Corporate Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventories: Methodologies, Challenges, and Best practices

Luis Guilherme da Silva Paula; Gabriela Trindade Pinheiro

DOI: 10.22167/2675-6528-202603196

Article derived from a Course Conclusion Work (TCC), with content based on the student’s original work and adapted to the editorial format of the E&S Magazine with the support of the ResumeAI tool, an artificial intelligence solution developed by Instituto Pecege for textual synthesis and organization.

Summary

This study analyzed the corporate greenhouse gas (GHG) inventories of multinational companies in the energy sector. The objective was to comparatively evaluate the inventories of Petrobras and Eletrobras, from 2019 to 2023, focusing on methodologies, technical and institutional challenges, and best practices for measurement, management, and reporting. The research, of a descriptive-analytical and documentary nature, examined the approaches adopted for defining organizational boundaries, accounting for scopes 1, 2, and 3, the use of carbon intensity indicators, and corporate climate governance mechanisms. The results indicated the widespread adoption of consolidated international methodological frameworks, but revealed persistent challenges related to inventory comparability, data quality, systemic variability in the sector, and indirect emissions management. A convergence was observed between the companies in the institutionalization of inventories as environmental governance instruments, with integration into decision-making processes, independent verification, and public disclosure. It was concluded that the consolidation of methodological and institutional best practices strengthened the transparency, credibility, and strategic utility of corporate GHG inventories, contributing to the energy sector’s role in the transition to a low-carbon economy.

Keywords: Greenhouse gases; Climate governance; Emissions inventory; Energy sector; Corporate sustainability.

1. Introduction

Climate change is configured as one of the main contemporary global challenges, requiring structural transformations in production and consumption models, especially in carbon-intensive sectors. In this context, the energy sector assumes a central role, as it encompasses activities of electricity generation, transportation, refining, and use of fossil fuels, being responsible for the largest share of anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2022a), global carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels and industrial processes reached approximately 38 ± 3 gigatons in 2019, corresponding to about two-thirds of total global GHG emissions. This scenario reinforces the strategic relevance of the energy sector in mitigating climate change.

In this context, corporate greenhouse gas inventories have become essential tools for managing climate risks, meeting regulatory requirements, and strategically positioning companies for the transition to a low-carbon economy. In addition to supporting internal decisions, these inventories strengthen corporate transparency and credibility with investors, regulators, and other stakeholders, allowing for the monitoring of environmental performance and exposure to physical and transition climate risks (IPCC, 2023; IEA, 2022b; CDP, 2024).

The preparation and reporting of corporate Greenhouse Gases (GHG) emissions are predominantly based on widely recognized international methodological references, such as the Greenhouse Gas Protocol (WRI & WBCSD, 2004), the ISO 14064-1 standard (ABNT, 2018), and the IPCC guidelines (IPCC, 2021). These instruments structure the accounting of emissions into three main categories: direct emissions from sources under the organization’s control (scope 1), indirect emissions associated with purchased energy (scope 2), and other indirect emissions along the value chain (scope 3). For multinational companies in the energy sector, the application of these methodologies is particularly challenging due to operational complexity, geographical dispersion of assets, and the multiplicity of suppliers and partners.

Despite the institutional advances observed in recent years, relevant methodological and operational gaps persist. Differences in the definition of organizational boundaries, in the selection of emission factors and global warming potentials, as well as in the treatment of biogenic or avoided emissions, compromise the comparability between inventories of companies in the same sector (Hernandez-Vega, 2025; Marlowe & ClarkE, 2022). As a consequence, the results become susceptible to uncertainties, weakening sectoral analyses and hindering the evaluation of progress in the global control of GHG emissions (NGFS, 2024).

In Brazil, initiatives such as the Brazilian GHG Protocol Program, coordinated by Fundação Getulio Vargas (FGV, 2024), have contributed to the adaptation of international methodologies to the national context and to the expansion of public disclosure of corporate inventories. In parallel, cooperation between the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (CVM) reinforces the climate transparency agenda in the capital markets (FGV, 2024; CDP, 2024). Nevertheless, the adoption of complete, verified, and methodologically consistent inventories remains heterogeneous among companies in the energy sector, reflecting differences in institutional maturity and technical capacity (Aiuto, Huckins & Momblanco, 2024). Furthermore, operational challenges related to data collection and quality persist, especially in extensive supply chains and in the measurement of methane emissions. The absence of reporting by small and medium-sized enterprises creates relevant gaps in sectoral inventories, compromising the effectiveness of mitigation strategies (Navarro et al., 2017).

