The 7 key points you should know about dual reporting of Scope 2 emissions
What is dual reporting of Scope 2 emissions
Dcycle: the solution to turn dual reporting of emissions into an agile and strategic process
How dual reporting works: approaches and emission factors
How to Simplify Dual Reporting of Scope 2 Emissions with Technology
Why Dcycle Is the Ideal Solution to Manage Dual Reporting of Scope 2 Emissions
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
These are the 7 key points you should know about dual reporting of Scope 2 emissions.
Dual reporting of Scope 2 emissions is marking a turning point in how companies manage their environmental information.
This practice requires reporting energy emissions from two different perspectives: one based on geographical location and another on the market or type of energy contracted.
By doing so, companies achieve a more accurate and transparent view of their real impact across the energy chain.
Adapting to this model requires reliable data, traceability and methodological consistency. Organizations must consolidate information from different sites, contracts and energy providers, applying updated emission factors and meeting the quality criteria of the GHG Protocol.
Managing this amount of information manually is no longer feasible, and more and more companies are seeking solutions that allow them to automate data collection and emission calculations.
Dual reporting is not only a regulatory obligation, but also a strategic lever for sustainable and competitive decision-making.
Understanding and applying it correctly will be key to advancing any ESG strategy and building a solid foundation for compliance with frameworks such as the CSRD or the EU Taxonomy.
Below, we explore how companies can simplify this process, reduce errors and gain efficiency in managing their Scope 2 emissions.
Dual reporting of Scope 2 emissions is one of the most relevant aspects in current ESG data management.
Understanding it in depth is essential to comply with international standards and maintain a solid sustainability strategy.
Understanding it in depth is essential to comply with international standards and maintain a solid sustainability strategy.
Below, we share the seven key points every company should understand to tackle this requirement efficiently and coherently.
Dual reporting combines two calculation methods: the location-based method, which is based on the average emissions of the national or regional power grid, and the market-based method, which takes into account energy contracts and origin certificates.
Using both approaches allows us to understand the real impact of our energy decisions.
The GHG Protocol Corporate Standard requires organizations to report both values in order to offer an accurate and comparable picture of their emissions.
Complying with this rule not only avoids communication errors, but also demonstrates rigor and traceability in ESG data management.
Properly managing dual reporting means collecting accurate data, validating sources and maintaining methodological consistency.
In many companies, the information comes from different subsidiaries, suppliers or energy contracts, which makes it necessary to have an automated and centralized approach to avoid duplication and mistakes.
Having a platform that automates the collection, normalization and calculation of energy data reduces manual effort and increases reliability.
We work so that the company has a single source of truth, ready to generate reports aligned with any standard or regulatory framework.
Dual reporting should not be seen only as an obligation, but as a strategic lever.
It allows us to analyze the real weight of energy in the corporate carbon footprint, identify reduction opportunities and make data-driven decisions that improve competitiveness and operational efficiency.
Understanding dual reporting also helps companies align their energy and emission goals with broader sustainable finance frameworks, ensuring consistency between environmental performance and financial disclosure.
The results of dual reporting can be directly integrated into different ESG use cases, such as EINF, CSRD, the EU Taxonomy or SBTi targets.
The key lies in having a flexible data structure that allows distributing information according to each regulation or standard without redoing calculations or duplicating efforts.
Dual reporting of Scope 2 emissions is not a one-time task, but a continuous process that must be updated regularly.
Emission factors, energy contracts and regulatory frameworks evolve, and companies need to keep their data alive to ensure accurate and consistent reporting over time.
Ultimately, understanding these seven points is the first step toward shifting from a reactive approach to a proactive ESG management based on data.
Companies that know how to measure and report their Scope 2 emissions correctly will be better prepared to comply with regulations, anticipate risks and strengthen their competitive position.
Dual reporting of Scope 2 emissions refers to the obligation to calculate and disclose indirect energy emissions from two complementary approaches: location-based and market-based.
This practice was established under the GHG Protocol Corporate Standard, the most widely recognized international standard for greenhouse gas accounting.
Its objective is to ensure that companies can provide a more complete and transparent view of the impact of their energy consumption.
The GHG Protocol defines Scope 2 emissions as those associated with electricity, heating or cooling purchased and consumed by an organization.
Although they are not generated directly within its facilities, they are part of its carbon footprint because they derive from the energy required to operate.
Until a few years ago, companies reported a single value for these emissions, which limited comparability and failed to reflect the specific energy decisions of each entity.
