Beyond the carbon footprint: what the upcoming GHG Protocol AMI Standard means for sustainability consultants

For more than two decades, corporate carbon accounting has been built around a single core concept: the greenhouse gas inventory. Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions have become the standard way to measure and report climate impact.

This approach has provided a consistent and widely adopted framework. However, it also has clear limitations.

As companies increasingly invest in decarbonisation actions—ranging from renewable energy procurement to financing low-carbon technologies—an important question emerges: where do these actions show up in carbon reporting?

In most cases, they do not.

The upcoming GHG Protocol Actions and Market Instruments (AMI) Standard is an attempt to address this gap. It does not replace the existing inventory. Instead, it expands the reporting framework to better reflect how companies influence emissions beyond their direct footprint.

Why the AMI Standard is being developed

The current GHG Protocol framework is based on attributional accounting. It answers a specific question: what emissions can be attributed to a company’s activities and value chain?

This works well for measuring a footprint. It is less effective for capturing climate actions and interventions.

Examples include:

Many of these actions have real-world climate impact, but they sit outside the traditional inventory boundaries. As a result, companies face a disconnect between:

The AMI Standard aims to close this gap by creating a structured way to report both.

A shift toward multi-statement carbon reporting

The central proposal of the AMI Standard is a move toward a multi-statement reporting model.

Instead of relying on a single emissions figure, companies would report across four complementary statements.

1. Physical GHG inventory

This remains the foundation. It reflects emissions based on physical activities across Scope 1, 2, and 3.

Importantly, this inventory is not modified. It continues to provide a consistent and comparable view of emissions from operations and the value chain.

2. Market-based GHG inventory

This statement captures emissions linked to contractual and procurement choices, such as:

It makes the impact of market instruments visible, without altering the physical inventory.

3. GHG impact statement

This is the most significant addition.

It reports the impact of actions and interventions, including:

These impacts can occur both inside and outside the value chain. The key methodological shift is the use of consequential accounting, which focuses on how actions change real-world emissions.

4. Non-GHG indicators

The final component includes metrics not expressed in CO₂e, such as:

These indicators provide additional context and support decision-making.

From one number to multiple perspectives

Conceptually, the AMI Standard introduces an important shift.

Traditional carbon accounting aims to produce a single, comprehensive emissions number. The new approach recognises that different questions require different metrics.

In practice, this means separating:

This distinction is not always intuitive. It requires accepting that multiple “views” of climate performance can coexist, each with its own logic and purpose.

For sustainability consultants, this represents a move from a single metric to a framework of complementary indicators.

Timeline and current status

The AMI Standard is still under development.

The current phase is based on a white paper and request for information (RFI), open from March to May 2026. This stage focuses on gathering feedback on the conceptual design, rather than detailed technical requirements.

The next steps are:

This timeline means that implementation is still several years away. However, the direction of travel is already clear.

What this means for sustainability consultants

For sustainability consultants, the AMI Standard introduces both challenges and opportunities.

First, it increases conceptual complexity. Consultants will need to explain why different metrics exist, how they relate to each other, and what they mean for decision-making. This goes beyond traditional carbon accounting.

Second, it expands the scope of advisory work. In addition to footprinting, consultants will increasingly engage with:

Third, it reinforces the need for clear communication and boundary setting. The separation between physical emissions and impact-based metrics must be well understood to avoid confusion or misuse.

At the same time, the AMI framework provides something that has been missing: a structured way to link carbon accounting with real-world climate action.

Conclusion

The AMI Standard does not aim to replace the GHG inventory. It aims to complement it.

By introducing a multi-statement approach, it acknowledges a reality that sustainability consultants already face: a single emissions number is not sufficient to capture the full picture of corporate climate performance.

The proposed framework separates footprint, market choices, and climate actions into distinct but connected elements. This increases complexity, but also clarity.

For consultants, the implication is clear. Carbon accounting is evolving from a measurement exercise into a broader impact reporting system.

Understanding that shift -and being able to guide clients through it- will become an increasingly important part of sustainability advisory work.

About Carbon+Alt+Delete

We provide carbon accounting software for sustainability consultants and consultancies that guide companies towards net zero.

Curious to discover how our software can improve your carbon accounting services?

Feel free to reach out to [email protected] or book a meeting to talk to one of our experts here.