Given this scenario, the present study aims to analyze corporate greenhouse gas inventories developed by multinational companies in the energy sector, focusing on the methodologies adopted, management and reporting practices, and associated technical, organizational, and regulatory challenges. The general objective is to critically analyze the main methodologies, steps, best practices, and difficulties related to the development of these inventories, seeking to identify widely used benchmarks, map effective practices, understand the main obstacles, and propose recommendations that strengthen the measurement, transparency, and comparability of corporate Greenhouse Gases (GHG) emissions, contributing to the strategic role of the energy sector in the transition to a low-carbon economy.

2. Material and Methods

The present study was characterized as an applied research, of a descriptive-analytical nature, and was structured as documentary research, according to the guidelines of Gil (2017) and Lakatos and Marconi (2017). A mixed methodological approach was adopted, combining quantitative and qualitative elements to deepen the understanding of the investigated phenomenon. This choice allowed for a comprehensive analysis of corporate greenhouse gas inventories.

In the quantitative dimension, historical series of absolute emissions were organized, covering scopes one, two, and three, when available in the analyzed documents. Additionally, carbon intensity indicators were compiled and examined. This stage aimed to structure a temporal overview of the companies’ performance regarding their GHG emissions, allowing for the identification of patterns and trends over the studied period.

The qualitative dimension focused on the analysis of the methodological choices adopted by the companies, the accounting criteria employed, the climate governance structures implemented, and the limitations stated in the documents. For this purpose, the logic of documentary case study, as proposed by Yin (2016), and the procedures of documentary analysis, as per Bardin (2016), were followed. This approach allowed for an in-depth understanding of the practices and challenges inherent in the preparation of the inventories.

The unit of empirical analysis consisted of corporate greenhouse gas (GHG) inventories prepared by multinational companies in the energy sector. Specifically, the study focused on the comparative evaluation of the inventories of Petróleo Brasileiro S.A. (Petrobras) and Centrais Elétricas Brasileiras S.A. (Eletrobras). Both companies were selected for their relevance in the Brazilian energy scenario and for the public availability of their environmental reports.

The data were collected from annual reports, sustainability reports, and corporate GHG inventories, all publicly disclosed by Petrobras and Eletrobras. The collection period covered the years 2019 to 2023. The temporal scope was established due to the availability of consolidated, comparable, and publicly accessible historical series for both organizations at the time of the research.

For the analysis of inventories, the widely recognized international methodological references were considered, such as the Greenhouse Gas Protocol (WRI & WBCSD, 2004), the guidelines of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2021), and the ABNT NBR ISO 14064-1 standard (ABNT, 2018). Furthermore, alignments with reporting standards such as GRI 305 (GRI, 2016), which guide the disclosure of information on emissions, were observed.

The selection of documents for analysis followed specific criteria. Only inventories that presented a structure for scopes one and two, at a minimum, and that clearly explained the methodology used were included. A minimum historical series of data and sufficient information for the analysis of climatic performance were also required. Reports containing relevant gaps or inconsistencies that prevented comparison were excluded from the scope of the research.

During the analysis, aspects such as heterogeneity in scope three coverage, methodological revisions, and changes in the organizational perimeter of companies were considered. The influence of exogenous factors, such as hydrology and systemic dispatch, which can affect sectoral indicators, was also taken into account. These elements were examined to contextualize and qualify the interpretation of the inventory data.

3. Results and Discussion

The analysis of the corporate greenhouse gas (GHG) inventories of Petrobras and Eletrobras, in the period from 2019 to 2023, revealed crucial aspects regarding their methodologies, operational challenges, and institutional practices. This comparative study, based on the GHG Protocol Corporate Standard, ISO 14064, and IPCC guidelines, sought to understand the strategic role of these instruments in the energy sector’s transition to a low-carbon economy. The Brazilian energy context, with its predominantly renewable electricity matrix and the exploration of hydrocarbons in deep waters, offers a unique scenario for evaluating corporate climate performance. The investigation transcended the mere presentation of data, focusing on understanding the causes of observed variations, quantifying carbon intensity indicators, and comparing accounting methodologies with relevant scientific literature.

