Corporate climate reporting is at a turning point. The GHG Protocol is currently consulting on its Actions and Market Instruments (AMI) Standard, a development that could significantly reshape how companies measure and communicate climate action. This is not just a technical update. It is a chance to influence how corporate efforts to reduce emissions across value chains are recognized and scaled.

If your organization is engaged in climate action, now is the moment to contribute. Responding to the survey is critical to ensure that the emerging framework is both credible and practical. The choices made at this stage will define how companies report not only what they emit, but also how they act and what impact they have.

Why current reporting is no longer enough

For years, corporate GHG reporting has been built around a single foundation: the physical GHG inventory. This approach has been and will continue to remain essential. It provides a clear, consistent way to measure emissions within defined organizational and value chain boundaries, helping companies set targets and track progress.

But the reality of corporate climate action has evolved. Companies are no longer acting only within their own operations. They are working with suppliers, investing in new technologies, reshaping procurement strategies, and participating in sector-wide initiatives. These actions can have significant climate benefits, yet many of them are not fully captured in traditional reporting.

The limitation is structural. The physical GHG inventory is based on physical traceability, which means it captures what can be directly measured and attributed. It answers a critical question, but only one: what emissions are associated with a company’s activities?

That question is no longer enough on its own. Particularly when companies have complex value chains, where meeting criteria for physical traceability to account for outcomes becomes a barrier to incentivizing climate action.

A new approach: multi-statement reporting

To address this gap, a multi-statement reporting structure is emerging. Rather than replacing the GHG inventory, it builds around it. The idea is simple but powerful: different aspects of corporate climate performance should be reported through separate, clearly defined statements, each answering a different question.

The inventory remains the foundation, providing a complete and consistent picture of emissions. Additional statements expand this perspective to capture how companies engage with markets through procurement decisions, as well as the real-world impact of corporate actions beyond their immediate boundaries.

This approach recognizes that climate performance is not one-dimensional. It is about emissions, actions, and impacts, and each of these requires a different lens.

Making markets visible: the role of the market-based inventory

One of the key additions in this structure is the market-based GHG inventory. It builds on the familiar Scope 2 concept of location-based and market-based accounting, extending it beyond electricity to other areas of corporate activity.

While the physical inventory reflects emissions based on actual production and consumption, the market-based inventory reflects emissions based on contractual arrangements. It shows how procurement choices, contracts, and market instruments shape emissions profiles, and mainly utilizes certain forms of Market-Based Instruments.

This matters because companies are increasingly using procurement as a lever for change. Purchasing low-carbon materials, entering long-term agreements, or sourcing certified products may not immediately reduce reported emissions, but these actions send signals that can transform markets over time.

The market-based inventory makes these actions visible. It provides transparency on how companies are engaging with markets to drive decarbonization. At the same time, it is important to be clear about its role. It reflects allocation, not impact. It should complement the physical inventory, not replace it, and should not be interpreted as evidence of emissions reductions.

Beyond emissions: capturing real-world impact

Perhaps the most important innovation in the proposed framework is the GHG impact statement. This is where reporting moves from attribution to consequence.

Instead of asking what emissions are associated with a company, the impact statement asks a different question: what difference did the company’s actions make?

This shift is critical. Many of the most meaningful climate actions today happen outside traditional boundaries. Supplier programs, financing of mitigation activities, and sector-wide initiatives can all drive emissions reductions, but they often remain invisible in the inventory.

The impact statement provides a structured way to capture these outcomes. It allows companies to report how their actions change emissions relative to a baseline, offering a clearer picture of their contribution to global decarbonization.

To be credible, this approach must be balanced. It should include both positive and negative impacts, account for unintended effects such as leakage, and ensure that impacts are not double counted or overstated. When done well, it can significantly improve how companies demonstrate real-world climate progress.

Looking beyond CO₂: the role of non-GHG indicators

Not all aspects of climate action can be expressed in emissions terms. Financial investments, procurement shifts, and operational changes often act as leading indicators of future impact.

This is where a non-GHG indicators statement becomes valuable. It provides context. It helps explain how companies are implementing their strategies and whether their actions are aligned with their climate goals.

These indicators should not replace emissions or impact reporting. Instead, they should complement them, offering insight into the drivers of change. When used carefully, they can bridge the gap between commitments and measurable outcomes.

Why alignment across standards matters

As this new reporting structure takes shape, companies will need to navigate a growing ecosystem of frameworks. Alignment will be essential.

The physical inventory is expected to remain central, particularly for target setting under frameworks like the forthcoming SBTi Corporate Net-Zero Standard 2.0. However, the treatment of market-based approaches and impact reporting is still evolving. Not all market-based instruments may be eligible for target accounting, and some may only apply to specific types of targets.

At the same time, other initiatives are developing their own approaches. The AIM Platform is advancing a similar multi-statement structure with its own quality criteria, while the TCAT MAARG framework proposes a different model altogether.

These differences highlight a clear need for greater convergence. Without it, companies risk facing complexity, fragmentation, and uncertainty in how their actions are recognized.

The moment to shape the future

The GHG Protocol’s AMI consultation is more than a technical exercise. It is an opportunity to shape the future of corporate climate reporting.

A well-designed multi-statement framework can transform how companies measure and communicate their role in decarbonization. It can ensure that reporting captures not only emissions, but also the actions and impacts that truly matter.

This will only happen if practitioners engage.

Your input can help ensure that the framework is:

– Practical to implement

– Aligned with real-world business decisions

– Credible in reflecting both performance and impact

Now is the time to provide your perspective.

Take the survey and help shape the future of climate reporting: