Market-Based Method (Scope 2)
The market-based method is the Scope 2 figure that moves with procurement. It is the number SBTi uses to track decarbonisation progress, the number RE100 participants disclose against their renewable commitment, and the number CDP scores against contractual claims. It is also the figure most likely to be calculated incorrectly — because the rule that governs it is not “use the grid factor unless you have an EAC.” The rule is: use the contractual instrument’s factor for every MWh covered by a valid instrument, and use the residual mix factor — not the grid average — for every MWh that is not.
That distinction has a counterintuitive consequence: a company without any contractual instruments reports a market-based figure that is higher than its location-based figure, not equal to it. The residual mix factor is structurally higher than the grid average because the cleaner generation has already been claimed by other parties holding EACs. Defaulting to location-based “because we have nothing to claim” is a methodology error, not a conservative assumption. This article delivers the five-tier instrument hierarchy, the eight Scope 2 Quality Criteria as enumerated, the residual-mix double-counting-prevention mechanic, and the four boundary traps that recur at SBTi and CSRD validation.
The market-based method calculates Scope 2 emissions using the contractual instruments the company has acquired and retired against its electricity consumption — in priority order: (1) supplier-specific zero-factor with retired EAC, (2) supplier-specific non-zero generation mix, (3) PPA with bundled EACs, (4) unbundled EACs (REGO/GO/REC/I-REC), (5) residual mix for any consumption not covered by an instrument. It is one of the two methods mandated by the GHG Protocol Scope 2 Guidance under the dual-reporting rule. Unlike the location-based method, the market-based figure responds to procurement: retiring a valid REGO covers one MWh at a zero factor; signing a bundled PPA covers contracted MWh at the project’s specific factor. The unclaimed remainder uses residual mix — typically higher than the grid average. Core formula: tCO₂e = Σ (kWh by instrument tier × instrument factor) ÷ 1,000.
Definition and GHG Protocol Basis
The market-based method is one of two methods defined by the GHG Protocol Scope 2 Guidance (2015) for quantifying Scope 2 emissions. Where the location-based method uses a grid-average factor for the geography in which consumption occurs, the market-based method uses the emission factor of the contractual instrument the company has retired against each MWh consumed.
The central mechanic is contractual attribute transfer, not electron transfer. Electrons on the grid are physically indistinguishable — once a megawatt-hour from a wind farm enters the network, it cannot be separated from a megawatt-hour from a coal plant arriving at the same substation. The market-based method instead tracks the environmental attributes of each MWh — the emissions intensity, the generation source, the geography, the vintage — through certificates that move independently of the underlying electricity. When a company retires a Renewable Energy Guarantee of Origin (REGO) for a UK wind MWh, it acquires the right to claim the wind MWh’s zero-emission attribute against its own consumption, and the wind generator gives up the right to make the same claim. The system is a closed accounting ledger of attribute claims, not a delivery network of clean electrons.
This produces a calculation structure that is fundamentally different from location-based. The market-based total is a sum across instrument tiers — a portion of consumption covered by retired EACs at one factor, a portion covered by a supplier-specific tariff at another factor, and the residue calculated at the residual mix factor. The location-based method aggregates a single factor across all consumption; the market-based method partitions consumption by contractual coverage and applies the relevant factor to each partition.
The market-based method is a contractual-attribute accounting framework, not a measurement of the electrons that flowed through the meter. It produces a different number from the same kilowatt-hours by partitioning consumption into instrument-covered and uncovered fractions, applying each partition’s contractually-derived factor, and summing. Two companies on the same grid with identical consumption will report different market-based figures if their procurement portfolios differ — and that difference is the point of the method, not a flaw in it.
The Instrument Hierarchy — Five Tiers
The GHG Protocol Scope 2 Guidance establishes a five-tier instrument hierarchy for the market-based method. The principle is specificity first: use the most specific contractual instrument available for each MWh, then fall back through the hierarchy as instrument coverage thins. Most corporate inventories use a mix — Tier 1 or 3 for sites with bundled procurement, Tier 4 for unbundled certificate purchases, Tier 5 for any uncovered remainder.