Petróleo Brasileiro S.A. (Petrobras): Operational Efficiency and Fossil Carbon Challenges

Petrobras’s emissions inventory reflects the complexity of its Exploration and Production (E&P) operations in the pre-salt and its Refining park. The analysis of data from 2019 to 2023 indicated a relative decarbonization trajectory, driven by technological advances in CO2 reinjection and active portfolio management through divestments. This approach is in line with the IPCC’s conclusions (2022b), which highlight the importance of reducing carbon intensity to mitigate climate change. The company demonstrates a continuous effort to increase productivity and, simultaneously, decrease emissions per unit produced, which is an effective strategy for environmental performance.

Evolution of Absolute and Operational Emissions

The longitudinal analysis of Petrobras’ emissions, between 2019 and 2023, demonstrated a downward trend in the absolute values of Scopes 1 and 2. Scope 1 emissions decreased from 59 million tons of CO2 equivalent in 2019 to a projection of approximately 45 million tons in 2023. Similarly, Scope 2 emissions, related to purchased energy, reduced from 0.5 million to about 0.2 million tons of CO2 equivalent in the same period. Consequently, total operational emissions (Scopes 1 and 2) showed a drop from 59.5 million to approximately 45.2 million tons of CO2 equivalent, representing a reduction of about 24%. In contrast, Scope 3 emissions, which encompass the value chain, remained at high levels, varying from 420 million tons in 2019 to an estimate of 410 million tons in 2023, reflecting the nature of the company’s business model and the predominance of the use of sold products.

Scope Analysis 1: Efficiency in E&P and Refining

Petrobras’ strategy of focusing on the exploration of deep ocean areas, especially in the pre-salt, influenced the carbon efficiency of its operations between 2019 and 2023. Although production increased, GHG intensity in the Exploration and Production (E&P) sector decreased from 17.3 kg of CO2 equivalent per barrel of oil equivalent in 2019 to 13.8 kg in 2023, a reduction of approximately 20% (PETROBRAS, 2020; 2024a). In refining, efficiency improved by about 12%, with carbon intensity falling from 41.7 kg of CO2 equivalent per ton of processed feedstock to 36.8 kg in the same period (PETROBRAS, 2020; 2024a). This improvement is attributed to the adoption of decarbonization technologies.

Among the implemented technologies, Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Storage (CCUS) stands out, in which Petrobras is a world leader in industrial initiatives. In 2023, 13 million tons of CO2 were reinjected, bringing the accumulated total since 2008 to over 30 million tons (PETROBRAS, 2024a). This practice significantly reduces direct emissions and the carbon intensity per barrel produced. Another innovation is HISEP® (High Pressure Separation), a technology developed for the pre-salt that separates CO2 and other gases on the seabed, optimizing processing on floating production, storage, and offloading units (FPSOs) and reducing atmospheric emissions.

The company has also invested in Electric Platforms, which replace fossil fuel equipment with electrified systems, with the expectation of reducing operational emissions by 20%. The RefTOP Program, with an investment of 300 million dollars by 2025, aims to modernize refineries through digitalization, energy optimization, and thermal improvements, as indicated by research pointing to emission reductions in refining (PETROBRAS, 2024c). Additionally, the Biorefino 2030 plan foresees the inclusion of biofuels in refining, such as renewable diesel (HVO) and sustainable aviation fuel, with the reform of the Presidente Getúlio Vargas Refinery (REPAR) allowing the production of diesel with 5% renewables (PETROBRAS, 2021). These innovations are aligned with the concept of “incremental technological learning” (Huenteler et al., 2016), fundamental for the decarbonization of energy-intensive industries.

The Flaring Problem

Gas flaring represents a significant environmental and operational challenge in the oil and gas industry, resulting in high GHG emissions and energy loss. From 2019 to 2023, Petrobras demonstrated progress in reducing this liability. In 2020, the daily volume of gas flared was reduced by 23% compared to the previous year, reaching approximately 5.7 million cubic meters per day, due to control actions in exploration, production, and refining. Throughout the five-year period, gas utilization improved, reaching 97.6% in 2023 and 98.2% in December, positioning the company among the best in the international sector (PETROBRAS, 2024b).

