities. This increased
focus has accelerated investment in the development of market mechanisms for emissions tracking and offsetting,including voluntary offset markets and an array of climate-oriented standards and investment vehicles. It has also
created competitive opportunities to market differentiated products and services that claim to have minimized theirclimate impact. As these offerings have grown, so have questions about the transparency, accuracy and even veracity of
their climate benefits.
Market participants often lack the appropriate information to make informed investment or purchasing decisions. As aresult, there is a need to develop robust, scalable technology solutions that support the traceability and transparency ofthese market claims. This involves solutions that target both the product and organizational level. There is also a need toreduce barriers to entry and transaction costs inherent in the current array of disaggregated GHG offset exchanges anddifferentiated product initiatives.
Distributed ledger technology (DLT) provides a promising means for market participants to share carbon emissions data
in a transparent, immutable manner. It also offers a means to transact throughout value chains in a manner that treats
GHGs as an environmental commodity that can be associated with an organization, products, services, or investments.
Specifically, DLT can facilitate end-to-end supply chain transparency by collating data across the value chain participants,from materials sourcing through production and distribution, dynamically tracking GHG emissions throughout toempower decision-making related to climate impacts.
The IWA, an initiative of Global Blockchain Business Council (GBBC), envisions an ecosystem where global GHG emissions
adhere to a common set of rules and behaviors designed for interoperability and transactability within a broader global
marketplace. DLT technology, particularly in the form of semi-fungible, transactable CETs, provides the opportunity fora standardized and trusted approach to account, report, offset, and exchange GHG emissions across complex, multisector supply chains and life cycle stages.
Furthermore, CETs offer a solution for digitally tracking GHG emissions and rendering them as publicly available,
immutable data records for a broad range of public and private stakeholders. The CET Protocol will continue to be
developed by the IWA CET Taskforce as an open-source standard designed to formalize principles of the CET andenhance interoperability by providing specifications that can operate on scales as granular as process activity data while
supporting reliable transactions across markets and regions.
The ability to tokenize across various industrial processes, products, commodities, and services makes CETs a perfectcomplement to offset or credit tokens, such as the Carbon Reference Token (CRT) and the Carbon Reduction/Removal
Unit token (CRU). Altogether, utilization of CETs and DLT technology can provide a valuable resource to support climate
ambitions as well as the existing standards and frameworks of carbon, energy, and ecological markets. The purposeof this protocol is to serve as a supplemental handbook that supports the consistent application of the CET Protocol
developed by the IWA Taskforce. Participants shall adhere to the standards and guidelines to promulgated inthis document.

8

1.1

Challenges of existing GHG emissions management

Prevailing industry practice for emissions tracking and management relies on the use of internal emissions management
software or spreadsheets to calculate emissions within operational boundaries. This involves applying recognized
standards for organizational reporting, with the GHG Protocol Corporate Standard, introduced by the World BusinessCouncil for Sustainable Development’s (WBCSD), providing a widely accepted approach for reporting an organization’s
emissions. The protocol introduces the concept of scope, characterizing emissions as direct scope 1, indirect scope 2(electricity and heat) and other indirect scope 3 emissions.
FIGURE 1: PRODUCT VS. ORGANIZATIONAL BOUNDARYThe WBCSD also provides the Corporate Value Chain (Scope 3) Standard to address the complexity of measuringindirect emissions. Beyond operational boundaries, organizations are leveraging distributed data collection systems ora variety of assumptions to estimate value chain emissions with varying degrees of accuracy and success. The WBCSD
provides the Pathfinder Framework Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions (referred toas the Pathfinder Framework). Unlike the Corporate and Value Chain Standards, it is not constrained by an organization’s
operational boundaries. It adheres to product boundaries that capture overlaps in organizational reporting, as outlinedin Figure 1.
Emissions are then disclosed in formats that are stipulated by voluntary or regulatory reporting standards.4 These
reports may include additional information to provide context, but companies often limit detail to protect proprietary
information from the general public or their competitors. Outside of external reports, many companies are inundatedwith emissions information requests from investors or customers. These requests are often ad hoc, and companies may
be hesitant to share certain types of information or struggle with navigating this wide array of requirements. Universal,
sector or value chain-oriented repositories of shared information could improve the efficiency of information, but suchrepositories often do not exist or face technological or transactional limitations.

4 Of which there are over 600 ESG global reporting requirements, many with different interpretations and requirements. https://
assets.ey.com/content/dam/ey-sites/ey-com/en_gl/topics/sustainability/ey-the-future-of-sustainability-reporting-standards-june-2021.
pdf

9

Beyond barriers to information, there are issues of reliability. There is no centralized regulatory body or market systemfor verifying and authenticating reported emissions and supporting data. As a result, investors, buyers and suppliers,and other stakeholders who are focused on environmental, social and governance (ESG) metrics and climate goals, suchas decarbonization, carbon neutral products, and “greening” the value chain, must rely on piecemeal or secondary andpotentially unreliable data to inform financing, purchasing, or patronage decisions. Moreover, the absence of a validated,
universally-accessible repository and exchange for GHG emissions and offset credits results in a complex system ofcarbon emissions management and exchange markets, limiting market participation and inhibiting efficiency.
Finally, complex product supply chains and the lack of value chain-oriented emissions information repositories makeit difficult for companies to track and trace cradle-to-gate and cradle-to-grave emissions. Many companies conduct life
cycle assessments (LCA) on their own products to understand their carbon footprint. Tracing product cradle-to-gate andcradle-to-grave emissions is essential for organizations to achieve their climate goals and to satisfy contractual demands
regarding the neutralization of product carbon footprints via carbon credits. Traceability and tokenization of GHG
emissions supports this by giving organizations the data needed to analyze and manage the high-risk emitters within the
supply chain and empower informed decision-making.

1.2

Opportunities for use of DLT for GHG emissions

Mitigating the impacts of climate change and reducing GHG emissions requires a system(s) for emissions measurementthat supports market participants across sectors, regions and value chains. DLT and the CET standard deliver a trusted
standards-based approach that helps close the gap between what exists today and what the market requires to achieve
climate goals. This protocol promotes rule-based interactions to support diverse supply chains and the developing
global infrastructure related to GHG emissions and climate change mitigation. This level of data transparency andtraceability will facilitate and promote the implementation of LCAs (life cycle assessment) across many sectors.
Broad market adoption of the CET provides a multitude of opportunities. For investors, use of CETs ensures an
independently verifiable, immutable, and publicly available record of emissions that are instantly authorized upon
minting the token. For corporate market participants, it enables attributability, traceability and transactability of GHG
emissions, which are crucial to a thorough understanding of carbon footprints5 and strategic application of carbon
offsets. Additionally, when put into production, CET can serve as a resource for GHG inventory tracking, targetedemission reduction to attain net-zero goals, and selective supplier relationships based on GHG intensity. The IWA
CET standard and this protocol leveraged existing regulatory frameworks, protocols, and guidelines, ensuring easeof adoption by intergovernmental and regulatory agencies, thereby simplifying the reporting efforts and providing
independently verifiable emissions data and reduction progress.

5 WBCSD’s Pathfinder Framework guidance on Product Carbon Footprint (PCF) data https://www.wbcsd.org/contentwbc/download/15625/226889/1

10

1.3

Vision and Goals

Governmental, organizational, and societal pressures to reduce GHG emissions, and thus mitigate climate change
impacts, demands new ideas and solutions to support existing systems and frameworks. The vision for utilizing
distributed ledger technology to tokenize emissions is to standardize an industry-agnostic framework for interoperable
climate data that can be reliably and transparently tracked, reported and shared as digital environmental assets.
To achieve the vision, this protocol supports the following goals of the CET Standard:

1.4•

Global GHG emissions are traceable to the relevant entities — whether they be projects, systems, facilities,
public/private enterprise or communities — as scope 1, scope 2 and scope 3 emissions.

•Interoperable standard of carbon emissions demonstrating GHG emissions are linked to a tokenized DLT
based asset•

DLT provides a verifiable and trusted record for tracing emissions throughout the value chain, from source
to product or service output to end-of-life.

•

Tokenized emissions can be locked and bundled into adjacent compositions like Product Carbon Footprints
as defined by the WBCSD:PACT initiative.6•

Ownership of indirect emissions will be realized through CET transactions recorded on the ledger, providing
unprecedented clarity around the quality and quantity of an organization’s value chain emissions.

•

CETs can be paired with carbon offset or credit tokens, such as Carbon Reference Token (CRT) or Carbon
Reduction/Removal Unit (CRU Token), to enable participants to proactively and systematically manage netzero targets and other climate-related goals throughout their value chain.

•

CET adoption at the industry level provides a demand signal for measuring, reporting and verification(MRV) applications and organizations to incorporate the methodology in their system to provide consistent
standards of measurement. Attestation providers can audit the MRV process of CET creation reducing thetime, cost, and requirements for GHG attestation providers to frictionless assurances.

CET Protocol, data component development and ongoing governance

In April 2022, the IWA began exploring an initiative to develop the CET standard to complement the CRT and CRU Tokenstandards developed in June 2021 with the goal of enabling coordination, collaboration, and interoperability acrossorganizations and industries. A multi-stakeholder Taskforce of cross-industry companies was established in August 2022
to support the initiative. Outputs of the Taskforce include the CET standards and this accompanying protocol document
outlining the reasoning for the group’s decisions and providing supporting commentary. This protocol does not purport
to replace existing frameworks, protocols, or industry standards, but rather supplement the resources in broader
voluntary carbon, energy, or ecological markets.
1.4.1 IWA TASKFORCE
To support broad adoption of the CET standard, the IWA convened a Taskforce in August 2022 to gather input
from various industries, platforms, and backgrounds, ensuring the token standard remains industry- andplatform-agnostic. The participants collaborated to determine the appropriate CET classification, behaviors,and metadata, which are detailed in this document.

6

https://www.wbcsd.org/Programs/Climate-and-Energy/Climate/SOS-1.5/Resources/Pathfinder-Framework-Version-2.0

11

1.4.2 LEVERAGING EXISTING PROTOCOLS, STANDARDS AND FRAMEWORKS
As part of the CET standard development, the Taskforce developed a required set of data elements, referred
to as metadata. The metadata is the framework which establishes the data that shall be recorded in thetoken. Selection of the standardized metadata components leveraged existing protocols and frameworks,
including the World Resources Institute’s (WRI) Greenhouse Gas Protocol Corporate Accounting and ReportingStandard (referred to as the Corporate Standard) and the Greenhouse Gas Protocol Product Life Cycle Accounting
and Reporting Standard (referred to as the Product Life Cycle Standard). Additionally, the Taskforce ensuredalignment with the WBCSD Pathfinder Framework, the International Sustainability Standards Board’s (ISSB)
Exposure Draft IFRS S2 Climate-related Disclosures, the Global Reporting Initiative’s (GRI) standards, theTaskforce on Climate-Related Financial Disclosure (TCFD) frameworks, Climate Disclosure Project (CDP), andthe International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 14060 family of standards for quantifying, monitoring,
reporting, and validating greenhouse gas emissions.
1.4.3 ONGOING GOVERNANCE OF THE CET PROTOCOL
The governance of the CET protocol will be a continued effort under the guidance of the IWA. This Taskforce
will operate with a period of review for each published version. The first period for review began Nov. 30th,
2023, and ran through Feb. 17th, 2024 for public feedback. Final publishing for the first version of the CET
guidelines has taken those feedback points into consideration. Following the publication of this version, theTaskforce encourages the public to provide further feedback based on their analysis and implementation of
the guidance.
This governance will mirror the work of the IWA’s Voluntary Ecological Markets (VEM) Taskforce, which
subsequently focused on dMRV, properties, and a second version of guidance along with a complete
specification based on implementation findings in its follow up to initial publishing. The guidelines will be
reviewed on a yearly basis for updates from member findings.

122.0 FUNDAMENTALS OF THE CETThe CET design adheres to the Token Taxonomy Framework (TTF) by the IWA, a GBBC initiative. The TTF bridges the gap
between DLT developers, business executives, legal representatives and regulators fostering collaboration to redefine
existing, and develop new, business models and networks based on tokens. With DLT technology and tokens being
relatively nascent, there are difficulties in establishing a collective understanding across industries and organizations.
The TTF was developed as a clear, unbiased, cross-functional set of guidelines around DLT and tokens. Specifically, thepurpose of the TTF is to:
•
•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•

Educate users, especially non-technical users. In particular, the TTF clearly defines tokens in non-technicaland cross-industry terms using real-world examples, ensuring understanding and ease of participation. The
TTF uses properties and behaviors to define tokens and describe their functionalities.
Define a common set of concepts and terms that can be used by business, technical, and regulatory participants to speak the same language.
Produce comprehensible token definitions and requirements, which are implementation neutral for developers to follow and standards organizations to validate.
Establish a base Token Classification Hierarchy (TCH) (i.e., a logical grouping and linkage between various
data elements driven by metadata, which is the background data that provides information about the visible
token data component) that is simple to understand and navigate for those interested in DLT tokens andunderlying implementations.
Use terminology that is neutral to programming language and DLT.
Encourage open and collaborative workshops to accelerate the creation of powerful vertical industry applications and innovation for platforms, start-ups, and enterprises.
Produce standard descriptions mapped to the taxonomy that are implementation neutral and provide basecomponents and controls that consortia, startups, platforms or regulators can use to work together.
Encourage differentiation and vertical specialization while maintaining an interoperable base.
Be used in taxonomy workshops for defining existing or new tokens which results in a contribution back to
the framework to organically grow and expand across industries for maximum re-use.

The fundamentals of the taxonomy can be categorized into five basic types listed below.
•
•
•
•
•

Base Types: the foundation of any token is its base token type.
Behaviors: capabilities or restrictions that can apply to a token.
Behavior Groups: a bundle of behaviors that are frequently used together.
Property Sets: a defined property or set of properties that, when applied to a token, can support a value thatcan be queried - essentially, the data points contained in the token.
Token Templates: describes the token type (e.g., Fractional Fungible Template) as well as the capabilities or
restrictions to which the token created from the template would adhere.