Dual reporting emerged to solve that lack of clarity, providing two analytical perspectives that allow a better understanding of the origin and management of the energy used.
The location-based method calculates emissions based on the average of the local or national power grid.
In other words, it measures the impact according to the energy mix of the country, regardless of the supplier or contract the company may have.
This approach reflects the physical reality of the energy consumed, which makes it key to understanding the geographical impact of operations.
The market-based method, on the other hand, is based on energy acquired through specific contracts or certificates.
Here, the focus is on the agreements signed with suppliers, such as electricity supply contracts or guarantees of origin.
This method aims to reflect the effect of energy purchasing decisions and how they help reduce the intensity of emissions over time.
Both approaches are complementary. The first shows the energy context of the territory, while the second measures the contractual or management effort of each organization.
Together, they provide a more accurate and coherent picture of the real impact of business activities.
The 2015 update of the GHG Protocol introduced the obligation to apply both methods when reporting Scope 2 emissions.
Until that time, each company interpreted renewable energy purchases differently, generating non-comparable results without consistent criteria.
Since that revision, organizations must report two separate figures: one based on the location-based method and another according to the market-based method.
Additionally, specific quality criteria were established for emission factors and contractual instruments used, to ensure coherence and transparency of the data reported.
This change represented a turning point.
Companies moved from focusing on basic energy consumption estimates to requiring robust systems for data collection and normalization.
Today, having a centralized and traceable ESG information source is essential to accurately respond to frameworks such as CSRD, the EU Taxonomy or climate financial reporting standards.
Dual reporting of Scope 2 emissions is not merely a technical adjustment.
It represents a shift toward a more strategic and data-driven management, where rigorous measurement of energy origin and impact becomes a key element of business competitiveness.
Dual reporting of Scope 2 emissions requires precision, consistency and continuous data management.
At Dcycle, we believe that complying with this requirement should not be an operational burden, but rather an opportunity to structure ESG information and turn it into a strategic asset for the company.
We are a solution for companies, not auditors or consultants.
Our platform centralizes all ESG information, energy, financial and operational, in a single digital environment, allowing the automation of calculations, normalization of emission factors and generation of reports aligned with standards such as the GHG Protocol, CSRD or EU Taxonomy.
Thanks to this structure, companies can have a single source of truth for all use cases, from EINF reports to SBTi targets or ISO certifications.
This eliminates repetitive tasks, reduces errors, and ensures that the information remains updated and consistent across all reports.
At Dcycle, we connect business systems, ERP, energy platforms or data warehouses, with a flexible and automated ESG data model.
This integration allows us to synchronize consumption data, contracts and energy certificates in real time, without depending on manual processes or spreadsheets.
Moreover, our platform automatically normalizes emission factors according to country, energy source and consumption period, applying GHG Protocol quality criteria to ensure accuracy and traceability.
Generating reports under the CSRD, EU Taxonomy or any other international framework is no longer a complex process.
With Dcycle, companies can export their reports in XBRL format or in the structure required by each regulator, maintaining data consistency and significantly reducing preparation time.
Our goal is for dual reporting to stop being a reactive exercise and become a strategic tool for decision-making.
With a unified ESG database, companies can identify risks, plan investments, and improve operational performance through accurate and verifiable information.
In a market where measurement equals competitiveness, Dcycle offers an efficient, automated and traceable way to manage dual reporting of Scope 2 emissions.
We transform a complex process into an agile and transparent workflow, perfectly aligned with current and future regulatory requirements.
Dual reporting of Scope 2 emissions is not a recommendation or a passing trend.
It is a regulatory and operational requirement that more and more organizations are incorporating into their ESG management.
Its purpose is to ensure that energy and emissions data are reported accurately, consistently and traceably, in alignment with major international standards.
The GHG Protocol Corporate Standard explicitly establishes the obligation to calculate and report Scope 2 emissions using both location-based and market-based methods.
This approach has been incorporated into recent regulatory frameworks such as the CSRD and ESRS E1 standard, which require companies to report comparable and verifiable climate information.
In this context, measuring Scope 2 correctly is no longer just about transparency but about compliance.
Regulators and stakeholders expect companies to demonstrate how they manage their energy and how each decision impacts their total carbon footprint.
Complying with these rules allows us to be prepared for reviews, audits or external verification processes.
Dual reporting brings coherence and consistency to corporate information, as it allows companies to view their energy impact from two complementary perspectives.