Strategies to mitigate flaring include the prevention of fugitive emissions and the recovery of residual gas. In the offshore sector, especially in deep waters, Petrobras has implemented Flare Gas Recovery Units (FGRU) on platforms such as P-66, P-70, and P-77 since 2021, with expansion plans (PETROBRAS, 2022). In refining, digitalization and automation with advanced sensors and artificial intelligence have been employed to monitor and control flare combustion systems in real-time, contributing to greater efficiency and reduced losses (Alvarez et al., 2012; Marcelo et al., 2025). Despite these advances, technical challenges such as system commissioning, lack of infrastructure to transport pre-salt gas, and safety requirements still demand flaring to avoid risks, according to international standards like API 521. Petrobras’s climate governance, with its participation in initiatives such as Zero Routine Flaring by 2030 and Aiming for Zero Methane Emissions, reinforces the company’s commitment to eliminating routine flaring and continuously reducing methane emissions.

Carbon Intensity Indicators (KPIs)

Corporate environmental governance at Petrobras is supported by robust indicators that quantify performance and guide strategic decisions. The main climate efficiency indicators used between 2019 and 2023 were GHG intensity in Exploration and Production (IGEE E&P), GHG intensity in Refining (IGEE Refining), and methane intensity in upstream. GHG intensity in E&P decreased from 17.3 kg of CO2 equivalent per barrel of oil equivalent in 2019 to 13.8 kg in 2023. GHG intensity in Refining reduced from 41.7 kg of CO2 equivalent per ton of processed feedstock to 36.8 kg in the same period. Methane intensity also showed a significant drop, from 0.58 tons of CH4 per thousand tons of hydrocarbons in 2019 to 0.23 in 2023.

The positive evolution of these indicators demonstrates the coherence of Petrobras’ decarbonization strategy and its integration into corporate management. Specialized literature, such as Gillingham et al. (2018), emphasizes that the continuous improvement of operational environmental indicators is crucial for economic resilience in scenarios of energy transition and increased regulatory restrictions. Financial markets, according to Freitas (2025), increasingly incorporate climate factors into their risk analyses, influencing the cost of capital and resource allocation. The linkage of environmental and ESG performance KPIs to variable remuneration, as observed in the 2023 Sustainability Report, strengthens governance and organizational responsibility, aligning top management incentives with sustainable objectives (Cohen et al., 2023).

Scope 3 Emissions: The Critical Category

Scope 3 emissions represented the largest share of Petrobras’s inventory between 2019 and 2023, exceeding 85% of total emissions, with a highlight on category 11 (use of sold products). These emissions, although not under the company’s direct control, are influenced by its operations and have been the subject of increasing scrutiny from investors, regulators, and society (Frumhoff, Heede & Oreskes, 2015). Petrobras has improved its emissions accounting according to the GHG Protocol and international emission factors, increasing transparency and aligning with TCFD guidelines. The detailed presentation of categories 10 and 11 in the reports demonstrates a commitment to climate responsibility and meets the demand for consistent ESG reporting (IPIECA, 2020).

Scope 3 management is challenging due to its indirect nature, requiring a multifaceted strategy. Petrobras has focused on product decarbonization, such as the Neutral Carbon Podium Gasoline and Bio-refining 2030 (PETROBRAS, 2023), on engaging with the value chain to promote vessels with lower environmental impact (PETROBRAS, 2022), on consumer education, and on voluntary carbon credit offsets. Although the company has not yet defined specific Scope 3 targets, it is advancing in methodology and strategy, seeking to expand its activities through the reconfiguration of the energy portfolio and partnerships for decarbonization. The Scope 3 strategy is based on the technical rigor of accounting, the diversity of products, and influence over the value chain, being essential to increase the company’s competitiveness in the low carbon economy.

Eletrobras: Hydrological Vulnerability and the Renewable Matrix

Eletrobras, as the main electric power generation and transmission company in Brazil, operates with a predominantly hydroelectric matrix, with over 95% of its installed capacity coming from renewable sources, including wind and nuclear, and few fossil thermal power plants until 2023. This configuration positions it as a crucial player in Brazil’s “clean electricity matrix,” contributing to the country’s recognition as one of the leading low-carbon economies in international reports. The company was responsible for approximately 30% of the installed generation capacity and about 50% of the transmission lines of the National Interconnected System (SIN) between 2019 and 2023 (ELETROBRAS, 2019-2023; ANEEL, 2023).

Eletrobras’s dependence on water resources confers climate vulnerability to its performance and emissions. The annual variation in reservoir inflows directly influences hydroelectric management and the need to activate thermoelectric plants in the National Interconnected System, even those not integrated into the company’s direct portfolio. Although Eletrobras presents a low average MWh emission, its climate performance must be evaluated in conjunction with the operation of the national electricity system. From an accounting perspective, Eletrobras’s emissions are mostly indirect, concentrated in Scope 2 (energy purchased for transmission assets) and Scope 3 (impacts of SIN operation). This profile distinguishes it from oil and gas companies, presenting specific methodological challenges in evaluating its carbon footprint.