View the CET definition in the IWA’s TTF GitHub repository here.
13

2.1

Foundational token characteristics

The TTF uses token classifications and behaviors to prescribe the foundational characteristics of tokens. The classifications and behaviors applicable to the CET are described below.
2.1.1 CET CLASSIFICATIONThe TTF classifies tokens using the five characteristics below, allowing tokens that share the samecharacteristics to be classified together. These are foundational concepts that can be applied to most tokens.
The CET token classifications are described below.
Token Type – Fungible Unique (τF’)7
As unique fungible tokens, the CETs can be used as a unit of account enabling emitters to granularly accountfor emissions used to draft reports based on real-time monitoring data. The fungibility of the token enables
reporting entities to group and sum emissions, for example by scope (scope 1, 2 and 3, separately), while
unique properties preserve the traceability of the emissions to source. The CET framework defines two typeflags to differentiate the following accounting types:
1. Organization: CET used for compiling organizational emission inventories applying the desired
reporting boundary (see section 3.5) and scope.
2. Product: CET used to construct a LCA of the carbon footprint of a product provided by anorganization.
The 2 token type flags enable accurate accounting of an organization’s environmental carbon footprints
without losing track of the token’s unique identifying characteristics. The two flags offer complementarycharacteristics, such as referencing product CET issued at the facility level (sub-organizational unit) toconstruct an organization’s total emission inventory by scope.
Token Unit – Fractional
Tokens are divisible and can be subdivided or split into smaller units or parts based on a certain number ofdecimal places.
Fractional tokens would be required when the emissions being tokenized are not in exact multiples of 1 metricton of carbon dioxide equivalent (mtCO2e) or during carbon credit and emission pairing if the paired CETs are
not a whole number, i.e., a multiple of 1 mtCO2e.
Value Type – Reference
Reference value type is where a token represents a physical item like a car or house, or ‘stored elsewhere’
digital item like a photo, scanned document or bank balance. A CET does not have intrinsic value of itself but it
is backed by the emission which gives it value; therefore, CETs have to be a Reference token.
Representation Type – Unique
As mentioned in the Token Type section, carbon emission token instances are unique and can be individually
identified and traced. They are like paper bills; they are interchangeable but have unique properties like aserial number. For track and trace usage, it’s important that CETs preserve their unique characteristics via their
metadata. CETs will be uniquely identified while their fungibility enables CETs of equal quantities to be valued
the same.
Supply – Infinite
Tokens can be created and removed with no cap. As the number of CETs minted depends on the amount of
actual emissions, there cannot be a cap on the total mintable amount.
7 CETs will be fungible such that their value will be comparable and considered the same carbon equivalent with one another, but
not interchangeable. Any CET, of the same class or series, will be equal in value to another CET with the same quantity. Each CET will
also be unique such that they can be distinctly identified by the unique properties, like scope or emissions source, that define them.

142.1.2 CET BEHAVIORS
Behaviors are capabilities and restrictions containing logic and properties that can be common across token
types. Behaviors usually have existing “non-DLT” implementations which are well understood in business
contexts. The behaviors applicable to the CET are below.
Divisible
Tokens can be subdivided or split into fractions or parts based on a certain number of decimal places.
Divisibility is a common behavior for cryptocurrencies or tokens of fiat currency. For example, the US Dollar isdivisible to two decimal places, where a value such as 0.42 of a US Dollar is possible. Many digital assets andcryptocurrencies are also divisible.
This is a necessary behavior of the CET to accommodate fractions of emissions less than 1 mtCO2e. The
number of decimal places for the CET is determined on the industry or business level and should be aminimum of two decimal points, but is suggested to be four.
This behavior is demonstrated in the example below.
Example: Tokenized emissions data is not in exact whole numbers, i.e., 1 mtCO2e.
Emissions collected from sensors or calculated via engineering estimates would not typically be multiples of 1
mtCO2e. However, these emissions can be sent for tokenization as fractions of a token.
For example, if the emissions data received for tokenization during the defined temporal boundary is
15.6 mtCO2e, then the tokenized result would be 15 CETs, representing 15 mtCO2e, and another 0.6 CET
representing 0.6 mtCO2e.
Delegable
CETs support the delegation of token behaviors to a third-party entity or a third-party managed account,allowing the third party to invoke the tokens on behalf of the owner. This behavior is demonstrated in theexample below.
Example: An entity outsources its carbon footprint management operations to a third party
Company X is a manufacturer and owns multiple factories. Since it is not Company X’s area of expertise, theyoutsource management of their carbon footprint, including management of their CETs, to Company Y. As
a result, Company X must delegate its CET responsibilities to Company Y, allowing Company Y to carry outtransaction and offset activities while Company X maintains ownership of the tokens. Additionally, Company
X may delegate only a portion of their CET inventory to Company Y and another portion to a separate third
party, depending on Company X’s requirements.
Offsetable
CETs can help track companies’ efforts to compensate for hard-to-abate emissions by identifying when avalidated offset has been applied to a carbon emissions token. Establishing a relationship between a CET
and a carbon offset (whole or fractional) can help companies balance out their carbon footprints on a public
ledger. The concept of offsetability is explored in more depth by the Voluntary Ecological Markets (VEM)
Taskforce and its VEM Overview paper8.
The mtCO2e value associated with CETs may be reduced by an amount equal to the carbon credit value
being applied.

8 https://assets.ctfassets.net/so75yocayyva/2hDgOuwSInFmXaKDWB7r7v/496b5c751a3c18c3b7eb4ce7ccf5ad1d/Voluntary_Ecological_Markets__VEM__2_-_IWA.pdf - Page 48

15

Example: A carbon credit is used to offset a set of CETs related to a product’s carbon footprint to achieve a net neutral
emissions goal.
Company X manufactures widgets and desires to deliver ‘net neutral’ widgets to the market. They implementa policy to purchase carbon credit tokens to offset each batch of widgets once process emissions total 5
mtCO2e. The emissions from production of the widgets are tokenized resulting in 5 CETs, each representing
1 mtCO2e. Company X offsets the carbon emissions from the widgets by applying carbon credit tokens
representing a total of 5 mtCO2e, thereby offsetting the 5 CETs. Once the CETs are offset, they are flaggedin the DLT, indicating that the emissions have been neutralized. Note: The CET metadata does not include
specifics about product information or quantities and could only be determined if CETs are allocated to
products.
Roles
The roles outlined in this section are those entities who have permission to use the token behaviors (minting,burning, etc.) or whose data directly feeds into the token. Other roles in the ecosystem will be defined in
Section 2.2. These roles will also be expanded upon and given additional context in the broader ecosystem.
A token can utilize role behaviors that restrict invocations to a select set of parties or accounts that are
members of a role or group. This is a generic behavior that can apply to a token many times to represent
various role definitions. The ‘Roles’ behavior defines the role(s) which can be implemented for the CET and the
responsibilities of each role. The CET standard includes the optional token roles outlined below that may be
implemented by CET DLT participants to fulfill specific roles per stakeholder requirements. For example, anorganization may identify individuals to perform each role within the DLT system and each individual would not
be permitted to undertake tasks that fall outside their purview. Implementation of the ‘roles’ behavior provides
for this division of responsibilities.
••

Owner - The Owner is the entity in possession of the token who, depending on the reason for holding andcompliance regime, can Burn, Offset, Transfer, or Delegate that token
Emitter/Indirect Emitter – The entity with the right to mint, or allow a third party to mint, the token
because they are the accountable party for the emissions; can recognize a direct vs. indirect emitter
o
o
o

•

•
•

Direct (scope 1)
Indirect (scope 2)
Indirect Downstream/Upstream (scope 3)

Revoker – The entity that is authorized to cancel or freeze the CET, in effect removing or suspending the
CET from circulation and/or the corporate GHG inventory until it is remedied. Examples of revokers could
extend to parties such as corporations or delegated entities on their behalf. As this specification evolves
the taskforce anticipates further development could extend to regulating authorities within emissions
reporting.
Auditor - An entity with the right to view all token transfers but cannot perform other functions related tothe token.
Contributor(s) – An entity that is delegated a role by another party within the workflow, or in a standards
or regulatory capacity, to contribute data, calculations, or adjustments to the data inputs within the value
chain.

For example, Company X has employee A and employee B. Employee A is responsible for carbon emission
tokenization and mints CETs when a predetermined quantity of emissions are released and specific conditions
are met. In this case, Employee A is assigned the ‘Minter’ role. Meanwhile, Employee B is responsible formatching the CETs with tokenized carbon offsets and then retiring the tokens afterward. Employee B is
assigned the ‘Offsetter’ role. Though both work in the same organization and in the same system, they havebeen assigned distinct roles in the DLT and would be unable to take actions that are not assigned to theirindividual roles. Partitioning of responsibilities is controlled with ‘Roles’ behavior.

16

Referenceable
The data and assets are referenceable. Referenceability involves identifying the source data used to generate
the CET, as well as defining links between emissions inventories of an organization or product. CET offers one
representation of previously compiled emissions data, which will require referencing the source, or specificdata domain. Therefore, referencing by CET would benefit from standards defining the source data, thespecific domain including where and how it could be accessed. The Open Footprint (OFP) Forum, organizedby the Open Group, is currently developing the OFP Data model and reference APIs. Its objective is to facilitate
the integration of emissions data across existing systems.9 This in turn will make it easier for companies toshare, and reference, the source data used to construct emission inventories and optional representation as
CETs. One example of referencing across a group of organizations will also depend on the reporting boundary
applied by both the primary and secondary organizations. For example, under an equity-based approach,referencing should include the CET generation event that captures the amount of CET distributed to each
equity shareholder and therefore the total amount of emissions. An example of such a generation event for
multiple equity shareholders is outlined in the table below. Operational control refers to the total emissions
that are controlled by the operator of any given emitting facility or process.
TABLE 1: EQUITY-BASED INVENTORY MODEL

Project Type

Owner/Partner

Role

Equity Share (%)

Equity emissions Operational(tCO2e/yr)
Control emissions (tCO2e/yr)

Partner 1

Operator

47.33%

2,366,500

Partner 2

Advisor25%

1,250,000

Partner 3

Advisor25%

1,250,000

Partner 4

Offtaker

1.25%

62,500Partner 5

Offtaker

1%

50,000Partner 6

Investor

0.0417%

20,850100%

5,000,000

LNG

Total

5,000,000

5,000,000

Referencing across shareholders in a common project is a simple example. However, in many cases,
referencing will involve the more complex flow of emissions data across the inventories of different
organizations, as opposed to a common inventory as in the equity-based model. For example, Tokens
representing the indirect scope 2 & 3 emissions of one company reference to the direct scope 1 emission
from the source organization. As an example, the Scope 2 tokens of a manufacturer can reference the Scope 1
emissions associated with energy supplied by its electricity utility.
While we are referring to referencing across organizational emissions inventories, the link between
organizations is typically based on product (or service) trade flows. Therefore CET defined by the producttype flag offers a mechanism for referencing emissions across organizational boundaries. The product typeessentially reorganizes the source data used to construct an organization-wide inventory and corresponding
CETs. This requires applying a product carbon footprint reporting approach.
The Pathfinder Framework provides methodological guidance for the accounting and exchange of moreaccurate product-level emissions data in the form of product carbon footprints (PCFs). PCFs can be referenced
by upstream to downstream partners, providing kg of CO2e per declared unit of product.10 Given its objectiveof creating a standard data model with common definitions and APIs, adoption of the OFP standard could
be used as a reference for CET. The OFP Data Model will cover both organizational and product level
perspectives, including direct alignment with the Pathfinder specifications.
9 https://blog.opengroup.org/2023/09/19/enabling-effective-emissions-data-management-and-sharing/
10 https://www.wbcsd.org/contentwbc/download/13299/194600/1

17

FIGURE 2: USING A STANDARD DATA MODEL TO REFERENCE ORGANIZATIONAL PCF STATEMENTS

Figure 2 illustrates how records from a standard data model (e.g., OFP) are used to both construct statementsof an organization’s aggregate emissions (gray boxes) or a subset of their emissions data for a specific productlife cycle analysis. The latter involves analyzing part of an organization’s value chain (yellow and orange boxes)
to construct PCF statements based on product inputs and outputs aligned. This may be done in alignment
with the specifications of the Pathfinder Network.
The PCF statement is calculated and expressed as an emission intensity relative to the declared unit. Further,
the schemas supporting a product life cycle analysis can reference the PCFs of their material inputs — which
can be provided by their suppliers or estimated based on Environmentally-Extended Input-Output (EEIO)
factors— to account for emissions from material acquisition and preprocessing. Intermediate products, e.g,the output of Organization A, can be used as the reference for the final PCF output.
Purchasers of the final products can reference the PCF statement to support the calculation (and minting)of scope 3 emissions. The ability to share and reference PCFs and coordinate emissions data throughout
supply chains can facilitate an ecosystem of dMRV data and support more accurate and transparent productand scope 3 GHG accounting. CET offers a trusted and immutable reference point within, and between, thestructured data sources of organizations. Building trust and transparency, the trust chain of emissions can betraced from product purchases all the way back to the extraction and processing of raw materials.
For example, an aluminum production company, or a smelter, collects emission activity data for its corporate
report, aggregating the direct and indirect sources, organization-wide. Organization scoped CETs are minted,
referencing the source data as necessary (gray boxes in Figure 2). A subset of the source activity data froma particular set of facilities that produce aluminum ingots is used as inputs to calculate a PCF (in kg CO2e/kg Al). The PCF statement references the same source data used by the organization-wide CET, but only thesubset relevant to the CET of the target aluminum production life cycle (yellow and orange boxes in Figure2). This may exclude emissions included in the corporate CET, such as emissions occurring outside the target
production facility, from a batch of ingots not covered by the PCF, or attributed to a co-product such as fromwaste heat sold to a district heating grid.
Downstream, a product such as a semiconductor that uses aluminum as an input can use that CET PCF to
calculate emissions attributable to their upstream acquisition and preprocessing. Those semiconductors
may be an intermediate product to be incorporated into a computer, and the product emission profile ofthe computer could reference the CET PCF of the semiconductors (kg CO2e/chip). Further downstream, thepurchaser of the computers could reference the PCF of the computers (kg CO2e/computer) to calculate theirscope 3 emissions.
18

Non-Transferable (tokenized asset as environmental commodity)
The ‘Non-Transferable’ behavior denies the owner the ability to send a CET to another party or account. CETs
are non-transferable outside of the owner of an organization. However, this does not exclude ownershiptransfer or intra-organizational transfer. Transfer of emissions inventories data downstream is handled
through token referencing, as outlined above.
Note from the authors: Organizations and/or Corporations can transfer internally however must be mindful ofgeographic boundaries and requirements. CETs cannot be transferred outside of the parent organization in which thebusiness unit or sub company resides.
Companies’ accounts and/or identifiers, which would be managed by wallets, can be managed by parent companies,business units, or contractors acting on behalf of a business entity but must maintain auditability to the CET source
and required local accounting rules for that source. Inter-company and Intra-company accounting must reference
the original source CET where possible.
INSET ACCOUNTING EXAMPLE
Insets pertain to specific adjustments in the calculation and reporting of carbon emissions. These adjustments
are applied to ensure congruence between reported emission data and the actual environmental impact of agiven activity, process, or entity. Insets play a pivotal role in providing accurate carbon emissions data.
An example of a carbon emissions reporting inset used for supply chain consideration is Life Cycle Analysis.
Life cycle Insets are used to comprehensively encompass emissions throughout the entire life cycle of a
product or process, spanning pivotal stages such as raw material extraction, manufacturing, transportation,utilization, and eventual disposal. This holistic methodology offers stakeholders a comprehensive perspectiveon the nature of emissions.
How it Works: Farming and Agriculture participants are key contributors to the consumer products supply
chain for the products that are manufactured, distributed and sold in grocery stores. With CETs, carbon
impacts can move from upstream participants (resulting in Scope 3 reporting) to Consumer Packaged Goods(CPG) companies.