This makes it possible to distinguish which part of emission reductions comes from real operational improvements and which comes from purchasing or contracting decisions.
This distinction is key to communicating results with credibility and rigor.
Companies with traceable and comparable data can clearly explain their progress, set realistic goals and maintain the trust of customers, investors and regulators.
In an environment where ESG information directly influences reputation and access to financing, transparency becomes a competitive factor.
Adopting dual reporting for Scope 2 also prepares us to face audits and review processes under international standards.
The CSRD, ESRS and other global frameworks require documented evidence of how emission data has been collected, calculated and verified.
Having a consolidated and normalized ESG database simplifies these processes enormously.
It allows us to export information instantly in different formats and adapt it to the requirements of each framework without recalculating or reinterpreting figures.
Dual reporting of Scope 2 emissions is based on two calculation methods that provide a complementary view of the energy consumed by an organization.
Both approaches follow the GHG Protocol criteria and aim to represent both the physical reality of emissions and the strategic energy purchasing decisions made by each company.
Understanding how they work is key to measuring accurately, avoiding errors and generating reliable information for various regulatory frameworks.
The location-based method quantifies emissions according to the average energy mix of the electricity system where we operate.
This approach reflects the real impact of our activity on the grid, without considering contracts or agreements with third parties.
In practice, it uses average national or regional emission factors defined by official agencies or reference inventories.
This method is essential because it shows the physical impact of energy consumption as it occurs in the territory.
It forms the foundation for understanding each organization’s dependence on its energy environment.
The market-based method calculates emissions according to the energy purchased or contracted by the company.
In this case, what matters is not the system average, but the contractual instruments that certify the origin or characteristics of the purchased energy.
This approach allows companies to recognize the effects of their purchasing and energy strategies.
If a company contracts low-emission energy or has agreements certifying its origin, this information is reflected in the calculation.
The goal is to represent the impact of the energy market and the company’s ability to influence its footprint through operational or financial decisions.
Both methods must be presented together to provide a complete and coherent picture.
The location-based approach shows the physical context, while the market-based approach reveals the energy management and internal procurement policies.
The GHG Protocol states that emission factors must meet quality criteria ensuring coherence and traceability.
These factors determine how many emissions are produced per unit of energy consumed and vary depending on country, grid or generation technology.
The quality criteria include source transparency, data timeliness, methodological consistency and verifiability.
For the market-based approach, contractual instruments must also be specific, exclusive, transferable and up-to-date, avoiding overlaps or double counting.
Working with low-quality or unverified data can lead to inconsistencies and undermine report credibility.
Therefore, having a centralized and normalized ESG database is essential to maintain calculation consistency over time and adapt them to each reporting framework, from CSRD to SBTi targets or ISO certifications.
Within the market-based approach, the GHG Protocol recognizes several contractual instruments that companies can use to justify the origin or type of purchased energy.
Among the most common are:
PPAs (Power Purchase Agreements): long-term energy purchase contracts between a company and a producer. They can be physical or virtual, depending on whether the energy is received directly or only its generation attributes.
EACs (Energy Attribute Certificates): certificates that represent ownership rights over energy attributes, such as origin or emission intensity.
GOs (Guarantees of Origin): guarantees used mainly in Europe to prove the source and characteristics of electricity.
These instruments form the basis for the market-based calculation.
The GHG Protocol requires them to be verified, traceable and aligned with quality criteria to be included in the report.
Implementing dual reporting of Scope 2 emissions properly is not just a technical or compliance issue.
It is a strategic decision that improves data quality, analytical capacity and the organization’s readiness for any regulatory framework or audit.
When we manage this process correctly, the benefits go far beyond producing a clean report or a single accurate number.
The first major benefit is data reliability. By using both location-based and market-based approaches, we obtain a comprehensive view of the real and contractual energy impact.
This dual perspective allows us to clearly identify emission sources and understand how our purchasing decisions influence the final results.
Working with accurate data gives us control and consistency.
We can validate information from its origin and avoid calculation errors or duplication, resulting in stronger and more consistent reports for any external review or audit.
Dual reporting is already a requirement in international standards such as the GHG Protocol, CSRD or ESRS E1.
Complying with these guidelines ensures that our reports are comparable, verifiable and accepted across all regulatory contexts.
Implementing it correctly allows us to anticipate future legal requirements and simplify integration of this information into other reports, such as EINF, SBTi objectives or ISO certifications.
