Learn · Energy & Tokenization

🧾 Reporting frameworks that matter

2 min read

Key takeaway

GHG Protocol, TCFD, GRI and the EU taxonomy exist so two projects can be compared — and so a third party can check the claim.

Multiple frameworks ensure consistent, comparable sustainability reporting:

GHG Protocol: The global standard for carbon accounting, distinguishing three scopes:

Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD): Framework for disclosing climate risks and opportunities. Requires reporting:

Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi): Validates corporate emission reduction targets align with climate science (1.5°C pathway). Companies must reduce emissions 50% by 2030 and reach net-zero by 2050. Over 5,000 companies have committed.

SASB Standards: Sustainability Accounting Standards Board materiality framework identifies financially material sustainability factors by industry. For renewable energy, material factors include: GHG emissions, water usage, land use, community relations, and grid reliability.

Verification & Certification

Third-party verification prevents greenwashing and provides credibility:

💡 Tokens Enable Transparent Real-Time Impact Tracking

Traditional green bonds report impact annually or quarterly—long delays create verification challenges. Tokenized projects can report impact daily or hourly via smart contracts. Token holders see their proportional impact in real-time: "Your 1,000 tokens represent 0.01% ownership. Today your share avoided 1.64 kg CO₂, powered 0.04 homes, and earned $2.87." This granular, transparent reporting is only possible through blockchain.

Next: Beyond carbon: water, land, air →