Supply Chain Inset Summary#CET with insets* from farmers that deliver sustainable practices result in higher prices for farmers with insets moving onto their
CPG customer. Banks can offer custody, minting, lending.

TCFD Digital
ID Wallet

Farmer w/
Cover Crop

#INSET

TCFD Digital
ID Wallet

Farmer w/
Pastureland#INSET

Grain
Elevator/Aggregator

Consumer Products
Manufacturing

TCFD Digital
ID Wallet

TCFD

TCFD Digital
ID Wallet

993ogh#INSET

Logistics

TCFD Digital
ID Wallet

CO2e

TCFD Compliance
Allocation Key

TCFD Digital
ID Wallet

Customers#CET#INSET
NET:

200
75
125

Scope 3 Stakeholders#INSET

Farmer w/ Methane
Sequestration*insets are registered carbon credits that memorialize
the improvement demonstrated by the supplier.

Regulatory

Banks

Asset Managers

Insurance

19

A holistic GHG mitigation approach for a CPG company involves working with its upstream supply chain, suchas farms, to modify their practices for the benefit of the CPG company. Farmers can utilize insets to enhancetheir contribution to their CPG customers through innovative methods such as soil carbon sequestration,
woodland preservation strategies, and methane capture. These upstream behaviors can be inset alongside
the CET for the farmer and pass along that benefit to the supplier that is purchasing that product. This can befacilitated via supply chain finance lending and with product pricing.
Farmers are increasingly pursuing sustainable practices in order to improve longevity of their soil, reduce
fertilizer and manure run-off that ends up in waterways that create algae blooms that kill wildlife and impact
biodiversity in the ecosystem. Each of these could result in inset supply.
MintableThis behavior supports the minting or issuance of new tokens. New tokens can be minted to the owner’s
account or to another third-party account. CETs are minted according to the organization’s predeterminedfrequency (i.e., temporal boundary) and quantity of CO2e.
Example 1: Emissions data is collected via direct measurement and minted when emissions accumulate to 1 mtCO2e
or depending on the temporal boundary, whichever occurs first.
Company X manufactures widgets at a factory. Continuous emissions monitoring sensors measure emissions
data from a boiler at the factory to an emission inventory platform in real time. Once cumulative emissions
from the boiler equals 1 mtCO2e, a transaction is triggered, and a CET is minted simultaneously.
Example 2: Minting of tokens is based on the predetermined temporal boundary.
Emissions data is collected over a predetermined period, such as one month. Each month, a batch process
triggers the minting transaction at a specified date and time. It can be a daily, weekly or monthly trigger.
For example, Company X’s emissions are calculated each month based on process unit activity data in thefactory. Each month the emissions calculations are executed. The emissions for the month of January 2023
total 5,000 mtCO2e and are stored in a database. Once the emissions calculations have been gone throughthe quality review process, Company X initiates a batch process to mint 5,000 CETs.
Example 3: Minting of tokens is based on a predetermined process boundary.
Company X manufactures widgets at their plant. Company X installs continuous emissions monitoring sensors
to measure GHG emissions data resulting from process units in their facility. Company X has established a CET
minting protocol which is triggered each time a manufacturing phase is complete. As a widget passes througheach phase of manufacturing, the emissions associated with the phase are minted. Note: The CET metadata
does not include specifics about product information or quantities and could only be determined if CETs areallocated to products.

20

Revokable
The ‘Revokable’ behavior includes a controlling central party, i.e., the issuer, with the ability to retire tokens thatit has issued, regardless of the owner. This behavior is necessary to ensure data quality as it permits issuers to
revoke a CET if it is found that data was captured incorrectly.
Example 1: Incorrect metadata was entered during token generation
For example, Company X created a token based on the emissions from a specific plant recorded by a sensor.
Data checks reveal that the date of the emissions generation was captured incorrectly. As a result, the existing
token would be revoked, and a new token would be minted to replace the incorrect one.
Example 2: Over or under accounting of emissions due to manual data entry errors
Emission calculations are based on activity data and industry-accepted generic emission factors. Data checks
reveal that the manual data entry resulted in an overestimate of emissions. As a result, the token generated
for the erroneous emissions is revoked and a new token is created with the updated emissions details.
For example, Company X estimates emissions from its internal transport vehicles with fuel activity data
extracted from invoices. However, at the end of the fiscal year, Company X determines that fuel use wasunderestimated, resulting in fewer GHG emissions and, thus, fewer CETs. The issuer of the tokens would
revoke the original tokens and create new tokens based on the emissions calculated from the updated
fuel usage.
2.1.3 TOKEN PROPERTY SETS
Token property sets are logical groupings of data components associated with a token. Grouping the data
components into property sets allows a set of data points to be utilized by a different token, enabling
consistent data across the DLT. A property set can contain a single data point, such as a stock keeping unit
(SKU), or multiple data points, such as for a mailing address. For example, if the property set represents
customer information, the set would contain fields such as First Name, Last Name, Address, etc. Additionally,
property sets can have nested property sets, such as the detailed address information associated to thecustomer which would require multiple data points. Lastly, a property set may include an identifier that iscommon or shared for all tokens in a class, such as an SKU, or unique for each token in the class, such as aserial number. The property sets defined for the CET are described in detail in Section 4.
TABLE 2: CET BEHAVIORS SUMMARY

Behavior Divisible Delegable Offsetable

Roles

Referenceable Transferable

Mintable Revokable

CET

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Only within
emitter’s
geographic
boundary

Yes

21

2.2

CET market roles

The roles in the emission token market define an organization’s responsibilities and actions in the marketplace and in
the life cycle of an emission token. Participants may have multiple roles within the marketplace. Note that these roles
differ (though they may overlap) from the roles discussed above in the CET behavior section of this document. The rolesin the CET behavior section are taken with the technological lens of the token in mind while the roles discussed in thissection are taken with the emissions lens in mind. Figure 3 provides a high-level overview of the relationship between
the different market roles.
FIGURE 3: CET MARKET ROLES FLOW OVERVIEW

The sections below describe the market roles that a participant may assume in the emissions tokens DLT marketplace.
2.2.1 EMISSIONS GENERATOR / CET OWNERS
The owner is the original generator and owner of the tokenized emissions. Specifically, the tokenizedemissions resulted from a process or action under the purview of the owner, either directly (scope 1) orindirectly (scope 2 and scope 3). The owner’s information is contained in the token data as ‘OrgId’ and‘OrganizationName’ (discussed further in Section 4).
2.2.2 THIRD-PARTY VERIFIERS
The third-party verifier is an independent third-party who assesses the owner’s data collection processes
and verifies emissions calculations to assure consistency and comparability in the DLT. The verification andassurance approach should be consistent with the requirements of ISO14064-3. The third-party verifier
information is contained in the token data as ‘ThirdPartyVerificationDone’ and ‘ThirdPartyVerificationDetail’(discussed further in Section 4).

22

2.2.3 EXCHANGE OR MARKETPLACE PROVIDER11
The exchange or marketplace provider is the organization that provides the virtual infrastructure to facilitate
how a CET can be integrated with different types of carbon markets. This may include regulated markets,
such as an emissions trading system (ETS), subject to cap-and trade rules, or tracking emission taxation
requirements such as under the carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) introduced by the EU toaddress carbon leakage into its national ETS. Markets may also be voluntary, such as the UNFCCC agreement
to structure the international trade of emission reductions under Article 6.4 of the Paris Agreement, orthe trade of performance certificates such as Certified Emissions Reductions (CERs). CET may be used as areference by existing markets to assess applicable emissions inventories that an organization reports to themarket. The CET may be used to determine emission allowances that the organization must purchase underan ETS, or the total emissions subject to a carbon tax applied in the jurisdictions where it operates. Anotheruse is referencing transactions across carbon markets in different jurisdictions. Under some mechanisms,
such as the CBAM, emissions credits, allowances and other tariffs may have an impact on the emissions andfinancial accounting for products that move across jurisdictions, such as from the ETS in China to one in theEU.
2.2.4 OFFSET SUPPLIERS
The offsets suppliers are the individuals or organizations which are selling tokenized carbon offset credits
resulting from carbon emissions reduction or removal projects or programs, which have been validated orverified by a third-party. CET owners may seek to match up CETs with offset credits to achieve GHG emissions
reductions goals.

2.3

Process overview from data collection to tokenization of emissions

The specific steps for data collection, GHG emissions calculation, and tokenization of those emissions will vary byparticipant.
2.3.1 DATA COLLECTION AND/OR DIRECT MEASUREMENT OF EMISSIONS
Activity data supporting emissions calculations is collected either manually or via remote metering. Emissions
data may also be measured directly at the source. Organizations shall adhere to industry requirements
and the Corporate Standard for data collection, meter calibration, and overall data standards and quality
improvement. For allocation of emissions to a product and its co-products, companies must identify processes
that are totally or partially attributable to the specific life cycle.
2.3.2 DATA STORAGE
Data collected or metered, including emissions direct measurement, is stored by the organization or a thirdparty (if outsourced). Data should be stored in any way that meets the organization’s needs, including data
warehouses, data lakes, Microsoft Excel- or Access-based, etc.
2.3.3 DATA VALIDATION
Data is validated and assessed for reasonability. Data validation is critical to ensuring emissions calculations'and results' reliability. This level of data quality checks may be done internally by the organization.
Organizations shall leverage the WRI’s guidance documents, including the Corporate Standard, the GHG
Protocol Corporate Value Chain (Scope 3) Accounting and Reporting Standard (referred to as the Corporate
Value Chain Reporting Standard) and the Product Life Cycle Standard, to manage inventory quality and ensure
continuous improvement.
2.3.4 MAPPING AND CALCULATIONS
Data is mapped to process units and emission models. Calculations are executed at the frequency requiredby the organization and regulatory agencies. Organizations shall prioritize industry standards for emissions
calculations methodology. If industry standards are not available, organizations shall refer to the applicable
WRI’s GHG Protocol guidance documents.

11 https://assets.ctfassets.net/so75yocayyva/4UrBVQ4IFYkwlgP2lc2CqF/70c40baadaf0ac4dd7cc5684838bc47b/Carbon_Emissions_
Reporting_-_IWA.pdf

23

2.3.5 DATA AND EMISSIONS RESULTS VERIFICATION
Emissions results and data are verified by an independent third-party verifier. The verifier examines datacollection processes, data quality, and calculation methodologies. Emissions results are either verified fortokenization or recommendations are provided for quality improvement. Verification requirements for CET
minting are discussed further below.
2.3.6 TOKENIZATION
In a DLT ecosystem, tokens are assets that allow information and value to be transferred, stored, and verified
in an efficient and secure manner. These tokens can be programmed with unique characteristics using
smart contracts that expand their usability. Security tokens, utility tokens, and cryptocurrencies have massive
implications for a wide array of sectors in terms of increasing liquidity, improving transaction efficiency, andenhancing transparency and provability to assets.
Tokenization is done on DLT platforms to create tokens which represent physical or non-physical assets on the
DLT. To ensure uniformity and universal acceptance, a token generally follows a set of pre-defined standards
that are agreed upon and approved by a group of organizations or a community who define the usability
and applicability of the token. A token standard is an interface, and a set of rules, that a smart contract must
respect to be compatible with the common standards.
•••

Typically, token standards define how tokens can be transferred and how to keep a consistentrecord of those transfers on the network.
Multiple implementations of a standard can co-exist, but they must all respect the interface andrules of the standard.
Standards ensure that smart contracts remain compatible, so for instance, when a new projectissues a token, it remains compatible with the existing decentralized exchanges, wallets, etc.

While DLT stores data in a distributed ledger in such a way that the data becomes immutable and tamper
evident, there is a limit to the amount of data that can be directly fed and stored in the DLT directly due tothe high cost, complexity, computational power, and time required. Thus, various other distributed storage
mechanisms like IPFS (interplanetary file system), Filecoin, etc. are used in tandem with cryptography andmechanism like ZKP (Zero Knowledge Proof), Merkel tree, etc. to ensure data integrity and transactional
feasibility in a DLT system.

24

3.0 CET PARTICIPANT
REQUIREMENTS

The requirements conveyed herein shall be adhered to by participants to ensure consistent, transactable, and verifiable
CETs.

3.1 Protocol and guiding principles

In alignment with established GHG accounting principles and frameworks, the emissions accounting methodology for
tokenization shall adhere to the principles described below.
Relevance
The tokenized emissions are a digital representation and should accurately represent the GHG emissions of theorganization and associated product.
Completeness
Organizations shall account for all emissions relevant to the level at which emissions are collected, i.e., process-, facility-,
product-level.
Consistency
Organizations shall be consistent in calculation methodologies to enable comparability and transactability.
Accuracy
Organizations shall have reasonable assurance regarding emissions estimation accuracy to the best of their knowledge,
reduce uncertainties where possible and attain verification from an independent third-party.
Transparency
Organizations shall document emissions calculations assumptions, maintain audit documentation and be transparent
when tokens need to be revoked due to errors. Documentation shall be made available for third-party review to support
token transactions as needed.
Emissions estimates, data collection, quality management, calculation methodologies, and verification shall adhere to the
WRI GHG Protocol standards, which requires prioritization of industry-accepted standards (e.g., the American Petroleum
Institute’s Compendium of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Methodologies) and, if an industry standard is not available, theemissions estimation methodologies shall utilize the WRI’s standards, guidance documents, and calculation tools asapplicable.