It is not about complying out of obligation, but about being ready for any regulatory evolution.
Dual reporting transforms energy data into a strategic analysis tool.
By comparing results from both methods, we can identify which part of our consumption depends on the local grid and which comes from our contractual choices.
This information helps us plan investments, optimize contracts, and reduce financial risks related to energy market volatility.
In short, we move from measuring out of necessity to making decisions based on concrete and up-to-date data.
Transparency is one of the most valued attributes in corporate communication.
A well-structured dual report increases credibility and traceability of the information shared with clients, investors or authorities.
When we clearly show the origin of data, applied methods and quality of sources, we project maturity and responsibility in ESG management.
That trust translates into a stronger market perception and a competitive advantage over those who still lack structured measurement processes.
Automating dual reporting within a centralized platform reduces the time and resources required to collect, clean and review data.
With a unified methodology, all ESG information is available for reuse in any use case, without the need to redo calculations.
This integration frees up teams from repetitive manual tasks and ensures consistent and auditable results across all reports.
Implementing dual reporting correctly can be a complex process if the organization lacks a solid data structure.
Although the GHG Protocol provides a clear methodology, many companies face obstacles when collecting, integrating and maintaining data consistency.
Identifying these challenges is the first step to solving them efficiently.
One of the main problems is that energy and financial data are often scattered across multiple systems and formats.
Electricity consumption, purchase contracts, invoices or certificates are stored in different company areas, making coherent and updated collection difficult.
Without traceability, it becomes impossible to ensure that the reported values accurately reflect operational reality.
That is why it is essential to have a platform capable of centralizing and synchronizing information in real time, reducing dependence on spreadsheets or manual processes.
Applying location-based and market-based methods correctly requires managing different emission factors, methodological rules and quality criteria.
In many cases, electric grid data or energy certificates are outdated or do not meet GHG Protocol requirements.
This leads to inconsistencies and makes comparability between reporting periods difficult.
Automating the update of emission factors and maintaining a verifiable historical record becomes essential to ensure the reliability of dual reporting.
Another frequent challenge is the lack of integration between sustainability, accounting and energy management systems.
Without fluid connections among these data sources, emission calculations lose accuracy, and reports require multiple manual revisions.
Integrating data from the origin allows us to cross energy consumption with financial indicators and ESG metrics, creating a unified view.
This way, the results not only meet regulatory requirements but also support strategic and budgetary decision-making.
Each regulation (CSRD, ESRS, EU Taxonomy, SBTi, ISO) requires reports with specific formats and metrics.
Preparing them manually means spending weeks restructuring information, which delays submissions and increases the risk of errors.
To avoid this, we need modular and adaptable data structures that can transform the same values into different formats without duplicating efforts.
A well-digitalized ESG management system is not limited to complying with one regulation but prepares the company for any current or future disclosure framework.
Overcoming these challenges is possible if we adopt a digital and integrated approach.
Technology enables us to automate data collection, normalize calculations and generate reports aligned with international standards, reducing time and improving reliability.
Automation is the key to eliminating manual tasks and minimizing errors.
A well-designed system extracts data from internal and external sources, classifies it by energy type and links it to the Scope 2 metrics.
This way, we can always have up-to-date and ready-to-analyze information.
When we connect finance, energy and sustainability areas, we obtain a single version of the truth.
This integration allows automatic calculation of emissions for each site, contract or account, ensuring full traceability without relying on scattered files or internal emails.
Technology also facilitates the automatic normalization of emission factors by country, energy source or consumption period.
This guarantees that calculations follow the GHG Protocol criteria and that results remain consistent year after year.
In addition, it allows information to be adapted to different reporting formats without redoing the process.
Once the data is centralized and normalized, report generation becomes immediate.
We can export the information directly to the models required by CSRD, the EU Taxonomy or the GHG Protocol standards, without duplicating efforts or altering base calculations.
Managing dual reporting correctly requires precise, traceable and up-to-date data.
In many companies, this information is scattered across different systems, complicating compliance and delaying report generation.
Our platform acts as an ESG data hub, integrating energy, financial and operational sources.
This eliminates information silos and maintains full control over consumption, contracts and emission factors needed for Scope 2 calculations.
From a single environment, we can visualize results, review methodologies and generate reports tailored to each need.
All this without spreadsheets, without duplicating information and ensuring consistency across reports.
Dcycle enables end-to-end management of CSRD and ESRS compliance in a single workflow.