| Tier | Instrument | Typical factor | Geographic match | Temporal match | SBTi accepted? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Supplier-specific zero-factor (utility-issued, EAC-backed and retired in company’s name) cleanest | 0.000 kg CO₂e/kWh | Yes (same market) | Annual (minimum) | Yes |
| 2 | Supplier-specific non-zero factor (utility’s blended generation mix, disclosed) | Supplier-disclosed (e.g. 0.05–0.18) | Yes (same market) | Annual | Yes |
| 3 | Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) with bundled EACs | Project-specific (typically 0.000 for renewable PPAs with EACs retired) | Yes (same market) | Annual (24/7 CFE for net-zero) | Yes (additionality scrutinised) |
| 4 | Unbundled EAC — REGO (UK) / GO (EU AIB) / REC (US NERC) / I-REC (RoW) | 0.000 kg CO₂e/kWh | Yes (same market) | Annual | Yes (additionality required for near-term targets) |
| 5 | No instrument held — fallback | Residual mix factor (registry-published, annual) | n/a | n/a | n/a |
Tiers 1–4 require a contractual instrument that meets all eight GHG Protocol Scope 2 Quality Criteria (§4). Tier 5 is the residual-mix backstop — applied to any consumption not covered by a valid Tier 1–4 instrument. The “geographic match” column refers to market boundary match (UK REGO scheme, EU AIB area, US NERC region) — geographic proximity is not sufficient. The SBTi acceptance column reflects guidance under SBTi Corporate Net-Zero v1.1; near-term targets accept all four instrument tiers, but additionality scrutiny tightens for unbundled EACs and existing-asset PPAs.
Tier 2 — a supplier-specific non-zero factor — is the tier most CSRD reporters with a named utility but no EAC actually fall into. Many utilities publish an annual fuel-mix disclosure that produces a supplier-specific emission factor lower than residual mix but higher than zero (a UK supplier with a 70% renewable generation mix might publish 0.05 kg CO₂e/kWh; a standard fossil-heavy tariff might publish 0.18). Per the Quality Criteria, this disclosed supplier factor is the correct market-based input — not residual mix. Companies that default to residual mix despite holding a named-supplier contract overstate their market-based figure; companies that default to zero despite their supplier publishing a non-zero mix understate it. The supplier disclosure is the specific instrument; use it.
The Residual Mix — What Happens Without an EAC
The residual mix is the emission factor applied to electricity consumption that is not covered by a contractual instrument. It is published annually by registry operators — Ofgem and AIB for the UK and EU; Green-e for the US voluntary market; I-REC for international markets — and it is structurally higher than the grid-average factor for the same geography.
The residual mix is the accounting integrity mechanism that prevents double-counting across the certificate market. Without it, the same clean MWh could be counted twice — once by the EAC holder claiming zero, once by the no-EAC consumer claiming the grid average that already includes that clean generation. Residual mix removes the EAC-claimed clean generation from the grid mix and reallocates the dirtier remainder across all unclaimed consumption. The UK example: if 40% of UK generation is renewable but 80% of that has been claimed by EAC retirements (supplier tariffs, RE100 corporates, RECs exported into the UK voluntary market), the residual mix recalculates an emissions factor for the dirty unclaimed portion only — substantially higher than the headline grid mix because the cleaner third has already been spoken for.
The residual mix factor is higher than the grid-average factor for the same geography in any market with significant EAC retirement activity. In the UK, the illustrative residual mix is around 0.200 kg CO₂e/kWh — already above the 2025 DEFRA grid average of 0.177. In Germany the residual mix is typically 0.40–0.50 kg CO₂e/kWh against an IEA grid average of 0.364. Defaulting to the location-based grid factor when no EAC is held understates market-based emissions. The correct fallback is the registry-published residual mix factor for the consumption year — and that fallback is always penalising, never neutral. Current-year residual mix figures must be sourced directly from Ofgem (UK), AIB (EU member states), or Green-e (US) annually; GreenCalculus MasterBrain does not publish residual mix factors, since they update on registry-specific cadences and require attribution to their original publication.
Instrument Validity — The Eight Quality Criteria
The GHG Protocol Scope 2 Guidance establishes eight Quality Criteria that govern when a contractual instrument is valid for a market-based claim. All eight must be met for the instrument to qualify; failing any one disqualifies the claim and the underlying consumption falls back to the residual mix factor. These are the verification checkpoints SBTi, CSRD, and CDP reviewers apply in sequence.
- Conveys energy-generation attributes. The instrument must transfer the underlying generator’s emissions, fuel mix, technology, and capacity attributes — not just a “green” label. A REGO conveys these; a marketing claim does not.
- Exclusive claim. The attributes must be claimed by one party only. Once a REGO is retired in the company’s name, no other party — supplier, generator, or third-party — can claim the same MWh’s attributes. Retirement in the registry is the enforcement mechanism.
- As close as possible to the consumption period. Vintage match — the EAC must be issued in or close to the consumption year. Most schemes accept up to 21 months between generation and retirement (e.g. AIB GoO valid for the production year plus the following calendar year). 24/7 CFE goes further, requiring hourly match.
- Within the same market boundary. Geographic match at the level of the certificate scheme, not at the level of physical proximity. A UK REGO covers UK consumption only — not Ireland, despite proximity, because Ireland is the I-RECs Ireland scheme. EU AIB-area GOs cover all AIB-area consumption interchangeably; US RECs cover their NERC region. Cross-scheme certificates do not satisfy this criterion.
- Backed by underlying generation attributes. The instrument must originate from a verified, metered generator — not a synthetic claim. The registry operator’s audit chain (Ofgem REGO database, AIB Hub, NERC NAR) provides this backing.
- Tracking system. The instrument must exist within a regulated, auditable registry that prevents double-issuance, double-transfer, and double-claim.
- Supplier-disclosed factor backed by retired EACs. If a supplier discloses a zero (or low) factor for a tariff, it must be substantiated by EAC retirements equivalent to the tariff’s electricity volume. A “green tariff” without retired-EAC backing fails this criterion.
- Residual-mix backstop applied to the unclaimed remainder. Any consumption not covered by a valid Tier 1–4 instrument must be calculated at the residual mix factor — not the location-based grid factor. This criterion closes the system.
A “100% renewable” supplier contract is not sufficient for a zero-factor claim unless the supplier retires EACs equivalent to the tariff volume in the company’s name (or in the supplier’s name with explicit conveyance). Verifiers test this by requesting the EAC retirement statements from the registry — Ofgem REGO database for the UK, AIB Hub for the EU, NERC NAR for US RECs — and matching retired volume to consumed volume per Quality Criterion 7. Marketing language (“100% renewable energy”) without retired-EAC backing fails the test, the consumption falls back to residual mix, and the company’s market-based figure increases. Audit-grade procurement requires the retirement statement, not the supplier’s website.
Core Formula and Worked Examples
The market-based total is a sum across instrument tiers, each with its own factor.
tCO₂eMB = Σ (kWhtier × factortier) ÷ 1,000
Each MWh attributed to one tier only. Uncovered remainder calculated at residual mix factor. Quality Criteria §4 must hold for each instrument tier claimed.
Worked example — three procurement scenarios, same UK company, 50,000 kWh
The same 50,000 kWh annual consumption produces three different market-based figures depending on which instruments the company holds. The table also surfaces the central methodology error: Scenario A (no EAC, residual mix) produces a higher market-based figure than the location-based reference.
| Scenario | Tier | Factor (kg CO₂e/kWh) | Calculation | Result (tCO₂e) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A — No EAC held (residual mix fallback) highest | 5 | ~0.200 (UK residual mix, illustrative) | 50,000 × 0.200 / 1,000 | 10.00 |
| B — Valid retired REGO held in company’s name | 4 | 0.000 (zero-factor, EAC retired) | 50,000 × 0.000 / 1,000 | 0.00 |
| C — Reference: location-based figure for same UK consumption | n/a (LB) | 0.131 (DEFRA 2025) | 50,000 × 0.177 / 1,000 | 8.85 |
UK residual mix is illustrative (~0.200 kg CO₂e/kWh). Current-year value must be sourced from Ofgem’s annual residual fuel mix disclosure. The ordering is the central pedagogical point: Scenario A (10.00 tCO₂e) > Scenario C (8.85 tCO₂e) > Scenario B (0.00 tCO₂e). A no-EAC company reports a market-based figure 13% higher than its location-based figure on identical consumption — because residual mix is structurally higher than the grid average. Defaulting to location-based when no EAC is held is a methodology error that understates market-based emissions, not overstates them.