25

3.2

Data quality and emissions assurance and verification
3.2.1 DATA QUALITY DEFINITIONS AND GUIDELINESThe Product Life Cycle Standard describes a hierarchy of data preference as follows: primary direct data, thenprimary indirect data followed by secondary data. Additionally, data may be provided by a third-party or may
be measured by the participant directly. This standard defines these data types in Table 3 below to ensure
consistency across participants.
TABLE 3: DATA QUALITY TERMINOLOGY

Category

Sub-Category

Definition

Primary direct data

Owned

Data that is measured directly at the source, e.g.,continuous emissions measurement systems, metered flow
measurements, gaseous fuel sampling, and product flow
measurement. The data is measured or estimated by theowner of the process, activity, etc. for emissions which fallwithin the participant’s scope 1 organizational boundary.

Primary indirect data

Owned

Data that is estimated based on industry-accepted
methodologies, e.g., component counts and engineering
assumptions, modeled gaseous fuel composition basedon the specific process. Standardized component leakage
rates, if modified based on primary direct gas compositions,would also be primary indirect data. The data is measured
or estimated by the owner of the process, activity, etc.
for emissions which fall within the participant’s scope 1
organizational boundary.

Primary direct data

Third-party
provided

Data that is measured directly at the source, e.g., meteredflow measurements, gaseous fuel sampling, and productflow measurement. Data is not measured or estimated by
the owner of the process, activity, etc., but is provided by athird-party, such as a fuel supplier, etc.

Primary indirect data Third-party
provided

Data that is estimated based on industry-accepted
methodologies, e.g., component counts and engineering
assumptions, modeled gaseous fuel composition basedon the specific process. Standardized component leakage
rates, if modified based on primary direct gas compositions,would also be primary indirect data. Data is not measured
or estimated by the owner of the process, activity, etc., but
is provided by a third-party, such as a fuel supplier, etc.

Secondary data

Process and activity data that is not from specific processes
which results in the emissions, e.g., proxy data.

Third-party
provided

One of the most important indicators of the quality of GHG calculations and accounting is the quality ofthe emission factors being used. Regarding scope 3 and product calculations, emission factors can range
considerably in quality, for example from low-quality EEIO factors that represent averages across wide
geographies and industries, to supplier specific PCFs that could be based on a specific batch or unit of a
product or material input. Regarding scope 2 emission calculations, the granularity of electrical grid emission
factors may range from country-wide emission factors to specific eGRID subregions. In addition, some gridemission factors (i.e., residual mix emission factors) account for renewable energy sales, while most do not,which results in considerable double counting of renewable energy benefits. It is also common for emission
factors to be based on years-old emissions data, thus lacking temporal relevance. It is important to be able toidentify the specific factors used and determine the quality of the emission factors and the resulting
emission calculations.
26

In turn, as emission factors are calculated based on emissions data, the ability to transparently discover andreference high-quality granular emissions data (and specific attributes) can help the development of higher
quality emissions factors. As higher quality emissions data become available throughout supply chains, thesecan support the development of better EEIO factors that are based on emission data from more specificproducts, suppliers, geographies, and time frames. Further, as data on energy generation and renewableenergy become available at higher granularities and temporal relevance, higher quality grid emissions factors
can be developed that more closely reflect the times of production and consumption as well as renewableenergy that has already been sold and claimed. Higher transparency and availability of such data can help
avoid double counting and support concepts such as 24/7 Carbon Free Energy12. Therefore, it is crucial to beable to identify and discover specific CET attributes that can support the development of better
emissions factors.
The percentage of primary data used in emissions calculations shall be included in CET documentation. It is
expected that the use of primary data will increase over time to improve the quality of the emissions data.
Data quality, criteria and required data components are discussed further below.
CET participants shall identify and document sources of uncertainty in their reported emissions. In line with
the Product Life Cycle Standard, a qualitative statement regarding calculation assumptions, and methodology
is sufficient; however, applicable quantitative assessments are desirable for a comprehensive evaluation ofdata integrity and can aid in comparison of reported emissions across products, processes, or industries.
Relevant qualitative disclosures and quantitative assessments of uncertainty can include information on directemissions and activity data, emissions factor data, and methodological decisions like allocation or process
scenario assumptions.
When collecting and assessing data quality, the GHGP Product Life Cycle Standard specifies that “companies
shall collect primary data for all processes under their ownership or control” and “assess the data quality ofactivity data, emission factors, and/or direct emissions data by using the data quality indicators” (see Glossary
for term definitions). Further, for significant processes, “companies shall report a descriptive statement on thedata sources, the data quality, and any efforts taken to improve data quality.”13
The five data quality indicators outlined by the GHGP and reiterated by the Pathfinder Framework are as
follows:
•
•
•
•
•

12
13

Technological representativeness: the degree to which the data reflect the actual technology(ies) usedin the process.
Geographical representativeness: the degree to which the data reflects actual geographic location of
the processes within the inventory boundary (e.g., country or site).
Temporal representativeness: the degree to which the data reflect the actual time (e.g., year) or age ofthe process.
Completeness: the degree to which the data are statistically representative of the process sites.
Reliability: the degree to which the sources, data collection methods, and verification procedures used toobtain the data are dependable.

https://www.wri.org/initiatives/247-carbon-free-energy
https://ghgprotocol.org/product-standard

27

FIGURE 4: SAMPLE SCORING CRITERIA FOR PERFORMING A QUALITATIVE DATA QUALITY ASSESSMENT

The table above (from the GHGP Product Life Cycle Standard) provides guidance on how each indicator can beassessed and scored qualitatively.14
The Pathfinder Framework adopts and builds on the requirements of the GHGP Product Life Cycle Standard.
The Pathfinder Framework establishes a data quality hierarchy, stipulating that “activity data that is used to
calculate PCF shall be company-specific", i.e., primary data and that “secondary data shall only be used when
primary data is not available and be sourced from accepted global or national emission factor databases.” Thedata hierarchy for energy and material inputs are outlined in the table below.15

Data Hierarchy for Energy and Material Inputs
ACTIVITY DATA SOURCEEMISSION FACTOR SOURCEAPPROACH

EnergyMaterial

EnergyMaterial

For on-site production:
In-house/primary

From suppliers or
via Pathfinder
Network: primaryBest Case

In-house/primary

Base Case

In-house/primary

Secondary databases

Worst Case

In-house/primary

Data proxies

For supplier-specific electricity:
Primary/guarantee of origin

Electricity, heating/cooling, steam
Prevalent approach in practice1415

https://ghgprotocol.org/product-standard
https://www.wbcsd.org/contentwbc/download/13299/194600/1

28

The Pathfinder Framework also requires that companies provide the primary data share (PDS) used in
calculations to be disclosed when data is exchanged. The equation for calculating PDS is shown below.16

Part of PCF based on
primary data (CO2e)
PCF (CO2e)= PDS PCF (%)

The table below outlines the information that companies should share related to data collection and quality.17

1617

https://www.wbcsd.org/contentwbc/download/13299/194600/1
https://www.wbcsd.org/contentwbc/download/13299/194600/1

29

3.2.2 EMISSIONS ASSURANCE AND VERIFICATION
Inaccurate or inconsistent emissions calculations present a potentially significant risk to the long-term vision
discussed above. Thus, participants are strongly encouraged to obtain assurance through two methods: 1)
review of the digitization and general emissions inventory approach to ensure conformance to acceptedindustry standards and other frameworks (e.g., CET Protocol, GHG Protocol, Pathfinder Framework, etc.) and 2)
verification of the emissions calculations with a focus on primary and secondary data sources, calculations
reliability, etc. Assurance and verification should be received from an independent third party, having GHG
verification competencies relevant to the industry sector, including product life cycle and GHG emissions
accounting. The verifier shall assess the organization’s GHG emissions processes, data sources, procedures,and calculation methodologies.
As is expected by other GHG and life cycle protocols and frameworks, the third-party verifier shall be properly
accredited to provide assurance and shall have access to evidence including data sources, databases, and anyother systems or models used to calculate and allocate emissions, as applicable. An opinion letter disclosing
the level of assurance must be issued by the verifier, and the letter must include the CET’s unique GHG
identification number (i.e., GHGId, see Section 4 for details). This letter and other verification documentation
would be accessible upon request with the Id path under ‘ThirdPartyVerificationDetail’ (see Section 4 fordetails). A Verification Process Agreement is between the emitting organization, applied standard, and theauditor for the collection and verification of emissions data. Here the terms and conditions of the verification
process are agreed to and documented. All artifacts in the emissions data collection process are linked tothis agreement. The emitter may choose to switch standards or auditor and create a new agreement forverification.
As would be the case for any company that uses audited financials for financial reporting, those same inputs(i.e., accounts payable invoices from suppliers and vendors) can be used as attribution for indirect primarydata that is third-party sourced. Because this data is used for assurance for financial reporting, it too can berelied upon for assurance for climate reporting, thereby accelerating and expediting the assurance process
for climate reporting. Careful consideration should be taken regarding implementation and actionable token
behaviors prior to receiving assurances of the digitization and calculation methodology. In this framework,
data sources refer to the multiple origins from which relevant climate and financial data are collected. These
could include, but are not limited to, direct monitoring equipment, supplier invoices, activity data meters (e.g.
flow meters for fuel consumption), third-party audits, and public or private databases. All data undergoes
a stringent verification process in line with industry best practices, ensuring its reliability and credibility forvarious use cases. The mechanism for data sources and collection would inform the overall data quality. The
mechanism for data collection and verification serves as a key indicator of the data’s reliability. By providing aclear, auditable path from data acquisition to data usage, the mechanism ensures the data’s integrity.
For more on this topic see the discussion on referenceability and accuracy of data in section 5 and a hierarchyof risks faced by CET.

30

According to the Greenhouse Gas Protocol Corporate Value Chain (Scope 3) Accounting and ReportingStandard, “There are several challenges in assuring scope 3 inventories. Emissions calculations rely
on a mixture of data sources and assumptions. Inventory uncertainty, including scenario uncertainty
related to the use and end-of-life treatment of sold products, may affect the quality of the inventory.
It is important to consider the state of data collection systems and the integrity of the data andmethodological choices when performing assurance. One of the primary challenges is that theemission sources are removed from the reporting company’s control, reducing the assurer’s ability toobtain sufficient appropriate evidence. Two approaches to addressing this diminishing control are to: 1.
Change the level of assurance, or 2. Rely on the assurance statement of another assurer for emission
and removal sources outside of the company’s control (i.e., assurance over a supplier’s emission
sources by a different assurance firm)”.
In interactions with auditors and assurance providers, and accounting academia, some have expressed
concerns and practical barriers to entry for Reasonable assurance for downstream scope 3 emissions“reasonable assurance”. If there are acceptable methods in the use of referenceable data, it is recommended
that this taskforce work closely with auditors and academics, as well as standards, to evolve technicalspecifications for referenceable assurance to mirror the referenceable data for use in the CET Protocol.

Source:https://ghgprotocol.org/sites/default/files/standards/Corporate-Value-Chain-Accounting-Reporing-Standard_041613_2.pdf

31

3.2.3 REPORTING
Distributed Ledger Technology keeps records of all transactions recorded securely without the possibilityof tampering, which may provide efficiencies in reporting and ultimately verification of carbon emissions
distributed processes across parties such as an emitting organization, auditors, and parties such as reporting
standards bodies, government organizations, and consumers. DLT transaction concepts are discussed below
prior to delving into the nuances.
•

•
•
•
•

Digital credentials, in the form of cryptographic private keys, manage tokens and, in some cases, identifiers
and identities. Each credential has a corresponding public address or account ID that allows its ownerto receive assets, similar to an email address. Anyone can create multiple credentials and use them fordifferent purposes.
A digital wallet, or wallet, is a digital safe storing digital credentials. The owner of the credentials can create
and control a wallet directly (self-custodial wallet) or delegate its management to a third party (custodial
wallet). The wallet’s controller unlocks the wallet and uses the credentials inside to initiate transactions.
A transaction ID, usually a hash, uniquely identifies each transaction so anyone can leverage that ID toretrieve transaction data provably.
Token transfer transactions involve a “From” and a “To” address or account ID. The “From” address is where
the tokens originated in the transaction, representing a person, organization, or entity. The “To” address isthe recipient of the tokens. Addresses may or may not be linked to identities and decentralized identifiers.
In a particular system, there may be multiple tokens that have different uses in accounting.
In adherence with the CET, the following activities/methods may occur:

•
•
•
•

Mint – When a new token is minted against a class. For a minting transaction, the “From” address is 0 andthe “To” address is the wallet address of the token minting entity.
Burn – When a token is removed from the supply on the ledger. It should be noted that the token will
preserve all of the historical details like metadata (and if allowed) transfer history, which will be useful for
audit and assurance purposes.
Offset18 – When a token is retired after pairing it with a carbon credit.
Transfer – When there is a transfer of the token from one party to another, however, Scope 1 Carbon
Emissions are Transferable within the corporate and geographic boundary and Referenceable outside thoseboundaries as indirect emissions types.
Below is a representation of the life cycle for a CET token - differentiating between the business activities andhow those concretely manifest on a DLT.

BUSINESS

Setup/config

CONCRETE

Create TokenClass

E.g. Fungible token withname of ‘GHG Protocol
Scope 1‘ etc. Links toproject data

Recordemissions

Mint Token
Instance(s)E.g. Mint token
instances against class.
Links to dMRV data

(OPT) Internal
accounting/aggregation

OffsetReport(OPT) transfer

Burn/wipe

Collect proofs

It may be appropriate to transfer
the token instances to anotherwallet owned by emitter

Retire an appropriateof asset token(s), e.g.,
CRU, CCP to mitigate
these emissions

Use on & off-chain
data to enableverification ofreporting claims

18
https://assets.ctfassets.net/so75yocayyva/2hDgOuwSInFmXaKDWB7r7v/496b5c751a3c18c3b7eb4ce7ccf5ad1d/
Voluntary_Ecological_Markets__VEM__2_-_IWA.pdf - Page 48
32

The first step is to create a token class with properties as defined by this specification, e.g. fungible, infinite
supply etc . It will be subsequently minting token instances against this token class for emissions which arerecorded. Minting may manifest differently on different DLTs, e.g. via a smart contract or via native support.
The account into which these token instances are subsequently placed effectively owns the associatedemissions and the responsibility to mitigate them (or at minimum report them). It may be appropriate
for that entity to aggregate such token instances with other CET instances corresponding to different
business processes or business units, but such transfers should not cross the organizational boundary.
When appropriate, the entity that owns the token instances may choose to offset them by matching with anappropriate number of other tokens that represent an environmental asset - with the end result that both the
CET and asset token are removed from their respective supplies. This offsetting and associated retirement of
the asset token(s) may manifest differently on different DLTs. Finally, the full life cycle, from minting through tooffsetting, can be included in the entity’s sustainability reporting - with appropriate proofs from the DLT
as evidence.

