Unpacking and Assessing a New Approach to Carbon Accounting

Purpose of the Convening

This closed-door leadership dialogue convened senior representatives from finance, industry, policy, technology, carbon markets and conservation to explore an emerging proposition from the E-ledgers Institute and assess its potential implications for greenhouse gas (GHG) accounting, capital allocation and real-economy decarbonisation.

The objective was not to endorse or validate a particular framework, but rather to create a constructive forum for critical examination. Participants were invited to test assumptions, explore practical applications, identify implementation challenges and consider how emerging accounting approaches may interact with existing climate, nature and financial architectures.

The discussion sought to bridge perspectives across disciplines that do not often engage directly on these questions, including accounting, sustainability reporting, carbon markets, enterprise systems, nature finance and investment decision-making.

In doing so, the convening aimed to surface areas of alignment, identify unresolved questions and inform future dialogue on the evolution of climate-related accounting and market infrastructure.

Featured voices included Professor Karthik Ramanna, Bob Litterman, Romie Goedicke den Hertog, Anita Varshney and included senior representatives from the maritime sector, oil & gas, port authorities, asset management, ratings agencies, enterprise technology, banks, family offices, philanthropists and NGOs.

The Core Proposition

The E-ledgers Institute presented a framework intended to strengthen the relationship between emissions accounting and economic decision-making.

At the centre of the proposition is the observation that current climate reporting systems are primarily designed to measure and disclose emissions, but are not necessarily structured to enable capital markets, supply chains or economic actors to consistently treat emissions and removals as decision-useful assets and liabilities.

The proposed framework applies principles of double-entry accounting to emissions stocks and flows by distinguishing between emissions liabilities and removal assets, while seeking to track these attributes at a more granular, product-level basis across value chains.

The proposition does not seek to replace existing GHG accounting frameworks or disclosure standards. Rather, it was presented as a complementary layer intended to enhance transparency, support more granular emissions attribution and strengthen the link between physical climate outcomes and economic activity.

Participants explored both the potential opportunities and practical challenges associated with such an approach, including questions relating to governance, interoperability, data requirements, assurance mechanisms, market adoption and implications for nature-based solutions.

Key Themes Emerging from Discussion

1. Recognition of the Problem Statement

Participants broadly agreed that current emissions accounting and disclosure systems face limitations when used to inform capital allocation, product-level decision-making and supply-chain transparency. Several contributors noted the potential value of moving toward more granular, activity-based emissions information where feasible.

2. Opportunities Identified

Discussion highlighted several areas where participants saw potential value in the E-ledgers proposition, including:

• Enhanced visibility of emissions across value chains;
• Improved differentiation between emissions sources, reductions and removals;
• Stronger connections between emissions information and economic decision-making;
• Potential applications in hard-to-abate sectors seeking greater product-level transparency.

Participants also noted the potential for more decision-useful information to support climate-related investment and procurement decisions.

3. Practical Implementation Considerations

A significant portion of the discussion focused on implementation requirements. Questions raised included:

• Data availability and collection costs;
• Interoperability with existing standards and reporting frameworks;
• Governance, verification and assurance arrangements;
• Treatment of commercially sensitive information;
• Institutional readiness across supply chains.

Several participants emphasized that practical implementation pathways will be as important as conceptual design.

4. Nature and Biodiversity Considerations

Participants highlighted the importance of ensuring that future development of the framework appropriately reflects nature-related outcomes and biodiversity considerations.

Several contributors noted that nature presents distinct characteristics compared with carbon, including location specificity, ecological complexity and the importance of non-market values.

Discussion also emphasized maintaining alignment with the mitigation hierarchy and ensuring that any future treatment of nature-related outcomes does not unintentionally create perverse incentives.

5. Equity and Emerging Market Perspectives

Participants discussed potential implications for suppliers, SMEs and actors in emerging markets. Considerations included:

• Implementation costs;
• Technical capacity;
• Access to data systems;
• Transition timelines;
• Potential impacts on competitiveness.

Several participants emphasized the importance of designing future pilots and implementation pathways in ways that support broad participation and avoid creating unintended barriers.

6. Areas for Further Exploration

The discussion identified several areas that may benefit from further analysis and stakeholder engagement, including:

• Governance and assurance architecture;
• Interaction with existing standards and reporting systems;
• Treatment of removals and nature-based solutions;
• Incentives for adoption;
• Pilot design and evaluation;
• Implications for international trade and emerging markets. 

Closing Reflections

The discussion demonstrated strong interest in exploring approaches that could strengthen the connection between emissions information, economic decision-making and real-world climate outcomes.

At the same time, participants highlighted important questions relating to governance, implementation, interoperability, nature integration and market adoption.

While views differed on the maturity and readiness of the proposition, there was broad agreement that continued experimentation, stakeholder engagement and practical testing will be important in assessing its potential role within the evolving climate and sustainability architecture.

The session underscored the value of bringing together perspectives from finance, industry, policy, technology and conservation to explore both opportunities and challenges in emerging approaches to climate accounting and market infrastructure.