Carbon Reporting Is Growing Up
Here’s Why That’s Good News for You
If you manage landscapes, heritage buildings, visitor sites, or public assets, climate reporting can feel like a tangle of spreadsheets and shifting acronyms. But there’s good news: new changes to global standards are quietly making things more practical—especially for organisations balancing net zero goals with people, place, and legacy.
What’s Changing?
The International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) is refining its climate disclosure standard, known as IFRS S2. If you’re already reporting in line with TCFD (or heading that way), you’re in familiar territory—but these updates offer new flexibilities that could make your life easier.
4 Key Changes That Could Make a Difference
1. Scope 3: A Bit Less Impossible
For complex organisations (especially those dealing with investments or supply chains), the revised rules ease the pressure: you can focus on the emissions you actually influence, and be clear about what you’ve left out.
What this means in practice:
You’re not expected to chase every gram of carbon. The goal is transparency, not omniscience.
2. You Can Use an Industry Classification That Fits You
The old rules expected everyone to use global finance-centric categories. Now, you can use a system that better reflects your context—as long as you say what it is.
Why this helps:
Managing farmland, coastline, or cultural landscapes doesn’t slot neatly into “utilities” or “real estate.” This gives mission-driven landholders space to define themselves more honestly.
3. National Carbon Rules Count
Organisations can now follow local GHG measurement rules (like SECR in the UK or CSRD in the EU), rather than duplicating work to meet the global Greenhouse Gas Protocol—if their regulator says so.
In plain English:
If you’re already following good national practice, you’re halfway there.
4. Science Can Evolve—and So Can You
The revised guidance allows you to use updated climate science (such as new warming potential values for methane), as long as you’re transparent about what you’re using.
So what?
You’re not stuck with outdated assumptions. If your site’s emissions are methane-heavy (say, from grazing livestock or anaerobic digestion), you can reflect the real impact more accurately.