COMPANY A

Below is a version of the above diagram that incorporates the referencing aspect.

BUSINESS

Setup/config

CONCRETE

Create TokenClass

COMPANY B

E.g. Fungible token withname of ‘GHG Protocol
Scope 1‘. Links to projectdata

BUSINESS

Setup/config

CONCRETE

Create TokenClass

E.g. Fungible token withname of ‘GHG Protocol
Scope 2‘. Links to projectdata

Record scope
1 emissions

Mint Token
Instance(s)E.g. Mint token instances
against class. Links to
dMRV data

Track scope 2
emissions

Mint Token
Instance(s)E.g. Mint token instances.
Refers to scope 1 token ofCompany A(OPT) Internal
accounting/aggregation

OffsetReport(OPT) transfer

Burn/wipe

Collect
proofsInternal transfer

Retire an appropriate of Use on & off-chain data
asset token(s), e.g., CRU, to enable verification of
CCP to mitigate thesereporting claims
emissions(OPT) Internal
accounting/aggregation

OffsetReport(OPT) transfer

Burn/wipe

Collect
proofsInternal/external transfer

Retire an appropriate of Use on & off-chain data
asset token(s), e.g., CRU, to enable verification of
CCP to mitigate thesereporting claims
emissions

For a specific address, the number of tokens in the wallet would increase if a participant:• Mints a scope 1 emission token
For a specific address, the number of tokens in the wallet would decrease if the participant:• Burns a scope 1 emission token due to wrongful minting/changes, such as after an audit

33

3.3

Temporal boundary

Tokens shall have an associated temporal boundary of 12 months or less contained within the ‘Carbon Emission Scopeand Properties’ property set outlined in Section 4 which reflects the time frame during which the emissions weregenerated, i.e., the time during which the activity-causing emissions occurred. The Tokens should be minted within
the temporal boundary and should be both created and minted as close to the time of emission as possible to ensurereferenceability by indirect emitters. As such, the total emissions within a given temporal boundary shall be allocated tothe outputs or measured values within that same boundary.

3.4

Scope and categories

Redundant emissions resulting from minting scope 2 and scope 3 emissions present a significant risk to the universal
trusted repository of GHG emissions. Tokens shall be minted only to the three designations of the GHG classification
system: scope 1, scope 2 and scope 3 emissions. The emissions scope shall be captured in the ‘Scope’ data component
and shall be immutable.
Companies are responsible for minting their own CETs for direct, scope 1 emissions. As scope 1 CETs are allocatedto outputs or products throughout the value chain or referenced by third parties, the scope 1 CETs must retain their
original scope and minting organization information (i.e., OrgId and OrgName). However they would represent thescope 3 CETs for member companies of the studied value chain, either upstream or downstream. Note that third-party
referencing may include financial products supplied to a project as an input. In this case financial inputs may reference
CET balances of the primary organization to determine the financial interests. This could be achieved using different
accounting methodologies, such as the financial control or equity based reporting boundaries discussed in Section 3.5.
If suppliers or utility companies do not participate in the DLT ecosystem, companies may mint scope 2 and scope 3
CETs to provide the full scope of emission footprints related to a facility, process, output or product. However, similar to
scope 1 emissions, these indirect scope 2 and 3 CETs may not be transferred to avoid redundant emissions in a wallet.
The ‘Scope or PCF’ data component of scope 3 tokens shall document the relevant scope 3 category (i.e., Category 1
through 15 from the WRI’s Corporate Value Chain Reporting Standard).
3.4.1 SCOPE 2 CALCULATION METHODOLOGY
Following issuance of the Corporate Standard, organizations found difficulty in accounting for renewableenergy purchases when accounting for scope 2 GHG emissions. As a result, the WRI published the GHG
Protocol Scope 2 Guidance, An Amendment to the GHG Protocol Corporate Standard (referred to as the Scope
2 Guidance) to provide guidance and standardization regarding reporting scope 2 emissions in markets
with product or supplier-specific data in the form of contractual instruments. For consistency, participants
shall calculate scope 2 emissions in accordance with the Scope 2 Guidance. Specifically, organizations with
operations in markets which provide product or supplier-specific data in the form of contractual instruments
shall account and report emissions according to both the location-based and market-based methodologies
as outlined in the Scope 2 Guidance section 7.1. CETs may be minted according to either the market-based or
location-based methodology, and accompanying token metadata shall specify which methodology was usedand shall also specify the result calculated according to the alternative methodology.

34

Calculations performed under the market-based methodology must follow the quality criteria assessmentof contractual instruments outlined in the Scope 2 Guidance. If the contractual instruments do not meetthe minimum necessary features, they should not be included in the calculations for scope 2 emissions.
Organizations with operations located in markets that do not provide product or supplier-specific data, orother contractual instruments, shall utilize the location-based method to calculate scope 2 emissions andmint CETs.
3.4.2 SCOPE 3 OR VALUE CHAIN EMISSIONS
Scope 3 emissions, or value chain emissions, result from activities not owned or controlled by the emittingorganization. These can be considered indirect emissions not accounted for in Scope 1 or Scope 2 reported
emissions. There are 15 categories defined in the GHG Protocol’s Corporate Value Chain (Scope 3) Accounting
and Reporting Standard. Scope 3 emissions happen both upstream and downstream to the specificemitters gate to gate calculation. These emissions generally are not in the organizations direct control, butorganizations that emit may be able influence vendors, partners, and adjacent organizations to reduce theseemissions.

Each category generally has multiple acceptable accounting approaches, but, as data becomes moreavailable, the acceptable approach may change over time.19 For the CET it is recommended that eachcategory is reported and a token is minted, even with a zero value, representing the acceptable approach. In
the context of specific methods, we recommend referenceable data is used. For categories where there isa lack of data and there are not immediate reporting scope 3 requirements, it is recommended data is stillcollected and that approaches be designed as regulatory standards and rules maturity scales for scope 3.
This will be required in some jurisdictions, and onboarding periods as well as baseline data may be required
to meet scope 3 standards or provable reductions in value chain emissions.

19
https://www.epa.gov/climateleadership/scope-3-inventory-guidance#:~:text=Scope%203%20emissions%20are%20the,scope%201%20and%202%20boundary35

3.5 Organizational boundary
The WRI Corporate Standard provides several consolidation approaches for companies to report emissions on either
a control basis or an equity share basis that naturally fits their visibility into emissions producing activities. In theoperational control case, this allows companies to emphasize emissions they have direct control over and are, thus,
in a better position to reduce. The risk of redundant emissions reporting within a CET framework can occur if twoorganizations apply different and overlapping reporting boundaries. However, as is further detailed in Section 5 on therisks facing CET, double counting from overlapping reporting boundaries is labeled as an allowed or permitted risk. Thisis expected to occur based on the needs of different organizations.
Given the different approaches used for different reporting use cases, it is important that organizations specify themethod used when using the CET DLT ecosystem. Consistency across participants that hold interests in the same
operation is important. This can be achieved by coordinating the minting of CET through a Verification Process
Agreement that applies the same consolidation approach for multiple organizations. For example the equity shareapproach provides a consistent method to distribute scope 1 and 2 emissions across organizations that control an
operation, and others that only carry an equity stake.
For example, real estate Company A has a 30% stake in a commercial office building, while Company B maintains a 70%
stake. Company B has operational control of the office building. In this scenario, Company A is responsible for, andthus would mint, 30% of the total scope 2 emissions from the commercial office building and Company B would mint
the other 70% of the scope 2 emissions. If Company B were to use an operational control approach, Company B would
account for 100% of the scope 2 emissions. Thus, consistency of the consolidation method selected minimizes the riskof duplicate tokenized emissions on the DLT.
The CET does not rule out the application of different boundaries, as different organizations may have different
requirements. In addition, the same organization may apply different consolidation approaches in different contexts,
including satisfying the requirements of different stakeholders. The main risks that need to be avoided are conflictin financial interests or regulatory compliance, such as under an emissions trading scheme. Therefore, consistentboundary requirements may be set based on the needs of the reporting entities in a particular context or application.
36

According to the GHG Protocol, “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 thefinancial control approach), emissions from that joint operation could be double counted.”20
If the focus is on financed emissions, the Partnership for Carbon Accounting Financials (PCAF) requires using thefinancial control approach to report all loans and other investments as scope 3 category 15 (investments) of the
Corporate Standard.21 This PCAF standard was recommended under the guidance of the Science Based Target initiative(SBTi) and reported by the Task Force on climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD)22.
It avoids inconsistencies in the reporting of financed emissions under different scopes defined by the WRI. An example
of an inconsistency is the exclusion of the equity share of scope 1 and 2 emissions from scope 3 category 15, which
would be reported as scope 1 and 2 under the equity approach, separate from other financial instruments, such as
debt.
Financial and operational control are commonly used for regulatory reporting, such as applied to direct emissions
under an emissions trading scheme. However, there may be situations where both the partial (equity basis) and total(financial/operational control) reporting base are needed:
•
•
.

3.6

requirement to report on the equity boundary as a partial shareholder in emission reduction projects
whether it has financial control over them or not(e.g., a future SEC/FINRA requirement);an organization operating a project needs to report the operational control boundary (e.g., to comply withperformance based financing).

Global Warming Potential

The GHGs covered by the Kyoto Protocol, including carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), sulfur
hexafluoride (SF6), nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), and perfluorocarbons (PFCs), shall be calculated(as applicable) separately and then converted to CO2 equivalents (CO2e) for tokenization. For conversion to CO2e,organizations shall use the 100-year Global Warming Potential (GWP) factors from the most recent Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment Report (AR) within one year of its release. Token data shall include thebreakdown of the CO2e component emissions, including CO2, CH4, N2O, SF6, NF3, HFCs, PFCs.
In cases where the CO2e conversion factors are embedded in the industry-provided emission factor, and the emission
factor is not updated in a timely manner to reflect the updated IPCC AR, the organization shall use the most updated
emission factor available to them.
There may be cases where another GWP factor needs to be applied for reporting purposes driven by a regulatory
requirement, for example to emphasize the short-term impacts of GHGs. The CET does not enforce a particular GWP
assumption for reporting purposes. Conforming to the most recent IPCC AR 100-year GWP enables easy conversion
across various CET implementations. Also see the GWP Factor Adjustment in Section 4.3 Table 6 (Carbon Emission
Attributes) to support documentation of different GWP reporting requirements.
Differences in GWP may be minor or major, depending on the time scale considered. An organization may apply aslightly different GWP than used to consolidate national inventories by a regional government. The IPCC AR 100-year
GWP calculates the average warming potential of GHGs with a much shorter lifespan in the atmosphere, compared toCO2, around 28 times for methane (CH4). However given the very short lifespan of CH4, its GWP may be reported overa much shorter time period. For example, a project accounting for the impacts of methane venting or leakage events,
independent of other CO2 emissions, may be concerned with offsetting the GHG impact over the next 20 years. In thiscase the GWP is around 86, accounting for 3 times more than the 100-year GWP. Ensuring the validity, or insuring, anoffset purchase over a 20 year period may be more realistic than the 100-year equivalent.

20
https://ghgprotocol.org/sites/default/files/standards/ghg-protocol-revised.pdf
21Page 3 Box A1: https://www.fsb.org/wp-content/uploads/P141021-2.pdf
22
See section 4.2 of the Financed Emissions Standard: https://carbonaccountingfinancials.com/en/standard#the-global-ghg-accounting-and-reporting-standard-for-the-financial-industry

37

4.0 CET DATA ELEMENTS SUMMARY

The IWA Taskforce identified basic data components necessary to describe the origin, GHG emission properties, andattributes of each CET. These data components were logically grouped into three sets of token properties: Carbon
Emission Generator Object, Carbon Emission Scope and Properties, and Carbon Emission Attributes. As discussed
above, the components, or property sets, are generic to enable their application to other token initiatives. The
description of each property set, and the relevant data components classified under the set, are outlined below.
Numeric value of metric tonnes emitted is quantified in the token quantity.
View the CET definition in the IWA’s TTF GitHub repository here.

4.1 Carbon Emission Generator Object (EGO)

A token class that implements this set of properties will have a Carbon Emission Generator Object (EGO) with a Read/
Query and Set control. An EGO has two fields that are used to identify the object to which the carbon emissions are
attributed. This is useful when referencing or accounting for a fractional CET resulting from value chain emissions
attributed to a specific workload or asset.
TABLE 4: CARBON EMISSION GENERATOR OBJECTEGO Property

Output Data

Sample Data

EGOId

Unique number or identifier given to each EGO. (Refer IS122504
to the EGOName parameter description for details.)

EGONameName and/or description of the process, facility,
output or value which resulted in or generated thetokenized emissions. It can be the name of the process or the product or the facility associated with theemission. Essentially, the EGO is the emission generator and can refer to any level (e.g., process, facility,
product, or value) based on the situation and requirements.

natural gas

Organization

Output Data

Sample Data

OrgId

ID of the organization that is accountable for the toke- C12786
nized emissions.

OrgNameName of the organization associated with the OrgId
that is accountable for the tokenized emissions.

Upstream Oil, Inc.

Site Information

Output Data

Sample Data

SiteIdID of the site or facility where the emissions weregenerated

C12786-1

SiteName

Name of the facility where the emissions were generated

Gathering and Boosting 1
38

4.2 Carbon Emission Scope and Properties

A token class that implements this set of properties will have the properties related to the generation of the greenhousegas emissions, including the emission quantity, data collection period, and scope. The property set will have details
regarding the scope of the emissions, i.e., Scope 1 (direct), Scope 2 (indirect), or Scope 3 (indirect), and if emissions are
attributed to Scope 3 sources, the emissions should be categorized according to the WRI’s Corporate Value Chain ReportingStandard (i.e., Category 1 through 15).
TABLE 5: CARBON EMISSION SCOPE AND PROPERTIES

Emission Property

Description

Sample Data

GHGId

Unique alphanumeric identifier given to a particular set of emissions, e.g., 1
metric ton CO2e, generated from a single source.

