What Avoided Emissions (Scope 4) Actually Measure

Reading Time
5 min
Article Sections
5
Share Links
3
On This Page
Article Section
Scope 1 covers a company's direct emissions, from its own facilities and vehicles. Scope 2 covers emissions from purchased electricity, steam, heat, or cooling. Scope 3, first published as a standard in 2011, covers emissions across 15 categories of a company's value chain, from purchased goods and services through to the use of sold products, sitting outside the company's direct control.
Avoided emissions, sometimes informally called Scope 4, is not an official GHG Protocol scope category at all. It refers to emissions reductions that occur outside a company's value chain because someone else used its product or service, compared to what would have happened under a counterfactual baseline scenario without that product or service.
The distinction matters because Scope 1, 2, and 3 use attributional accounting, measuring emissions that actually occurred and can be traced to a company's operations. Avoided emissions use consequential accounting, modeling a hypothetical difference against a scenario that never happened. These are fundamentally different kinds of numbers.
Article Section
An avoided emissions claim compares emissions in a scenario where a product or service is used against emissions in a baseline scenario where it is not. The GHG Protocol's own examples include a cold-water detergent avoiding the emissions of heating water, fuel-saving tires avoiding the emissions of extra fuel burned, and energy-efficient ball bearings or lower-carbon data centres avoiding the emissions of a less efficient alternative.
Unlike Scope 1, 2, and 3, which report emissions a company actually caused, an avoided emissions figure reports a modeled gap between two scenarios. That means the result depends heavily on which baseline is chosen. Change the baseline assumption, and the reported avoided emissions figure changes with it, even if nothing about the product itself has changed.
As of 2026, avoided emissions accounting is still being developed by the GHG Protocol's Actions and Market Instruments workstream, which is working toward sector-agnostic requirements and guidance. Its March 2026 Phase 1 Progress Update white paper explicitly states that its content is draft and subject to change, following a public consultation that closed in January 2026. Separately, ISO's 14064-1 standard is also working on its own draft definition of avoided emissions.
Because avoided emissions and Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions are measuring fundamentally different things, one a modeled external difference and the other a company's actual emissions, combining them into a single inventory number misrepresents both. The more common, and more defensible, practice is to report avoided emissions separately, with the underlying assumptions disclosed alongside the figure.
Article Section
Since the entire figure depends on the counterfactual scenario chosen, request the specific assumptions behind the comparison before treating an avoided emissions claim as reliable.
Keep the two categories reported separately. One measures a company's actual emissions; the other measures a modeled difference against a scenario that did not happen, and combining them overstates progress on either front.
The GHG Protocol's Actions and Market Instruments guidance is still in Phase 1, with feedback from the October 2025 to January 2026 consultation still being incorporated. Any avoided emissions methodology adopted today may need revision once final guidance is published.
Given the GHG Protocol's own acknowledgment that these claims are often unverifiable or inaccurate, disclosure and communications teams should request the underlying data before repeating a product-level avoided emissions claim externally.
Article Section
Avoided emissions measure something genuinely different from Scope 1, 2, and 3: a modeled comparison against a scenario that never occurred, rather than emissions a company actually caused. That difference is exactly why the number needs its own disclosure treatment, not a place inside the standard inventory.
Until the GHG Protocol's Actions and Market Instruments guidance moves from draft to finalised standard, boards asking about Scope 4 should treat every avoided emissions figure they see as a claim to be checked, not a number to be taken at face value.
Article Section
Emissions reductions that occur outside a company's value chain because a product or service was used, measured against a counterfactual baseline scenario in which it was not.
No; the GHG Protocol has not finalised a standard for avoided emissions, though its Actions and Market Instruments workstream is developing sector-agnostic guidance for it.
Because the calculation depends entirely on the counterfactual baseline chosen, and without a finalised standard, companies can select assumptions inconsistently.
No; avoided emissions measure a modeled external difference, not the company's own actual emissions, so the two figures should be reported separately.
As of 2026, the GHG Protocol's guidance remains in draft form following a public consultation that closed in January 2026, with no finalised standard yet published.
Keep Reading

All Industries
Why the Metric You Choose Changes Your ESG Story Completely?
Read more
All Industries
The Greenwashing Risk Explainer
Read more
All Industries
Here Is Exactly Where Indian Companies Are Getting Stuck
Read moreNext Step
Talk to ESG Astraa about disclosures, climate strategy, governance controls, and execution support for your team.
We use cookies to run this site and, with your consent, to understand how it is used. See our Cookie Policy for details.