Quantitative Analysis and the Impact of the 2021 Drought

Eletrobras’s accounting structure for emissions reveals that the majority of emissions are indirect, especially Scope 2, related to the energy of transmission assets, and Scope 3, referring to the impacts of the operation of the National Interconnected System (SIN). Eletrobras’s total operational emissions (Scopes 1 and 2) varied from 5.89 million tons of CO2 equivalent in 2019 to 4.29 million in 2023. In 2020, there was a 20.9% reduction in operational emissions, totaling 4.66 million tons of CO2 equivalent, driven by a favorable hydrological year and greater hydroelectric participation.

However, 2021 marked a severe water crisis in Brazil, resulting in a sharp increase of 48.3% in operational emissions, which reached 6.91 million tons of CO2 equivalent. This peak was caused by the reduction in reservoirs and the greater dispatch of thermal power plants fueled by fossil fuels to ensure the supply of electric energy. In 2022, a gradual hydrological recovery and a reduction in the use of thermoelectric plants were observed, leading to a decrease of 38.2% in operational emissions, totaling 4.27 million tons of CO2 equivalent. In 2023, hydrological conditions became more stable, with operational emissions remaining at 4.29 million tons of CO2 equivalent, a marginal increase of 0.5% compared to the previous year, consolidating the renewable matrix.

Scope 2 and Transmission Losses

Eletrobras’ Scope 2 emissions, which are indirect GHG emissions associated with purchased and consumed electricity, are accounted for predominantly by the location-based approach, using the average emission factor of the National Interconnected System (SIN) (MCTI, 2021). This methodology reflects the average carbon intensity of the electricity on the grid, considering the dispatch of power plants during the period. For Eletrobras, Scope 2 is directly linked to energy consumption in its operations, such as substations and control centers, and includes technical losses in energy transmission on transmission lines, which represent implicit energy consumption for the service provided.

Technical analysis of Eletrobras’ Scope 2 (2019-2023)

The technical analysis of Eletrobras’ Scope 2 emissions between 2019 and 2023 revealed variations influenced by systemic factors of the SIN and the company’s operational performance. In 2021, the water crisis resulted in intensive use of fossil fuel power plants, increasing the carbon intensity of electricity and, consequently, indirect Scope 2 emissions, regardless of Eletrobras’ energy efficiency (ONS, 2021; EPE, 2022). Technical losses in transmission remained stable, varying between 3.5% and 3.8% of the energy in the SIN, reflecting the Joule effect and the characteristics of the transmission lines (ANEEL, 2022; ONS, 2023). These losses, with low managerial elasticity in the short and medium term, are impacted by long-term planning decisions (EPE, 2023).

The constancy of technical losses indicates that the variations in Eletrobras’ Scope 2 emissions are largely influenced by factors beyond the company’s control, especially the carbonization of the electricity system during periods of hydrological stress. Factors such as the average emission factor of the SIN and thermoelectric dispatch in scenarios of water scarcity are systemic determinants that the company does not control. This distinction is crucial to avoid simplified inferences about the dynamics of Scope 2 emissions, allowing for a more technically grounded interpretation and restricting the actual extent of managerial intervention.

Operational and Methodological Determinants of Eletrobras’ Scope 2 Emissions

The analysis of the operational and methodological determinants of Eletrobras’ Scope 2 emissions reveals that a portion of the recorded variability results from methodological and organizational choices. Perimeter modifications and reporting criteria, such as the 2022 reprocessing that excluded Eletro-nuclear, Itaipu, and Cepel, had a significant effect on comparability over time. Although these changes do not indicate substantial shifts in the physical performance of operations, they emphasize the importance of prudence in evaluating trends and using consolidated indicators. The clarification of these factors is fundamental for the transparency and credibility of the inventories.

Emission Intensity Indicators

Eletrobras’ GHG emission intensity indicators, presented according to GRI 305-4 standard, are key environmental performance metrics. Total carbon intensity (Scopes 1, 2, and 3) per MWh varied from 0.040 in 2019 to 0.056 in 2023. Intensity per Net Operating Revenue (NOR) varied from 0.216 in 2019 to 0.152 in 2023. Between 2019 and 2020, carbon intensity was low and stable (0.040 to 0.038 tCO2/MWh), reflecting the high share of hydroelectric generation and the decrease in the use of fossil fuel thermal power plants, with the implicit energy denominator growing and total emissions under control.