GIDIS122504

Scope or PCF

Per the WRI Corporate Standard:
Scope 1: Direct GHG emissions
Direct GHG emissions occur from sources that are owned or controlled by
the organization, for example, emissions from combustion in owned or controlled boilers, furnaces, vehicles, etc.; emissions from chemical production in
owned or controlled process equipment.
Scope 2: Indirect GHG emissions from grid-supplied electricity
Scope 2 accounts for GHG emissions from the generation of purchased
electricity consumed by the organization. Purchased electricity is definedas electricity that is purchased or otherwise brought into the organizationalboundary of the entity that is tokenizing emissions. Scope 2 emissions physically occur at the facility where electricity is generated.
Scope 3: Indirect GHG emissions from other sources, outside of scope 2.
3.15 OR PCF
Scope 3 is an optional reporting category that allows for the treatment of allother indirect emissions. Scope 3 emissions are a consequence of the activities of the company but occur from sources not owned or controlled by thecompany. Some examples of scope 3 activities are extraction and productionof purchased materials; transportation of purchased fuels; and use of soldproducts and services.
Refer to Section 3.5 for further details on the scope and safeguards to manage redundant emissions accounting.
The number following the decimal for Scope 3 emissions represents the category of Scope 3 emission (e.g. Scope 3.15 would be Scope 3, Category 15).

Date Range

Description

Sample Data

StartDate

Temporal boundary (start date related to activity data) of the emissions which 4/1/2022
minted the token.

StartTimeStamp

Temporal boundary (start time related to activity data) of the emissions which 00:00:00 HRS
minted the token.

EndDateTemporal boundary (end date related to activity data) of the emissions whichminted the token. Note: The time between the start date and time and end
date and time shall be no more than 12 months.

4/30/2022

EndTimeStamp

Temporal boundary (end time related to activity data) of the emissions whichminted the token.

23:59:59 HRS

39

4.3 Carbon Emission Attributes

A token class that implements this set of properties will include attributes of the GHG emissions to support verificationsuch as Primary Data Share, third-party verification, and supporting documentation. Additionally, the properties include
details of the greenhouse gasses which comprise the CO2e emissions, geo-location, and factors of global warming
potential.
TABLE 6: CARBON EMISSION ATTRIBUTES

Emission Data Quality

Description

Sample Data

PrimaryDataShare

Refers to the percentage of primary data used in emissions calculations.

75%

Third-Party Verification

Description

Sample Data

ThirdPartyVerificationDone

Confirmation of third-party verification.

Yes

ThirdPartyVerifierDetails

Name or details of the third-party verifier.

EY

Verified Link

Description

Sample Data

LinkText

Contains the link to any relevant documents related to the emission,
such as calculation spreadsheets or other related documents. Should
include references to standards, methodologies, assumptions, emission
factors and sources, and/or calculation tools used. Should also include theverification contract/processedClaims/ProcessedClaimId<reference>

LinkSigned

Returning the value of the signed link. Usually an encoded string of text.

PublicKey

Contains the PublicKey used to sign the link.

CalculationDetailsReference

Reference documentation on sources, methodologies, and supporting
documents with represented emissions factors.

Geo-Location

Description

Sample Data

Longitude

Site location in longitude degrees

41.39

0x1b31F2dCd-8C50De80f165
930-5e33e

LatitudeSite location in latitude degrees-87.54

GeographicArea

List the regulatory jurisdictions that apply to these emissions.

TCEQ, USEPA

GeographicAreaFileLink

Link to File in acceptable data format for geographic area

See “credentialSubject”
sectionhere.

Emission Composition

Output Data

Sample Data

CO2

Decompose CO2e into quantities of CO2, CH4, N2O, at a minimum, butwhere applicable, include the following greenhouse gasses: CO2 (andbiogenic CO2), CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, SF6, and NF3. This element captures
the quantity of CO2 emissions associated with the CO2e emissions.

0.14 mt

Biogenic CO2

This element captures the quantity of CO2 emissions from thedecomposition of plant and animal matter, or the combustion of biofuels
produced from plants. Defined as carbon neutral, and reported separatelyfrom other CO2e emissions.

--

CH4

Decompose CO2e into quantities of CO2, CH4, N2O, at a minimum, butwhere applicable, include the following greenhouse gases: CO2 (andbiogenic CO2), CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, SF6, and NF3. This element captures
the quantity of CH4 emissions associated with the CO2e emissions.

0.02 mt40

N2O

Decompose CO2e into quantities of CO2, CH4, N2O, at a minimum, butwhere applicable, include the following greenhouse gases: CO2 (andbiogenic CO2), CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, SF6, and NF3. This element captures
the quantity of N2O emissions associated with the CO2e emissions.

--

HFCs

Decompose CO2e into quantities of CO2, CH4, N2O, at a minimum, butwhere applicable, include the following greenhouse gases: CO2 (andbiogenic CO2), CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, SF6, and NF3. This element captures
the quantity of HFC emissions associated with the CO2e emissions.

--

PFCs

Decompose CO2e into quantities of CO2, CH4, N2O, at a minimum, butwhere applicable, include the following greenhouse gases: CO2 (andbiogenic CO2), CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, SF6, and NF3. This element captures
the quantity of PFC emissions associated with the CO2e emissions.

--

SF6

Decompose CO2e into quantities of CO2, CH4, N2O, at a minimum, butwhere applicable, include the following greenhouse gases: CO2 (andbiogenic CO2), CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, SF6, and NF3. This element captures
the quantity of SF6 emissions associated with the CO2e emissions.

--

NF3

Decompose CO2e into quantities of CO2, CH4, N2O, at a minimum, butwhere applicable, include the following greenhouse gases: CO2 (andbiogenic CO2), CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, SF6, and NF3. This element captures
the quantity of NF3 emissions associated with the CO2e emissions.

--GlobalWarmingPotential- GWP factors refer to the relative ability of each greenhouse gas to
IPCC AR5
Factors [Not Optional]
trap heat in the atmosphere over time (such as 100 years). Carbon
dioxide is the reference gas with a GWP of 1. Within one year of its
release, participants should use the GWP rates from the most recent
IPCC Assessment Report based on a 100-year timeline to summarize
greenhouse gas emissions in terms of carbon dioxide equivalents unlessotherwise bound by regulatory requirements. This must be updated at
the beginning of the most recent temporal boundary to the current IPCC
Assessment Report. Any deviations from the most recent IPCC AR require a
GWP Factor Adjustment.
GWPFactorAdjustment[Contingent]This is a contingent field to represent the required adjustment factor
due to a deviation from the current AR GWP based on a local jurisdiction
requirement to calculate CO2e with a prior GWP factor or non-GWP
factor from a regulator or industry standard. This would be defined prior
to minting in the accounting methodology based on rules at the time ofminting. This should reference the regulatory regime (e.g., EPA) and GWP
factors and is meant to address interjurisdictional accounting adjustments
where one party references one GWP Factor and another party references
a different standard and factor.

EPA, 25x,
33xThis could be a publishing of each emission composition output data
outlined in Section 4.3

41

5.0 KEY RISKS AND CHALLENGESTO THE DLT CET ECOSYSTEMThe Taskforce has identified and classified different challenges faced by a DLT CET ecosystem that can be characterized
into two sets of risks for the ecosystem users. A first set of risks deals with design challenges that can have a direct
impact on CET adoption and implementation. A second set of risks are more operational in nature and deal with how
CETs are used in practice. We also consider the implications for specific CET stakeholders, characterized as the issuer,
primary holder, and secondary consumer.
We first provide a hierarchical list of the risks discussed in more detail below. We use the type and user labels to assist
in classifying risks. Note, this is a simplification to assist in characterizing risk impact, however these are not rigid or
mutually exclusive.

5.1 Hierarchy of Risks
1. Transferable Benefits Accounting and LCA’s (type: operational; user: primary holder & secondary
consumer) - the ability to transfer and track both the environmental commodity [CET] and corresponding
offset [or its equivalent mitigation asset] that has been retired.There is a tradeoff between using estimates andaccess to data to measure benefits through Life Cycle Analysis (LCA). The taskforce acknowledges there is alarge risk of scale for supply chain coordination failures.
2. Double Counting (type: operational; user: issuer, primary holder) - addresses the accounting of either
emissions inventories, associated offset or reduction credits and financial expenditures. This can be split into
avoided, carries a higher degree of risk, and allowed as double counting that may occur but is acceptable insome situations.
Avoideda. Double counting of financial expenditures tied to CET data, such as in a carbon taxation or othermandated reporting schemes.
b. Double counting of offsets linked to CET through an Inset Project, and other direct emissions
reduction claims
Allowedc. Minting of CET representing the same emissions as different scopes due to overlapping reporting
boundaries.
d. Double counting of the same scope 3 emissions by multiple organizations.

42

3. Data privacy (type: design; users: issuer, primary holder) - addressing privacy concerns regarding primarydata, commercial and financial interests of users.
4. Accessibility & accuracy (type: design,users: all) - addressing access to and trust in primary and referenced
CET attributes.
The design risks deal primarily with availability, accuracy and privacy of information referenced or stored within a
blockchain network. While a blockchain network can facilitate these characteristics it does not inherently regulate
or guarantee them. A public immutable network can raise privacy concerns and risks related to an organization’scommercial and financial interests. While these risks are exposed during regular operations, design and planning willplay an important role in mitigating them and can influence a user's, or organization’s, decision and willingness toparticipate in a CET ecosystem.
The operational risks listed above deal primarily with challenges in how information is issued and communicated acrossusers. While design may play a role in mitigating these risks, operational protocol and coordination across users areprimary. One should consider all of these risks carefully, keeping in mind that carefully addressing design risks will
provide a stronger foundation to manage operational risks around transferable benefits and double counting.

5.2 Transferable Benefits Accounting
Transferable benefits accounting deals with the communication of emission reductions to the consumers of products
and services, or the organizations financing them. In a CET framework transferable benefits can occur in two ways:••

explicitly, for example, when an organization purchases en emission reduction benefit directly against theindirect emissions outside its control;
implicitly, by referencing them during the exchange of goods and services.

The purchase of offsets is a common example of a direct transferable benefit. The risk here lies in the ability of anorganization to accurately measure, without overestimating the necessary benefits that may have already been
implemented upstream. From a climate mitigation perspective, such oversubscription is a positive outcome. However
this can negatively affect the financial interests and effectiveness of organizations to achieve their disclosed goals using
the CET framework.
The implicit transfer of benefits within a CET ecosystem can help overcome these issues by matching an environmental
commodity (e.g., emissions) to an offset or reduction. A real world example of this is attaching a certified emission
reduction to the sale of product or service, relaying the benefits to the buyer without transferring it. This can facilitate amore detailed LCA based approach to tracking value chain emissions. However, the LCA approach can be challenging to
implement and is not as widely used as estimating emissions with the direct transfer of benefits.
The second stated outcome of the CET framework, referenceability across parties for indirect emissions reporting, would
greatly benefit from the implicit transfer of benefits. However, achieving this requires overcoming at least two importantbarriers. First, organizations need to embrace a culture of more comprehensive accounting methods like LCA. Second,the outputs of this accounting must be packaged into standard results that are easy to identify and communicate across
supply chain counterparties.
Initiatives such as the common data model developed by the Open Footprint Forum for information exchange by theenergy industry offer tools to help advance the CET framework in this direction. The organizational LCA initiative of the
UN Environmental Program also provides some guidance complementing the product-focused LCA approach.23 It canhelp organizations address the challenge of balancing multiple product life cycles at the organizational level.

23

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11367-015-0912-9

43

5.3 Double Counting
As summarized in the risk hierarchy, double counting can occur in multiple ways, with the level of the risk dependent
on specific situations and contexts. Transparency is key to identifying double counting risks that commonly occur in thefollowing two scenarios:••

Financial Coordination: some stakeholders (banks, asset managers) will apply their CET based on equity anddebt allocations as financed emissions. This allows the firms to aggregate and report based on attribution
methodologies.
Supply Chain (operational) Coordination: attribution occurs at the product level collecting environmental
commodities upstream and then pushing them downstream as aggregate supply chain impacts for the final
product.

The two scenarios will overlap exposures and require using different reporting boundaries, that may result in double
counting of emissions. This is defined as a lower priority risk, labeled as allowed in the risk hierarchy. Such overlaps are
expected as different applications of the CET will require non-consistent reporting boundaries based on their specificrequirements (see section 3.5). Another example of an allowed risk is when a producer and retail company both accountfor the emissions from transportation.
Attribution under either financial or supply chain coordination is where double counting risks need to be avoided. On
the supply chain side, double counting of emission reductions against CET is a major risk within transferable benefits
accounting. Double counting of an emissions reduction, such as an inset claimed by a producer and offset sold toexternal parties is a major risk in the explicit transfer of benefits. The risk of double counting emission reductions should
be managed through independently verified registries. Unique referencing of emission reduction claims assigned to
specific CET can also help address this risk.
The implicit transferable benefits mentioned above can help reduce the occurrence or need of double counting. In sucha transfer the environmental benefits are shared across supply chain actors. This requires building an indirect emissions
referencing protocol that faces its own set of challenges as documented in the previous section.
Double counting of financial impacts and expenditures tied to CET data is considered a high priority. These should be
avoided, and will typically require using consistent reporting boundaries. This includes both financial reporting, carbon
taxation or other mandated reporting schemes. For example, the application of emission trading only to directscope 1 emissions.
Cross border carbon taxation policies introduce a specific risk linked to pricing the embodied (scope 2 or 3) emissions
in international trade. Such mechanisms have adjustment protocols to avoid double counting of emissions taxed
both internal and external to an organization. The CET framework is well suited to identifying overlapping reporting
boundaries, and financial impacts, between the producers that export goods and the importers subject to the carbon
border tax. Again, this risk deals with the issue of transferable benefits (in this case previously paid carbon taxes) and thereferenceability of indirect emissions.

44

5.4 Data availability and accuracy
Data availability deals with managing the interests across the parties that issue, hold and view CET. Availability of
information on the issuer of a token is a question of trust in the data. A CET in itself does not guarantee the accuracyof data. However, availability of information on who issued a CET, as well as the policy framework used to generate it,provides important information to assess the accuracy of, and confidence in, the underlying data. Therefore, availability
risks relate to the identities and credentials of the parties issuing CET.
Availability risk also deals with the access to information used to measure the final CET quantities. In many use cases
CET issued to the holder account will represent an organization's public disclosure of its emission inventories. An
organization may use CET from different DLT protocols to compile a final inventory report, which could cause availability
issues.
While public blockchains, by design, are well suited to public disclosure, other primary risks reside in the availability
and access to non-public metrics used by the issuer. The issuers may be granted access to some or all of the relevant
metrics and procedures. For example the various ISO Standards, clauses and processes used by auditors to assess theenvironmental and GHG emissions impacts of the organization.
The issuer, as well as third-party viewers, may require access to non-emissions data of importance to the holder, suchas a carbon price or the financial data associated with CET. For commercial and legal reasons this information may not
be included in the token metadata. Selective disclosure mechanisms may be required, and will involve managing risks
associated with transmitting sensitive information referenced to, or by, a CET. How the CET implementation is designed
to handle this will be a high priority for token holders.
Selective disclosure may be used by the third-parties to confirm that minted CET conforms to a set of standards. It canalso apply to granting third parties access to financed emissions data that may be considered high risk in safeguarding
the commercial interests of the holders. Tools such as Zero Knowledge Proofs, and the design of other services that
operate in parallel to the blockchain infrastructure will play an important role in managing these risks.