Unlike fragmented tools, we offer a complete process that covers data collection, calculation, verification and XBRL export, ready for submission to regulators or auditors.
This ensures that each emission indicator, including dual reporting of Scope 2, aligns with GHG Protocol requirements and European legal obligations under the CSRD.
In practice, it allows technical and financial teams to work on the same data without inconsistencies or rework.
We know that data quality depends on its origin.
That is why Dcycle integrates easily with ERPs, data warehouses, energy platforms or cloud systems, allowing automated import of consumption data, electricity contracts or emission factors.
This connectivity ensures real-time synchronization, maintains a full change log, and guarantees that dual reporting calculations are always based on updated and verified data.
Moreover, integration with existing enterprise environments eliminates the need to replace systems or tools.
Instead of adding complexity, Dcycle adapts to each organization’s technological ecosystem.
At Dcycle, we are not auditors or consultants, we are a solution for companies seeking an agile and scalable way to manage their ESG information.
We collect all data in one single source of truth and distribute it automatically according to each use case: EINF, CSRD, SBTi, EU Taxonomy, ISO certifications, or any other required standard.
This approach allows organizations to leverage the same dataset for multiple objectives, avoiding repeated processes or the creation of separate reports for each regulation.
With a single data model, we achieve consistency, time savings, and operational efficiency.
The result is a more accurate, automated and regulation-ready dual reporting system for Scope 2 emissions, but also one prepared for future sustainability frameworks.
Dcycle turns the complexity of ESG reporting into a smooth, controlled process, where measurement stops being an administrative burden and becomes a strategic driver of competitiveness and business transparency.
Dual reporting of Scope 2 emissions involves calculating and disclosing indirect emissions from energy consumption through two complementary perspectives.
On one hand, the location-based method measures the real impact of the power grid where we operate.
On the other hand, the market-based method considers energy contracts or certificates that reflect our purchasing decisions.
Both approaches are necessary to obtain a complete view of corporate energy consumption and to comply with international reporting standards defined by the GHG Protocol.
The location-based approach calculates emissions according to the average energy mix of the country or region, regardless of who the energy supplier is.
This method represents the physical reality of the electrical system where we operate.
The market-based approach, however, is based on the contractual agreements and energy certificates that the company holds, such as PPAs or Guarantees of Origin (GOs).
This second method reflects how purchasing decisions influence the emissions reported and the company’s overall energy strategy.
Both methods must be reported simultaneously to comply with the GHG Protocol and the most recent regulatory frameworks, such as the CSRD or ESRS E1.
Yes. The GHG Protocol Corporate Standard establishes the obligation to publish two Scope 2 emission values, one location-based and one market-based.
This practice has also become a requirement within the CSRD and the ESRS standards, which require companies to report comparable and verifiable data.
Carrying out dual reporting not only ensures regulatory compliance, but also demonstrates coherence, traceability, and transparency in the management of ESG information.
In the location-based method, you must use the average emission factors of the national or regional power grid, published by official agencies or statistical bodies.
In the market-based method, specific emission factors must be applied, linked to energy contracts, origin certificates or supplier agreements.
The GHG Protocol defines quality criteria to ensure that such data are current, verifiable, and consistent.
Having a centralized and updated data source is essential to apply both methods correctly without inconsistencies.
At Dcycle, we are not auditors or consultants, we are a solution for companies that need to manage their ESG data automatically and accurately.
Our platform centralizes all energy, financial and operational information, linking each consumption dataset to the corresponding emission factors for both approaches.
In this way, the calculation of dual reporting of Scope 2 emissions is performed automatically and traceably, eliminating manual tasks and reducing the risk of errors.
Moreover, results can be exported directly in formats compatible with CSRD, the EU Taxonomy, or the GHG Protocol, facilitating compliance and saving time for sustainability and finance teams.
With a unified data structure, we can reuse the same ESG information for other use cases such as EINF, SBTi, ISO certifications or decarbonization plans, maintaining coherence across all reports.
.png){kind=small}
Carbon footprint calculation analyzes all emissions generated throughout a product’s life cycle, including raw material extraction, production, transportation, usage, and disposal.
The most recognized methodologies are:
Digital tools like Dcycle simplify the process, providing accurate and actionable insights.
Some strategies require initial investment, but long-term benefits outweigh costs.
Investing in carbon reduction is not just an environmental action, it’s a smart business strategy.
.png)
.png)