In 2021, there was a significant increase in carbon intensity to 0.059 tCO2/MWh and a decrease in the energy denominator, directly linked to the severe water crisis that required greater use of fossil fuel power plants in the SIN. This intensity peak should not be interpreted as a loss of environmental efficiency, but as a consequence of a systemic shock. Between 2022 and 2023, a partial reversal was observed, with intensity falling to 0.052 tCO2/MWh in 2022 and rising slightly to 0.056 tCO2/MWh in 2023, highlighting the indicator’s dependence on the denominator used and hydrological conditions. The inclusion of Scope 3 in the KPIs raises carbon intensity and emphasizes the systemic nature of the indicator, but compromises its effectiveness as a management metric due to the influence of external technological decisions.

Structural convergence between Petrobras and Eletrobras in GHG inventory governance

The intensification of climate change has driven the need for companies to measure, manage, and reduce their Greenhouse Gases (GHG) emissions. The IPCC (2022a) emphasizes the urgency of reaching peak global emissions by 2025 and reducing them by 43% by 2030, making good corporate climate governance practices crucial. In this context, GHG inventory is an essential tool for environmental governance, providing the technical basis for mitigation strategies, transparency, and accountability. The standardization of inventories was enabled by international standards such as the GHG Protocol (WRI & WBCSD, 2004), ISO 14064 (ABNT, 2018), and the IPCC guidelines (2021), which structure the accounting of emissions in scopes 1, 2, and 3.

Petrobras and Eletrobras exemplify the use of GHG inventory as an environmental governance tool. Both companies published annual and sustainability reports with their emission inventories, carbon management, and climate goals between 2019 and 2023 (PETROBRAS, 2019–2023; ELETROBRAS, 2019–2023). Petrobras has been preparing its inventory according to the GHG Protocol since 2002, externally verifies the information, and participates in CDP Climate, demonstrating maturity in climate management. Eletrobras, in turn, aligns its emissions with international methodologies, TCFD recommendations, and GRI indicators (ELETROBRAS, 2023).

From a technical-methodological standpoint, both companies adopt the GHG Protocol and IPCC guidelines, using the operational control criterion as the organizational boundary. Petrobras details the bottom-up approach and the use of sectoral technical references such as API and AP-42/US EPA. Eletrobras states it follows the methodologies of the IPCC and the GHG Protocol. In terms of data infrastructure, Petrobras has used the SIGEA® system since 2002 to process information from thousands of emission sources, while Eletrobras consolidates its inventory via the IGS system, with standardized data collection and centralized calculation, including transmission losses. This functional convergence ensures data consistency and traceability.

More than a merely informational function, the GHG inventory is consolidated as an accountability and management tool for both companies. Petrobras demonstrates strong institutionalization, with voluntary publication since 2002, annual independent verification, participation in the Brazilian GHG Protocol Program, and alignment with TCFD recommendations. Eletrobras, although with more recent evolution, also publishes in the Public Registry of the Brazilian GHG Protocol Program, obtained the Gold Seal, and created a Climate Strategy Working Group. These practices reinforce the transparency, credibility, and strategic utility of the inventories.

The identified technical-methodological best practices include the adoption of consolidated international standards, clear definition of organizational boundaries, consistent coverage of Scopes 1 and 2, and the explicit statement of uncertainties and limitations. These elements are crucial to ensure the comparability, traceability, and credibility of the reported information. On the institutional axis, independent verification, public registration of emissions, continuity of historical series, and integration of the inventory into strategic decisions broaden its function beyond meeting transparency requirements. The inventory thus operates as a climate governance instrument, supporting goal setting, risk management, and stakeholder dialogue.

Despite the observed maturity, the analysis also revealed bottlenecks related to the degree of operational control companies have over reported emissions. For Petrobras, a significant portion of the climate footprint is concentrated in Scope 3, especially in emissions arising from the use of products sold. This category depends on factors external to the company’s direct control, such as consumption patterns, energy infrastructure, and sector regulation. Even with advances in operational efficiency and CO2 reinjection, the challenge of converting corporate influence into effective reduction of indirect emissions persists.