Market-Based vs Location-Based — Critical Distinction
The two methods answer different questions about the same kilowatt-hours. The table below summarises the structural differences that drive the dual-reporting requirement.
| Dimension | Market-Based | Location-Based |
|---|---|---|
| Question answered | What did the contractual instruments held by this company emit? | What did the grid emit on average to deliver this electricity? |
| Factor source | Supplier-specific → EAC retirement → residual mix | Regulator-published grid average (DEFRA, EPA eGRID, IEA) |
| Effect of buying EACs | Reduces market-based figure to instrument’s emission factor (typically zero) | None. Does not change the location-based figure. |
| Effect of doing nothing (no EAC, no PPA, default tariff) | Residual mix factor — higher than grid average | Grid average factor |
| What changes the number key contrast | Procurement: EACs, PPAs, green tariffs, supplier switching, 24/7 CFE matching | Grid decarbonisation. Consumption reduction. Site relocation. |
| Floor value at 100% retired EACs | ~0 tCO₂e if all instruments are zero-emission EACs meeting all eight Quality Criteria | Grid factor × kWh — does not reach zero unless grid does |
| Used by | SBTi progress tracking, RE100 disclosure, CDP procurement scoring | Disclosure baseline, regulator climate-risk assessment, physical-grid comparability |
| Reporting requirement | Required wherever market-based instruments are claimed | Always required |
Calculate your market-based Scope 2 — and compare it against location-based in the same run.
The Scope 2 Electricity Calculator partitions consumption across all five instrument tiers, applies retired-EAC zero-factor logic where Quality Criteria are met, and surfaces both the market-based and location-based figures side-by-side — ready for CSRD E1-6, CDP C6.3, and SBTi target submission.
Boundary and Classification Traps
Four configurations cause the majority of market-based misclassification errors at SBTi and CSRD validation.
Trap 1 — Defaulting to location-based when no EAC is held
The most common error. A company without renewable contracts assumes its market-based and location-based figures are equal and reports the location-based number twice. Per Quality Criterion 8, the unclaimed consumption must be calculated at the residual mix factor — which is structurally higher than the grid average because the cleaner generation has already been claimed by other parties. The correct treatment for a UK company with no EACs on 50,000 kWh: market-based at residual mix (~10.0 tCO₂e), not at the DEFRA grid factor (8.85 tCO₂e). The 13% understatement is silent, recurs annually, and is caught at first independent verification.
Trap 2 — Geographic match at proximity, not market boundary
Quality Criterion 4 requires geographic match at the market boundary — the certificate scheme — not at physical proximity. A French Guarantee of Origin (AIB scheme) does not satisfy a UK consumption claim, even though France is geographically closer to the UK than Texas is to Maine. UK REGO and EU AIB are separate schemes since UK departure from the EU energy market; cross-scheme retirements do not transfer attributes across the boundary. Multinational reporters that treat “EU plus UK” as one market generate audit findings the moment the EAC source registry is requested.
The geographic match test is rule-based, not proximity-based. A US REC does not satisfy a Mexican consumption claim. An I-REC retired against ASEAN renewables does not cover EU consumption. A UK REGO does not cover Irish consumption. Each scheme defines its own market boundary — REGO = UK, AIB = participating EU member states, NERC = US continental, I-REC = the participating market of issuance. The check at SBTi target validation is binary: registry of issuance must match registry of consumption. Companies that purchased “European” certificates without verifying which sub-scheme issued them frequently discover at verification that 30–60% of their portfolio fails the test.
Trap 3 — On-site generation accounting in the market-based total
Behind-the-meter solar or wind that the company owns does not require an EAC for its self-consumed output to count as zero-emission — the on-site generation is Scope 1 (zero direct emissions for renewable) and the avoided grid consumption simply reduces purchased kWh. The trap appears when a company also retires the EACs from that on-site generation against its market-based Scope 2 — that is double-counting. Either the company self-consumes the generation (reducing purchased kWh) or it sells the EACs from that generation to a third party. It cannot do both for the same MWh.
Trap 4 — Unbundled EACs from existing assets failing additionality
SBTi target validation under Corporate Net-Zero Standard v1.1 increasingly distinguishes between EACs that demonstrate additionality (new-build assets, post-2015 commissioning, with the EAC revenue contributing to project economics) and EACs from existing assets (legacy hydropower, pre-2010 wind farms operating commercially regardless of certificate market). Both qualify for Scope 2 reporting under the GHG Protocol — but SBTi’s near-term and net-zero target validation may discount or reject targets backed primarily by non-additional certificates. The trap: a company achieves “100% renewable” via cheap legacy-hydro EACs, submits an SBTi target, and the target is rejected for not driving demand for new clean generation. The Quality Criteria do not include additionality; SBTi adds it as a target-validation overlay.
