Bilan Carbone® vs GHG Protocol: the 5 differences that matter

At the scoping stage, we are asked the same question every week: should we go with the GHG Protocol or with Bilan Carbone® (the French carbon accounting method)? It is a fair question. The two methods cover the same scopes, count the same gases and are often applied to the same companies, yet they differ on points that can influence your choice, particularly if your company is within the scope of the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) or deals with international counterparts.

The graphic above summarises the picture: a broad common base, a few concrete differences and two distinct ecosystems. The rest of the article sets out the five differences that matter, corrects the misconceptions that still circulate and offers a way of choosing according to your context, with three typical profiles that we see every week at the scoping stage.

1Both methods apply the same ISO standard, scopes and gases

Before looking at what separates the two methods, it helps to start with what they have in common. Whichever method is used, a corporate carbon footprint does the same thing: it counts the greenhouse gases emitted within a given boundary over a given period, converting everything into CO2 equivalent. This common base is ISO 14064-1, the standard that sets out how emissions are quantified at organisation level. The GHG Protocol and Bilan Carbone® are two methodologies for applying that same standard.

• The same founding principles: relevance, completeness, consistency, transparency, accuracy
• The same gases covered: the six gases of the Kyoto Protocol (CO₂, CH₄, N₂O, SF₆, HFC, PFC) plus NF₃
• The same scopes: Scope 1 (direct emissions), Scope 2 (purchased energy), Scope 3 (in French) (upstream and downstream value chain)
• The same global warming potentials: those published by the IPCC (the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), using the AR6 edition since 2023

In practice, the data your service provider will ask for is the same under both methods: energy invoices, accounts payable broken down by purchasing category, kilometres travelled by mode of transport, waste tonnages and commuting. The data collection phase, which accounts for 60 to 70% of the budget of a carbon footprint, does not depend on the choice of method. For the most part, nor does the calculation: the emission factors used largely overlap, and for a boundary within France the low-carbon electricity mix limits the differences to a few per cent. That is why, in the vast majority of cases, a carbon footprint can be delivered in both formats at no significant extra cost: only the format of the deliverable changes.

2The five differences between the two methods, and three misconceptions

Five differences nonetheless remain, and they can influence your choice. Three misconceptions also muddy the picture, and we deal with those straight after the differences.

How emission categories are organised

Bilan Carbone® V9 organises emissions into 11 emission categories following a business logic: energy, capital goods, non-energy emissions, inputs and materials, freight, travel, waste, product use, end of life, franchises and investments. The structure follows the way a company thinks about its activities: you refer to a "travel" category, not to "upstream category 6". The GHG Protocol Corporate Value Chain (Scope 3) Standard (WRI / WBCSD, 2011), by contrast, divides the value chain into 15 standardised upstream and downstream categories (in French) (purchased goods and services, upstream transportation, use of sold products and so on). This is more abstract for a French executive, but it is the language of investors, auditors and international executives. Since V9 of Bilan Carbone® (July 2024), the two map directly onto each other.

• Bilan Carbone® V9: 11 emission categories, business logic, intuitive for a French executive
• GHG Protocol Scope 3: 15 standardised categories, value chain logic, upstream and downstream
• Conversion: direct since V9, a few hours of formatting work for the service provider

Reference emission factors

Bilan Carbone® relies mainly on the Base Empreinte, the public emission factor database of ADEME (the French Agency for Ecological Transition). It holds around 5,000 free factors calibrated for the French context, in particular for the electricity mix, at 50-60 gCO2/kWh. The GHG Protocol draws on a wider range of sources depending on the region: DEFRA in the United Kingdom, the EPA in the United States, ecoinvent for life cycle assessments (LCA), the IEA for international energy mixes, and proprietary sector databases. For a single-site French company, the differences between these databases are marginal on 90% of emission categories. For a multi-country group, by contrast, the choice of database determines how consistent the result is, and the GHG Protocol gives more freedom here.

How Scope 2 is treated

A technical point, but a strategic one: since 2015 the GHG Protocol has required dual reporting of Scope 2, that is, reporting under both the location-based method (the average of the national grid mix) and the market-based method (which takes account of green electricity contracts, power purchase agreements (PPAs) and guarantees of origin). A company that buys certified renewable electricity can therefore report Scope 2 emissions close to zero on a market-based basis, while remaining transparent about the physical mix. Bilan Carbone® historically used the location-based method alone; V9 now aligns with the GHG Protocol by recommending both. This is a clear convergence, although for a carbon footprint covering a period before 2025 the gap can remain significant for a company that has rolled out a PPA strategy.

Practitioner certification

Bilan Carbone® is governed centrally: the Association pour la transition Bas Carbone (ABC), the French low-carbon transition association, trains and certifies consultants, maintains the method and rules on changes to it. Diag Décarbon'Action (in French) (in French) is a carbon footprint programme subsidised by Bpifrance (the French public investment bank) for companies established in France, and ABC certification is an essential prerequisite for carrying one out. The GHG Protocol, by contrast, is an open standard: any consultant can claim to apply it, with no formal vetting, which is both its strength (very wide adoption worldwide) and its weakness (competence varies considerably). In practice, good international providers have been through recognised training routes (the GHG Management Institute, GRI, CDP Accredited Solutions Provider), but none of these routes is mandatory.

The ecosystem around each method

This is probably the most underestimated difference. Bilan Carbone® sits within a very dense French ecosystem: Base Empreinte, Diag Décarbon'Action, ADEME's network of regional advisers, compatible tools (Carbo, Greenly, Sami, Coclicot and the historic ABC software) and Bilan Carbone®+ for transition plans. The GHG Protocol sits within the international ecosystem: CDP, SBTi, TCFD, ISSB and proprietary platforms such as Sweep, Watershed and Persefoni. For a French SME, the French ecosystem offers concrete financial support; for an exporting mid-cap company (ETI in French) or a subsidiary, the international one offers strategic clarity with international investors and clients.

Three misconceptions

"Bilan Carbone® only counts CO2." That is wrong: the name is a commercial shortcut inherited from the 2000s, and both methodologies cover the seven reference greenhouse gases (the six gases of the Kyoto Protocol plus NF₃), converted into CO2 equivalent using the global warming potentials published by the IPCC (AR6 since 2023).

"The GHG Protocol is more rigorous." This is wrong too. Both methods apply the same ISO 14064 standard, the same quality principles and the same breakdown into scopes. The GHG Protocol is more widely used internationally, which does not make it more rigorous. A poorly done carbon footprint remains poor under either logo: what counts is the competence of the practitioner and the quality of the data.

"If I choose the wrong method, I will have to start again." That is also wrong. A carbon footprint produced under one method converts into the other without fresh data collection or recalculation: it is a formatting exercise, not a restart of the project. V9 of Bilan Carbone® was designed for a direct mapping to the 15 GHG Protocol categories, and the worst case is a few hours of work for your service provider.

Why two methods coexist

Some history helps to explain the differences. The GHG Protocol Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard (the Corporate Standard) was published in 2001 by the World Resources Institute and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, just as the first listed groups were starting to report their emissions. Bilan Carbone® was developed in parallel, between 2002 and 2004, by Jean-Marc Jancovici for ADEME, with a French aim: to equip companies and local authorities for the era of carbon accounting. ABC took over the method in 2011 and has maintained it since.

The two have converged in substance while keeping their own ecosystems, and V9 of Bilan Carbone® (July 2024) completes that convergence by aligning explicitly with the GHG Protocol and with the CSRD's climate standard, ESRS E1 (one of the European Sustainability Reporting Standards). Today the market offers two largely compatible formats rather than two competing methods.

3Which method each regulatory framework requires in 2026

In most cases the question that matters is "what am I being asked for, and by whom?", not "which method is better?". The regulatory position changed significantly between 2024 and 2026, so it helps to set out the milestones in order before choosing.

France: the greenhouse gas emissions report (BEGES)

The BEGES (from the French bilan d'émissions de gaz à effet de serre) remains mandatory for companies with more than 500 employees (250 in overseas France), local authorities with more than 50,000 inhabitants and public establishments with more than 250 staff. Under the BEGES, Scope 3 (in French) is mandatory only for public entities and for companies that must publish a sustainability statement (the CSRD sustainability report), as set out in Article R229-47 of the French Environmental Code, unless those companies benefit from the exemption described below. The BEGES does not prescribe any specific method. Bilan Carbone® is the most straightforward route (compatible format, ADEME database, publication on ADEME's platform for greenhouse gas emissions reports), but a GHG Protocol deliverable is perfectly acceptable. The penalty for failing to produce a BEGES is €50,000, doubling for a repeat offence, a ceiling that remains modest next to the CSRD stakes discussed below.

CSRD and ESRS E1 (EU)

The turning point came with the French law of 30 April 2025: companies within the scope of the CSRD (the Directive (EU) 2022/2464 on sustainability reporting) are now exempt from the BEGES obligation, provided that their sustainability statement includes an inventory of their emissions, with a breakdown of their activities in France, and a transition plan. ESRS E1, the CSRD's climate standard, takes over and is more demanding. It explicitly adopts the structure of the GHG Protocol (the 15 Scope 3 categories), requires dual reporting of Scope 2 and adds materiality and trajectory requirements. A well-run Bilan Carbone® V9 meets these requirements (V9 was designed for that), but the format that speaks to European auditors and regulators remains that of the GHG Protocol.