In Eletrobras’ case, the bottlenecks are more associated with the influence of systemic variables on the indicators, mainly in Scope 2. Part of the indirect emissions varies according to the average emission factor of the National Interconnected System, which is affected by hydrological conditions, thermoelectric dispatch, and centralized decisions in the electricity sector. Thus, fluctuations in emissions may reflect external events, such as water crises, and not necessarily a loss of environmental efficiency or fragility in corporate management. This reinforces the need to differentiate between directly controllable, influenceable, and conditioned emissions by methodological, regulatory, and systemic factors.

In summary, the comparative analysis of Petrobras’ and Eletrobras’ GHG inventories demonstrated the consolidation of international methodological frameworks and the institutionalization of these inventories as strategic tools for climate governance. Both companies exhibited significant advances in measuring and reporting their emissions, with Petrobras standing out in reducing carbon intensity in Scopes 1 and 2 through technological innovations, and Eletrobras showcasing a predominantly renewable energy matrix. However, persistent challenges were identified, such as the complexity of Scope 3 emissions management for Petrobras and Eletrobras’ vulnerability to systemic and hydrological factors affecting the comparability of its Scope 2 indicators. Overcoming these challenges requires continuous improvement in data governance and information standardization, strengthening the transparency and credibility of inventories to support the energy transition.

4. Conclusion

This study analyzed the corporate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions inventories of multinational companies in the energy sector, focusing on methodologies, technical and institutional challenges, and best practices for measurement, management, and reporting. It was found that both Petrobras and Eletrobras adopted consolidated international methodological frameworks, such as the GHG Protocol and IPCC guidelines, institutionalizing their inventories as essential tools for climate governance. At Petrobras, a relative decarbonization trend was observed in Scopes 1 and 2 between 2019 and 2023, driven by technological innovations like Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Storage (CCUS) and HISEP®, as well as active management for flaring reduction. However, Scope 3 emissions, particularly those arising from the use of sold products, remained a significant challenge due to their indirect nature. For Eletrobras, a predominantly renewable energy matrix was identified, but its Scope 2 and 3 emissions demonstrated vulnerability to systemic factors, such as hydrological conditions and the thermoelectric dispatch of the National Interconnected System, as evidenced by the 2021 water crisis. The study’s main contribution lies in explicating how the consolidation of good methodological and institutional practices strengthens the transparency, credibility, and strategic utility of corporate GHG inventories, supporting the energy sector’s role in the transition to a low-carbon economy.

Despite advances in the structuring and institutionalization of inventories, the study revealed important limitations, including heterogeneity in Scope 3 coverage, methodological revisions, and scope changes that affect intertemporal and inter-company comparability. Additionally, reliance on publicly disclosed secondary information restricted the level of detail in the analysis. Bottlenecks related to effective operational control over reported emissions persist, especially in Scope 3 for Petrobras and in Eletrobras’s Scope 2 emissions, influenced by systemic variables. It is recommended for future research to expand the sample of companies, include later periods with consolidated and audited data, and deepen the analysis of primary data quality, recalculations of basis of estimates, emission factors, and the distinction between operational, methodological, and systemic effects, in order to improve data governance and the standardization of reported information.

Bibliographic References

ASSOCIAÇÃO BRASILEIRA DE NORMAS TÉCNICAS (ABNT). ABNT NBR ISO 14064-1: gases de efeito estufa – parte 1: especificação e orientação, a nível organizacional, para a quantificação e elaboração de relatórios de emissões e remoções de gases de efeito estufa. Rio de Janeiro: ABNT, 2018.

CARBON DISCLOSURE PROJECT (CDP). CDP global disclosure report 2024: time for transparency – deforestation- and conversion-free supply chains. London: CDP, 2024. Disponível em: https://www.cdp.net/en/research/global-reports. Acesso em: 27 jan. 2026.

Hernandez-Vega, 2025 [Full reference not found in the original document]

IEA, 2022b [Full reference not found in the original document]

IPCC, 2021 [Full reference not found in the original document]

IPCC, 2022a [Full reference not found in original document]

IPCC, 2023 [Full reference not found in original document]

Marlowe & ClarkE, 2022 [Full reference not found in the original document]

NGFS, 2024 [Full reference not

WRI & WBCSD, 2004 [Full reference not found in original document]

Article originating from the Final Course Work of the Specialization in Compliance and ESG of the MBA USP/Esalq

To learn more about the course, click here and access the MBX Academy platform