Regulatory and Framework Relevance
The market-based method is required by every major framework wherever contractual instruments are claimed. It is the operative figure for procurement-progress disclosure, RE100 commitments, and SBTi target tracking.
| Framework | Market-based requirement | Quality Criteria | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| GHG Protocol Corporate Standard | Scope 2 required; market-based per Scope 2 Guidance where instruments held | Eight Quality Criteria binding | View standard → |
| GHG Protocol Scope 2 Guidance (2015) | Defines the market-based method and instrument hierarchy | Establishes the eight Quality Criteria | /standards/ghg-protocol-scope-2-guidance/ |
| CSRD / ESRS E1 most prescriptive | Datapoint E1-6 — market-based Scope 2 required where contractual instruments claimed; dual reporting | EAC quality narrative required in disclosure | View standard → |
| CDP Climate Change | C6.3 — both methods required; C6.5 EAC retirement disclosure | Quality Criteria checked at scoring | CDP guidance v2024+ |
| SBTi Corporate Net-Zero v1.1 | Market-based the operative figure for Scope 2 progress; net-zero targets require credible procurement | Additionality overlay applied at target validation | View standard → |
| RE100 | 100% renewable claim assessed against market-based figure | Technical Criteria align with GHG Protocol Quality Criteria | /standards/re100-technical-criteria/ |
| ISO 14064-1:2018 | Indirect emissions from imported energy required; market-based methodology disclosure | Verification of contractual claim chain | View standard → |
Five Common Calculation Mistakes
- Defaulting to location-based when no EAC is held. The market-based fallback is residual mix (Quality Criterion 8), not the grid-average factor. UK residual mix is illustratively ~0.200 kg CO₂e/kWh against the DEFRA 2025 grid average of 0.177 — a 13% delta. Reporting market-based equal to location-based on uncovered consumption silently understates emissions every year and is caught at first verification. This is the single most common market-based methodology error.
- Claiming zero from a “100% renewable tariff” without verified EAC retirement. Per Quality Criterion 7, a supplier-disclosed zero (or near-zero) factor must be substantiated by EAC retirements equivalent to the tariff volume. Marketing language is not sufficient. Verifiers request the registry retirement statements — Ofgem REGO database for the UK, AIB Hub for the EU, NERC NAR for US RECs. A “100% renewable” supplier contract without retired-EAC evidence is treated as a Tier 5 (residual mix) calculation regardless of the supplier’s claim. The marketing-vs-evidence gap is verified at the registry, not at the contract.
- Using cross-market certificates. Quality Criterion 4 requires market-boundary geographic match. A French GO does not satisfy a UK consumption claim. A US REC does not satisfy a Mexican consumption claim. Cross-scheme retirements fail the test and the underlying consumption falls back to residual mix. Multinational reporters that lump European certificate purchases into one bucket without checking sub-scheme-of-issuance frequently discover that a substantial portion of the portfolio is invalid against the market boundary at which consumption occurred.
- Submitting SBTi targets backed by non-additional EACs. SBTi target validation under Corporate Net-Zero Standard v1.1 assesses whether the EACs underpinning the market-based figure demonstrate additionality — new-build, post-2015 commissioning, EAC revenue material to project economics. Targets backed primarily by legacy-hydropower or pre-2010 wind certificates may be rejected at validation despite GHG Protocol compliance. Additionality is an SBTi overlay on top of the eight Quality Criteria, not a Quality Criterion itself — meeting GHG Protocol does not guarantee SBTi acceptance for net-zero targets.
- Double-counting on-site generation EACs. A company that self-consumes its on-site PV output and also retires the EACs from that generation against its market-based Scope 2 double-counts. The PV output reduces purchased kWh (which then × residual or supplier factor produces a smaller market-based number); the EACs from the same generation are already implicit in that reduction. Either self-consume the generation or sell the EACs to a third party — not both. The error inflates claimed reductions by exactly the on-site generation × the residual mix factor.