45

6.0 CONFIDENTIALITY IN ATTRIBUTES& ASSET GENERATION

Data associated with emissions MRV that leads to tokenization, may be relevant to reputation, but will also likely be limited due to privacy and confidentiality considerations.
To enable confidentiality in MRV data, there are multiple approaches to privacy; however, there are specific requirements to enable this in the requirements of an MRV workflow. The below example is not an endorsement of a specificapproach, but shows an example reference based on W3C standards.

Reference Example
In a reference example for generating Digital Environmental Assets, the Hedera Guardian uses the W3C standardsof Decentralized Identifiers (DIDs), Verifiable Credentials (VCs), and Verifiable Presentations (VPs) in order to capture
digitally signed documents that are stored on the decentralized InterPlanetary File System (IPFS).
Guardian uses VCs & VPs for a variety of data types - particularly:••

Monitoring, Reporting & Verification (MRV) data capturing the emissions reported.
The policies that digitize the methodology. In this context of emissions, a methodology is a framework
document that defines the rules governing the MRV process and the criteria for minting tokens
corresponding to that MRV process.

The current Guardian model publishes MRV data as a VC and creates a corresponding VP, apriori from that VC, andstores the VP on IPFS or equivalent data storage solution. The VP (and the VC within) can be retrieved from IPFS at any
time and are, by default, unencrypted.
While this default transparency enables easy validation of provenance chains, it may not be acceptable to all enterprises
considering using Guardian to track emissions of their manufacturing processes. While a business may recognize theneed to be fully transparent about the amount of CO2 emissions associated with their business processes, they may
wish to keep some details of those processes less than fully public to protect associated intellectual property andconfidentiality. Separately, but equally important, confidentiality may be required to protect an individual’s information.

46

This sort of confidentiality can be challenging to reconcile with the desired transparency and composability and thefundamental choice of using a public Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT), like Hedera, to track the provenance of Digital
Environmental Assets.
Below is an example of attestations with selective disclosure. This model enables delivery of digital MRV generated
attributes that include information which may not be publicly disclosed due to confidentiality concerns.

477.0 EMISSION ALLOCATIONPROTOCOL

Although emission allocation is critical to understanding the carbon footprint of a studied product or a functional unit,
the CET itself does not conduct allocation or contain allocation metadata.
A decentralized, public ledger would support mapping CETs to product tokens to enable emissions allocation.
Organizations who choose to attribute CETs to a well-defined unit of analysis or a functional unit shall adhere to the
WRI’s Product Life Cycle Standard, the Pathfinder Framework, ISO 14044 Standard (Environmental management – Life cycle
assessment – Requirements and guidelines) and the ISO 14067 Standard (Greenhouse gases – Carbon footprint of products –Requirements and guidelines for quantification) when determining and applying the allocation approach and assessing life
cycle GHG emissions.

8.0 MOVING FORWARD
Thank you to all of the members of GBBC who have contributed to this effort, and a special thank you to
individual contributors: Alison Campestre, Bertrand Rioux, and Tom Garlick, as well as Jackson Ross who helped
coordinate and facilitate the Taskforce through its deliberations. Additionally, thank you to Wes Geisenberger
for chairing the Taskforce and driving this work forward. Lastly, thank you to those who submitted comments
during our public comment period and throughout the course of the taskforce’s work, the outside expertiseand perspective is welcome and greatly appreciated.
This is an evolving document and further collaboration on the topic will lead to more robust standards andguidance. As we look forward to future versions of the CET Protocol and related work on these topics, feedbackon the CET Protocol and its implementation is welcome from both GBBC members and non-members.
Please submit any comments or feedback to iwa@gbbcouncil.org.

48

APPENDICES

49

APPENDIX A. SCOPE 3 EMISSIONS CATEGORIES24
Category

Description

Minimum Boundary

1. Purchased goods and services

Extraction, production, andtransportation of goods and services
purchased or acquired by thereporting company in the reporting
year, not otherwise included in
Categories 2 - 8

All upstream (cradle-to-gate)
emissions of purchased goods andservices

2. Capital goods

Extraction, production, andtransportation of capital goods
purchased or acquired by thereporting company in the reportingyear

All upstream (cradle-to-gate)
emissions of purchased capital goods

3. Fuel- and energy-related activities(not included in scope 1 or 2)

Extraction, production, andtransportation of fuels and energy
purchased or acquired by thereporting company in the reporting
year, not already accounted for inscope 1 or scope 2, including:a. For upstream emissions ofpurchased fuels: All upstream (cradleto-gate) emissions of purchased
fuels (from raw material extraction
up to the point of, but excluding
combustion)a. Upstream emissions of purchased
fuels (extraction, production, andtransportation of fuels consumed by
the reporting company)

b. For upstream emissions ofpurchased electricity: All upstream(cradle-to-gate) emissions ofpurchased fuels (from raw material
extraction up to the point of, but
excluding, combustion by a power
generator)

b. Upstream emissions of purchased
electricity (extraction, production, andtransportation of fuels consumed in
the generation of electricity, steam,c. For T&D losses: All upstream
heating, and cooling consumed by the (cradle-to-gate) emissions of energy
reporting company)
consumed in a T&D system, including
emissions from combustionc. Transmission and distribution(T&D) losses (generation of electricity, d. For generation of purchased
steam, heating and cooling that is
electricity that is sold to end users:
consumed (i.e., lost) in a T&D system) Emissions from the generation of– reported by end userpurchased energy
d. Generation of purchased electricity
that is sold to end users (generationof electricity, steam, heating, andcooling that is purchased by thereporting company and sold to end
users) – reported by utility company
or energy retailer only24

https://ghgprotocol.org/sites/default/files/standards/Corporate-Value-Chain-Accounting-Reporing-Standard_041613_2.pdf

50

4. Upstream transportation anddistribution

Transportation and distribution of
products purchased by the reporting
company in the reporting year
between a company’s tier 1 suppliers
and its own operations (in vehicles
and facilities not owned or controlled
by the reporting company)
Transportation and distribution
services purchased by the reporting
company in the reporting year,
including inbound logistics, outboundlogistics (e.g., of sold products),
and transportation and distribution
between a company’s own facilities(in vehicles and facilities not owned orcontrolled by the reporting company

5. Waste generated in operations

6. Business travel

The scope 1 and scope 2 emissionsof transportation and distribution
providers that occur during use
of vehicles and facilities (e.g., fromenergy use)
Optional: The life cycle emissions
associated with manufacturing
vehicles, facilities, or infrastructure

Disposal and treatment of waste
generated in the reporting company’s
operations in the reporting year (infacilities not owned or controlled by
the reporting company)

The scope 1 and scope 2 emissionsof waste management suppliers that
occur during disposal or treatment

Transportation of employees forbusiness-related activities during thereporting year (in vehicles not owned
or operated by the reporting company

The scope 1 and scope 2 emissionsof transportation carriers that occur
during use of vehicles (e.g., fromenergy use)

Optional: The life cycle emissions
associated with manufacturing
vehicles or infrastructure

Optional: The life cycle emissions
associated with manufacturing
vehicles or infrastructure
7. Employee commuting

8. Upstream leased assets

Transportation of employees between
their homes and their worksites
during the reporting year (in vehicles
not owned or operated by thereporting company)

The scope 1 and scope 2 emissionsof employees and transportation
providers that occur during use ofvehicles (e.g., from energy use)

Operation of assets leased by thereporting company (lessee) in thereporting year and not included inscope 1 and scope 2 – reported bylesseeThe scope 1 and scope 2 emissionsof lessors that occur during thereporting company’s operation ofleased assets (e.g., from energy use)

Optional: Emissions from employee
teleworking

Optional: The life cycle emissions
associated with manufacturing or
constructing leased assets

51

9. Downstream transportation anddistribution

Transportation and distributionof products sold by the reporting
company in the reporting year
between the reporting company’s
operations and the end consumer(if not paid for by the reporting
company), including retail and storage(in vehicles and facilities not owned orcontrolled by the reporting company)

The scope 1 and scope 2 emissions oftransportation providers, distributors,
and retailers that occur during use
of vehicles and facilities (e.g., fromenergy use)

10. Processing of sold products

Processing of intermediate
products sold in the reporting year
by downstream companies (e.g.,
manufacturers)

The scope 1 and scope 2 emissionsof downstream companies that occur
during processing (e.g., from energyuse)

11. Use of sold products

End use of goods and services soldby the reporting company in thereporting year

The direct use-phase emissions ofsold products over their expected
lifetime (i.e., the scope 1 and scope
2 emissions of end users that occur
from the use of: products that directly
consume energy (fuels or electricity)during use; fuels and feedstocks; andGHGs and products that contain orform GHGs that are emitted during
use)

Optional: The life cycle emissions
associated with manufacturing
vehicles, facilities, or infrastructure

Optional: The indirect use-phaseemissions of sold products over their
expected lifetime (i.e., emissions fromthe use of products that indirectly
consume energy (fuels or electricity)during use)
12. End-of-life treatment of soldproducts

Waste disposal and treatment of
products sold by the reporting
company (in the reporting year) at theend of their life

The scope 1 and scope 2 emissionsof lessors that occur during thereporting company’s operation ofleased assets (e.g., from energy use)

13. Downstream leased assets

Operation of assets owned by thereporting company (lessor) and leased
to other entities in the reporting year,
not included in scope 1 and scope 2 –reported by lessor

The scope 1 and scope 2 emissions oflessees that occur during operation ofleased assets (e.g., from energy use).

Operation of franchises in thereporting year, not included inscope 1 and scope 2 – reported by
franchisor

The scope 1 and scope 2 emissionsof franchisees that occur during
operation of franchises (e.g., fromenergy use)

14. Franchises

Optional: The life cycle emissions
associated with manufacturing or
constructing leased assets

Optional: The life cycle emissions
associated with manufacturing or
constructing franchises
15. Investments

Operation of investments (including
equity and debt investments andproject finance) in the reporting year,
not included in scope 1 or scope 2

See the description of category 15(Investments) in section 5.5 for therequired and optional boundaries
52

APPENDIX B. FUTURE OPPORTUNITIESIn the context of advancing emissions verification methodologies, it is worth noting that direct measurements of GHG fluxes between
the terrestrial surface and the atmosphere offer a promising avenue for improving emissions reporting. The GHG Protocol guidelines
currently widely used in private sector contexts incorporate IPCC guidelines as "third-party" guidance. Like the GHG Protocol, the
IPCC guidelines primarily focus on the use of activity-based methods using emission factors – albeit for national GHG inventory preparation. The IPCC's quality assurance guidelines also explicitly promote the independent verification of these activity-based estimateswith data obtained through atmospheric-based methods.
In fact, comparative peer-reviewed studies have exposed substantial disparities between activity-based (i.e. emission factor-based)
estimates and atmospheric data, particularly when emission sources and sinks are dynamic, diverse and/or spatially extensive. Suchcontexts, in which activity-based estimates are inconsistent with atmospheric-based measurements, include oil and gas production[1], urban areas [2,3], agriculture [4], landfills [5], and nature-based carbon sinks [6,7].
A pivotal distinction between activity-based and atmospheric-based methods is that the latter quantifies the actual tons of CO2 orequivalent GHGs released into or withdrawn from the atmosphere by a specific entity or activity in near real-time. This is achieved
through the deployment and continuous operation of in situ GHG monitoring infrastructure, enabling the acquisition of observation-based GHG flux quantities at various scales ranging from individual facilities to urban and landscape dimensions, with numerous
examples documented in the scientific literature.
Atmospheric GHG monitoring infrastructure is being used by some countries for validating national GHG inventories submitted to theUnited Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Atmospheric-based monitoring can similarly be employed byindividual entities to encompass scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions, as well as removals, contingent upon the installation of suitable observing infrastructure capable of delivering the requisite precision in flux measurements from the relevant activities.
In summary, the integration of atmospheric-based monitoring methods offers a significant opportunity to enhance the accuracy andcredibility of emissions verification procedures, especially in scenarios marked by dynamic and diverse emission sources and sinks.
This approach not only complements existing activity-based estimations but also facilitates a near-real-time, precision assessment of
GHG fluxes across a range of spatial scales.