Related Terms, Standards, and Tools
Frequently Asked Questions
The market-based method calculates Scope 2 emissions using the contractual instruments the company has retired against its electricity consumption. The hierarchy: (1) supplier-specific zero-factor with retired EAC, (2) supplier-specific non-zero generation mix, (3) PPA with bundled EACs, (4) unbundled EACs (REGO/GO/REC/I-REC), (5) residual mix for any consumption not covered by an instrument. Each MWh is attributed to one tier, multiplied by the tier’s factor, and summed. Unlike the location-based method, the market-based figure responds directly to procurement: retiring a valid REGO covers one MWh at zero; the remainder uses residual mix — typically higher than the grid average. The eight Quality Criteria of the GHG Protocol Scope 2 Guidance must be met for any Tier 1–4 claim; failing any criterion drops the consumption to Tier 5 residual mix.
The residual mix factor for the geography in which consumption occurs — not the location-based grid average. Per Quality Criterion 8, any consumption not covered by a valid Tier 1–4 instrument falls to the residual-mix backstop. The residual mix is higher than the grid average in any market with significant EAC retirement activity, because the cleaner generation has already been claimed by other parties. UK illustrative residual mix is ~0.200 kg CO₂e/kWh against the DEFRA 2025 grid factor of 0.177 — so a no-EAC UK company reports a market-based figure 13% higher than its location-based figure on identical consumption. Current-year residual mix figures must be sourced from Ofgem (UK), AIB (EU member states), Green-e (US voluntary market), or the relevant I-REC operator (international). GreenCalculus MasterBrain does not publish residual mix factors — they update on registry-specific cadences and require attribution to their original publication.
For the market-based figure only, and only if all eight Quality Criteria are met. A “100% renewable” supplier contract is not sufficient on its own. The supplier must retire EACs (REGOs in the UK, GOs in the EU, RECs in the US) equivalent to the tariff’s electricity volume in the company’s name, and the retirements must be evidenced in the registry — Ofgem REGO database, AIB Hub, NERC NAR, or the relevant I-REC operator. The certificates must be from the same market boundary (UK REGOs for UK consumption; not French GOs). Even with all this in place, the location-based figure does not reach zero — it remains at the full grid factor × consumption. The dual-reporting rule means both must be disclosed: market-based ≈ 0 if all Quality Criteria are met, location-based at full grid factor unchanged. Additionally, SBTi target validation may apply an additionality overlay on top — legacy-hydropower EACs may meet GHG Protocol but be discounted or rejected at SBTi validation.
All three are Energy Attribute Certificates, but they are not interchangeable across markets. A REGO (Renewable Energy Guarantee of Origin) is the UK certificate, issued and tracked by Ofgem; valid for UK consumption only since UK departure from the EU energy market. A GO (Guarantee of Origin) is the EU certificate, issued under the AIB scheme and valid across participating EU member states interchangeably (e.g. a German GO covers Spanish consumption). A REC (Renewable Energy Certificate) is the US certificate, scheme-specific within NERC regions and traded in voluntary markets like Green-e. Per Quality Criterion 4, geographic match is at the scheme boundary — a UK REGO does not cover Irish consumption (Ireland is the I-RECs Ireland scheme); a French GO does not cover UK consumption; a US REC does not cover Mexican consumption. Each MWh of valid retired certificate covers one MWh of consumption at a zero factor in the market-based calculation; cross-scheme retirements fail the geographic-match test and the underlying consumption falls back to residual mix.
Yes — wherever market-based instruments are claimed. The GHG Protocol Scope 2 Guidance (2015) introduced the dual-reporting requirement: every reporting company that uses any market-based instrument (EACs, RECs, REGOs, GOs, I-RECs, PPAs, supplier-specific tariffs, green tariffs) must report both a location-based and a market-based Scope 2 figure. CSRD/ESRS E1 datapoint E1-6 requires both. CDP C6.3 requires both. SBTi target validation requires both. ISO 14064-1:2018 verification pipelines test for both. The narrow exception — location-based only — applies to companies operating exclusively in markets with no commercially available contractual instruments and making no green-tariff or PPA claim, which is rarely the right answer for any multinational reporter. Publishing only the market-based figure (typically the lower number after EAC retirement) is a structural compliance failure, not a presentation choice.
Build your Scope 2 disclosure on the dual-reporting baseline.
GreenCalculus tools partition consumption across all five market-based instrument tiers, validate each claim against the eight Scope 2 Quality Criteria, and produce both market-based and location-based figures with vintage stamps and source provenance — ready for CSRD E1-6, CDP C6.3, RE100 disclosure, and SBTi target submission. Built directly on the GHG Protocol Scope 2 Guidance — audit-grade by default.