LITERATURE CITED
1. Brandt, A. R., Heath, G.A., Kort, E.A., O’Sullivan, F., Petron, G., Jordaan, S.M., Tans, P. Wilcox, J., Gopstein, A.M., Arent, D., Wofsy, S.,
Brown, N.J., Bradley, R., Stucky, G.D., Eardley, D., and Harriss, R. (2014). Methane Leaks from North American Natural Gas Systems.
Science, 343 (6172) (February 13): 733–735. doi:10.1126/science.1247045
2. Forstmaier, A., Chen, J., Dietrich, F., Bettinelli, J., Maazallahi, H., Schneider, C., Winkler, D., Zhao, X., Jones, T., van der Veen, C., Wildmann, N., Makowski, M., Uzun, A., Klappenbach, F., Denier van der Gon, H., Schwietzke, S., and Röckmann, T. (2022). Quantification of
methane emissions in Hamburg using a network of FTIR spectrometers and an inverse modeling approach. Atmospheric Chemistry
and Physics, preprint. doi:10.5194/acp-2022-710
3. Pugliese, S. C., Murphy, J. G., Vogel, F. R., Moran, M. D., Zhang, J., Zheng, Q., Stroud, C. A., Ren, S., Worthy, D., and Broquet, G. (2018).
High-resolution quantification of atmospheric CO2 mixing ratios in the Greater Toronto Area, Canada. Atmospheric Chemistry andPhysics, 18, 3387–3401. doi:10.5194/acp-18-3387-2018
4. Dos Reis Martins, M., Necpalova, M., Ammann, C., Buchmann, N., Calanca, P., Flechard., C.R., Hartman, M.D., Krauss, M., Le Roy, P.,
Mäder, P., Maier, R., Morvan, T., Nicolardot, B., Skinner, C., Six, J., and Keel, S.J. (2022). Modeling N2O emissions of complex cropland
management in Western Europe using DayCent: Performance and scope for improvement, European Journal of Agronomy, 141,
126613. doi:10.1016/j.eja.2022.126613
5. Mønster, J., Kjeldsen, P., and Scheutz, C. (2019). Methodologies for measuring fugitive methane emissions from landfills – A review.
Waste Management, 87, 835-859. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2018.12.047
6. Hörtnagl, L., Merbold, L., Bahn, M., Barthel, M., Eugster, W., Klumpp, K., Ladreiter-Knauss, T., Lu, H., and Zeeman, M. (2018). Greenhouse gas fluxes over managed grasslands in Central Europe. Global Change Biology, 24(5). doi:10.1111/gcb.14079
7. Steinkamp, K., Mikaloff Fletcher, S.E., Brailsford, G., Smale, D., Moore, S., Keller, E. D., Baisden, W.T., Mukai, H., and Stephens, B.B.
(2017). Atmospheric CO2 observations and models suggest strong carbon uptake by forests in New Zealand, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 17,
47–76, doi:10.5194/acp-17-47-2017

53

APPENDIX C. LIST OF ACRONYMS
AR

Assessment Report

CDP

Carbon Disclosure Project

CET

Carbon Emission Token

CH4

MethaneCO2CO2eCarbon dioxide
Carbon dioxide equivalents

CRT

Carbon Reference Token

CRU

Carbon Reduction/Removal Unit

EGO

Emission Generator Object

GBBC

Global Blockchain Business Council

GHG

Greenhouse gas

GWP

Global warming potential

HHV

Higher heating value

HFCs

Hydrofluorocarbons

IPCC

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

ISOInternational Organization for Standardization

IWA

InterWork Alliance

mmBtu

Metric million British thermal unit

mtCO2eMetric ton carbon dioxide equivalents

N2O

Nitrous oxide

PFCs

Perfluorocarbons

SASB

Sustainability Accounting Standards Board

SF6

Sulfur hexafluoride

SKU

Stock keeping unit

TCFD

Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures

TCH

Token Classification Hierarchy

TTF

Token Taxonomy Framework

WBCSD

World Business Council for Sustainable Development

WRI

World Resource Institute54

APPENDIX D. GLOSSARY
Activity data

The quantitative measures of a level of activity that results in GHG
emissions or removals; can be measured, modeled, or calculated. Activity
data are ideally measured but may be estimated based on assumptions.25

Allocation

Partitioning emissions from a common process between a product, output,
or value and any co-products, -outputs, or -values.

Assurance

The level of confidence that the inventory results and report are complete,accurate, consistent, transparent, relevant, and without material
misstatements.26

Attributable processes

Service, material and energy flows that become the product, make theproduct, and carry the product through its life cycle. 27

Carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e)

A universal unit of measurement used to compare GHGs based on theirglobal warming potential (radiative forcing).

Carbon footprint

Service, material and energy flows that become the product, make theproduct, and carry the product through its life cycle.28

Carbon Removal Units

A non-fungible token that represents a specified volume of metric tons of
GHG emissions reduced or removed by a project or program.29

Carbon offset

Mechanism for compensating for all or for a part of the carbon footprintof a product or the partial carbon footprint of a product through theprevention of the release of, reduction in, or removal of an amount ofgreenhouse gas emissions in a process outside the product system.30

Contingent

A contingent token property - or data point - as it relates to CET, is one
which is optional unless a specific criteria is met, in which case it becomesmandatory for inclusion in the token under the CET guidance. For example,
a GWP Factor Adjustment is not required for CET tokens unless it deviatesfrom the current IPCC Assessment Report GWP factors.

Co-productA product exiting the common process that has value as an input intoanother product’s life cycle.31

Cradle-to-gate

A partial life cycle of an intermediate product, from material acquisition
through to when the product leaves the reporting company’s gate (e.g.,
immediately following the product’s production).32

Cradle-to-grave

Removals and emissions of a studied product from material acquisition
through to end-of-life.33

Core Carbon Principles

A fungible token that represents a specified volume of metric tons of GHG
emissions reduced or removed by a project.34

Direct measurement

A type of primary data that is collected directly at the source. It is often
gathered through metering of flow streams (e.g., metering of gas volume
burned in a boiler), monitoring of exhaust streams for emissions data, orother processes.

25
Product-Life-Cycle-Accounting-Reporting-Standard_041613.pdf (ghgprotocol.org)
26
Product-Life-Cycle-Accounting-Reporting-Standard_041613.pdf (ghgprotocol.org)
27
Product-Life-Cycle-Accounting-Reporting-Standard_041613.pdf (ghgprotocol.org)
28
PAS 2060:2014
29
InterWork Alliance – Sustainability Business Working Group. “Voluntary Ecological Markets.” InterWork Alliance. May 2021.
https://interwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Voluntary_Ecological_Markets_Overview_Revised.pdf.
30
ISO 14067:201831
Product-Life-Cycle-Accounting-Reporting-Standard_041613.pdf (ghgprotocol.org)
32
Product-Life-Cycle-Accounting-Reporting-Standard_041613.pdf (ghgprotocol.org)
33
Product-Life-Cycle-Accounting-Reporting-Standard_041613.pdf (ghgprotocol.org)
34
IInterWork Alliance – Sustainability Business Working Group. “Voluntary Ecological Markets.” InterWork Alliance. May 2021.
https://interwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Voluntary_Ecological_Markets_Overview_Revised.pdf.

55

Emission factor

GHG emissions per unit of activity data.

Equity share

Typically related to a stakeholder’s economic interest in a corporation;
the ownership interest used to calculate the share of greenhouse gas
emissions attributed to a corporation.

Functional unit

The quantified performance of the studied product.35

Global Warming Potential (GWP)

A factor used to calculate the cumulative radiative forcing impact ofmultiple specific GHGs in a comparable way.36

Greenhouse gas (GHG)

Gasses that absorb and emit radiation within the thermal infrared range,
contributing to the greenhouse effect. The gasses included in the Kyoto
Protocol are CO2, CH4, N2O, SF6, NF3, HFCs and PFCs.

GHG Protocol

A multi stakeholder partnership of businesses, non-governmentalorganizations (NGOs), governments, and others convened by the WRI.

InterWork Alliance

An association of private sector organizations, governments, academics andcivil society at large that share the vision of a world of collaboration built on
the digital interchange of tokenized items of value.37

Life cycle

Consecutive and interlinked stages of a product system, from raw material
acquisition or generation of natural resources to end-of-life.38

Life cycle assessment (LCA)

Compilation and evaluation of inputs, outputs and potential environmental
impacts of a product system throughout its life cycle.39

Life cycle stage

A useful categorization of the interconnected steps in a product’s life cycle
for the purposes of organizing processes, data collection, and inventory
results.40

Net-zero

Balancing of anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gasses to theatmosphere by anthropogenic removals over a specified period.41

Organizational boundary

In determining a GHG inventory, reporting entities assess this to selecta method by which they will consolidate their emissions inventory, using
either the equity share or control approach. The organizational boundary isa representation of the emissions responsibility of the reporting entity. The
CET protocol requires use of the equity share approach to improve data
quality and avoid double counting of emissions.

Primary data

Quantified value of a process or an activity obtained from a direct
measurement or a calculation based on direct measurements.42

Primary direct data

Direct primary data, such as metered flow measurements, gaseous fuelsampling, and product flow measurement.43

Primary indirect data

Indirect primary data, such as component counts and engineering
assumptions, modeled gaseous fuel composition based on the specificprocess. Standardized component leakage rates, if modified based on
primary direct gas compositions, would also be primary indirect data.44

Process activity data

Physical measures of a process that result in GHG emissions or removals.
Examples include volume of gas burned, distance traveled, energy
consumed, etc.45

35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45

Product-Life-Cycle-Accounting-Reporting-Standard_041613.pdf (ghgprotocol.org)
Product-Life-Cycle-Accounting-Reporting-Standard_041613.pdf (ghgprotocol.org)
InterWork Alliance, A Global Blockchain Business Council Initiative. https://www.gbbc.io/interwork-alliance
Product-Life-Cycle-Accounting-Reporting-Standard_041613.pdf (ghgprotocol.org)
Product-Life-Cycle-Accounting-Reporting-Standard_041613.pdf (ghgprotocol.org)
Product-Life-Cycle-Accounting-Reporting-Standard_041613.pdf (ghgprotocol.org)
IPCC
ISO 14067:2018
Appendices-covers.pdf (giignl.org)
Appendices-covers.pdf (giignl.org)
Product-Life-Cycle-Accounting-Reporting-Standard_041613.pdf (ghgprotocol.org)

56

Quantitative assessment

Characterizing input data "parameters", e.g., activity data, measured
emissions data, emission factors, etc., by the dispersion of the respective
values that are used in their derivation. Quantitative uncertainty of input
data can be represented by a probability distribution or as a range. There
are different approaches to quantifying the uncertainty of a parameter.46

Scope 1 emissions

The set of direct emissions from sources that are within the reporting
entity’s organizational boundary. For example, these emissions may include
emissions from burning diesel in an emergency generator or gasoline in acompany-owned vehicle.

Scope 2 emissions

The reporting entity’s set of indirect emissions from grid-supplied electricity.

Scope 3 emissions

The set of indirect emissions (other than those covered in scope 2) that
occur outside the organizational boundary of the reporting entity but thatare a result of activities that occur throughout the product or entity’s value
chain. For example, these emissions may include transportation of inputs,
employee commuting, employee business travel, distribution of outputs,
etc.

Scope 3 emissions categories

Indirect scope 3 emissions are categorized into 15 possible categories
defined in the WRI Corporate Value Chain Reporting Standard. Examples ofthese categories include, Purchased goods and services, Capital goods, andbusiness travel, etc.

Secondary data

Process data that are not from specific processes of the studied emissions
source.47

Temporal boundary

With regard to the token data component, this is the timeframe during
which the tokenized emissions were generated at the emissions source.
When assessing a product’s life cycle emissions, this is the period of time
when attributable processes occur during the studied product’s life cycle,
from when materials are extracted from nature until they are returned tonature at the end-of-life or leave the studied product’s life cycle.

Token

A tradeable digital representation of a certain unit of value, which resides
on the DLT.

Token classification hierarchy

A logical grouping and linkage between various data elements driven by
metadata, which is the background data that provides information about
the visible token data component.

Token taxonomy framework

A framework developed by the IWA which intends to clearly define a token
in non-technical and cross-industry terms. It establishes a common setof terms for the implementation of neutral token definitions with clear
requirements that developers can follow.48

Unit of analysis

The basis on which the inventory results are calculated; the unit of analysis
is defined as the functional unit for final products and the reference flow
for intermediate products.49

Verification Process Agreement

A Verification Process Agreement is between the emitting organization,
applied standard, and the auditor for the collection and verification ofemissions data. Here the terms and conditions of the verification process
are agreed to and documented. All artifacts in the emissions data collection
process are linked to this agreement. The emitter may choose to switch
standards or auditor and create a new agreement for verification.

46
https://www.ipieca.org/resources/addressing-uncertainty-in-oil-and-natural-gas-industry-greenhouse-gas-inventories-technical-considerations-and-calculation-method
47
Product-Life-Cycle-Accounting-Reporting-Standard_041613.pdf (ghgprotocol.org)
48
Token Taxonomy Initiative Inc. Token Taxonomy Framework (TTF) Moving Tokens Forward. 201949
Product-Life-Cycle-Accounting-Reporting-Standard_041613.pdf (ghgprotocol.org)

57

WBCSD Pathfinder Framework

A guidance document developed by the WBCSD for the accounting andexchange of product life cycle emissions across value chains.

WRI’s GHG Protocol Corporate Accounting
and Reporting Standard

A standardized methodology for companies to quantify and report theircorporate GHG emissions.

WRI’s GHG Protocol Corporate Value
Chain (Scope 3) Accounting and ReportingStandard

A standardized methodology for companies to quantify and report theircorporate value chain (scope 3) GHG emissions.

WRI’s GHG Protocol Product Life Cycle
Accounting and Reporting Standard

A standardized methodology that provides requirements and guidancefor companies and other organizations to quantify and publicly reportan inventory of GHG emissions and removals associated with a specificproduct.

APPENDIX E. MISCELLANEOUS REFERENCES
Ethereum.org
Interwork Alliance Token Taxonomy Framework, January 2022. https://github.com/InterWorkAlliance/TokenTaxonomyFramework/blob/main/token-taxonomy.md.
Interwork Alliance - Sustainability Business Working Group. Voluntary Ecological Markets Overview. 2021.
https://interwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Voluntary_Ecological_Markets_Overview_Revised.pdf
WBCSD Pathfinder Framework Guidance for the Accounting and Exchange of Product Life Cycle Emissions
WRI GHG Protocol Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard, Revised Edition. https://ghgprotocol.org/
corporate-standard.
WRI GHG Protocol Scope 2 Guidance, An amendment to the GHG Protocol Corporate Standard. 2015. https://
ghgprotocol.org/scope_2_guidance.
WRI GHG Protocol Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting Standard. 2011. https://ghgprotocol.org/
product-standard.

58

CONTRIBUTORSIWA TASKFORCE
Nick Ho
Jodelle Lai
Khadija Siddiqi
Clark Thompson

Accenture

Renato Jovic
Simon Walk

Avery Dennison

Boone Bergsma

Blockchain Laboratories

Jessica Green

Circulor

Neil Cohn

CodeGreen

Daniel Norkin
Andrey Brozko
Max Pinnola
Prernaa Agarwal
Jason Pancis

Envision Blockchain

Shuvam Patra
Mouazzam Jawed
Charlotte Smith

Ernst & Young (EY)

Jackson Ross

Global Blockchain BusinessCouncil (GBBC)

Wes Geisenberger
Paul Madsen
Hania Othman
Jonathan Rackoff

HBAR Foundation

Megan Hyland

Heritage Royalty

David Grimes
Miles Austin
Maxx Dilley

Hyphen Global AG

Marley Gray

Microsoft

Marc Johnson
Alan Ransil

Protocol LabsRichard Dwelle

Rearden Digital Assets

Stan Chen

RecycleGO

Serge Metelin
Justin Atwell
Giuseppe Bertone

SwirldsLabs

Cameron Prell

The dCarbon Group

Darren Wolfberg
Andrew Greeley

Triangle Systems

Patrick Leary

Wells Fargo

INDIVIDUAL CONTRIBUTORSTom Garlick
Alison Campestre
Bertrand Rioux

59

GLOBAL BLOCKCHAIN
BUSINESS COUNCIL
DC Location:

1629 K St. NW, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20006

Geneva Location:
Rue de Lyon 42B
1203 Geneva
Switzerland

60