CDP, SBTi, ISSB (international)

For all international frameworks, the answer fits in one line: GHG Protocol, with no alternative. Three names come up constantly once you leave France. The CDP is the main climate disclosure platform for investors (nearly 24,000 companies respond to it), and its questionnaire follows the GHG Protocol category by category. The Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) validates "science-based" reduction pathways, and it requires a GHG Protocol inventory to assess an application. Lastly, the ISSB (International Sustainability Standards Board), adopted by more than 30 countries including the United Kingdom, Japan, Brazil and Australia, is the international climate reporting standard for listed companies, and it also requires the GHG Protocol. If your client, your investor or your parent company mentions any of these three, you deliver in the GHG Protocol format.

4How to choose: three questions and three typical profiles

After four years of supporting every kind of company, from regional SMEs to subsidiaries of large groups, we have arrived at a simple scoping rule that works in the great majority of cases. Three questions, asked in order, are enough to identify three typical profiles. Any remaining points are settled at the margins during scoping with your service provider.

Three questions to ask

Question 1: Do you have counterparts outside France who expect reporting aligned with international standards? Examples include a foreign investor, a parent company based outside France, a client who asks for your CDP questionnaire or your SBTi pathway, or a large corporate client that wants your indirect emissions in its own format. If so, you need a deliverable in GHG Protocol format, in addition to Bilan Carbone® if you are in France, rather than in its place. If not, move on to question 2.

Question 2: Are you subject to the CSRD today, or will you be within the next two years? The thresholds changed with the Omnibus I Directive of February 2026: only companies with more than 1,000 employees and a turnover above €450 million remain in scope, and listed SMEs drop out of it. If you are in scope, your climate reporting will go through ESRS E1, which uses the language of the GHG Protocol. In that case, ask for a dual deliverable, to keep compatibility with the French ecosystem (financial support, ADEME sector benchmarks). If not, move on to question 3.

Question 3: Are you eligible for Diag Décarbon'Action? This is the ADEME and Bpifrance scheme that funds a large part of a first carbon footprint. It brings the net cost down to €6,000 excl. VAT (against €10,000 to €30,000 at full price). It is open to companies with fewer than 500 employees, subject to conditions, and it requires a provider certified in Bilan Carbone® by ABC. If you are eligible, it is the obvious economic choice for a first carbon footprint. If not, the two methods are on a par, and the choice of provider makes the difference, not the choice of method.

Three profiles, three decisions

Profile A: the single-site French company, with between 50 and 200 employees and no international dimension, typically a regional manufacturer, a B2B services business or a family-owned company. The answer for this profile is clear: Bilan Carbone® with an ABC-certified provider, ideally under Diag Décarbon'Action. The net cost is contained, the ADEME ecosystem provides solid sector benchmarks, and if a CSRD obligation arrives later, V9 makes conversion straightforward.

Profile B: the exporting company, or the company growing internationally, with between 200 and 2,000 employees and clients outside France, typically a manufacturer that exports to Europe and North America, a tech company with foreign investors, or a distributor whose large corporate clients ask for a CDP response. The answer is the dual deliverable: Bilan Carbone® for your footing in France and the support schemes, and the GHG Protocol for international counterparts. With a competent provider the extra cost is negligible, and the strategic benefit is considerable. This is by far the most frequent case we see at Celsius.

Profile C: the French subsidiary of an international group, or a group already covered by the CSRD, the ISSB or the SBTi. The context dictates the format: the GHG Protocol as the main format, aligned with the group's practices (database used, definition of categories, materiality thresholds). If a BEGES obligation applies as well, the provider produces the ADEME deliverable at the end of the engagement without redoing the calculation. In this case, what matters when choosing a provider is no longer ABC certification but detailed knowledge of international standards.

• Profile A: Bilan Carbone® under Diag Décarbon'Action, net cost of €6k excl. VAT
• Profile B: dual Bilan Carbone® + GHG Protocol deliverable, negligible extra cost, maximum compatibility
• Profile C: the GHG Protocol aligned with the group's practices, with the BEGES produced in parallel if needed

5How each method is built, compared side by side

For readers who want to go further, because specific questions always come up in scoping meetings or in committee, this section sets out how the two methods are built, side by side. It gets technical, but we try to keep the jargon to a minimum.

The GHG Protocol, a family of standards

The GHG Protocol is a family of standards published between 2001 and 2014, rather than a single method:

• Corporate Standard (2001, rev. 2004): reporting of an organisation's emissions, the core of the GHG Protocol
• Scope 2 Guidance (2015): introduces dual reporting, location-based and market-based
• Scope 3 Standard (2011): the well-known 15 categories (in French), upstream and downstream
• Product Standard (2011): the footprint of a product, closely related to life cycle assessment (LCA) (in French)
• Project Protocol: reduction projects and offsetting mechanisms

For a corporate carbon footprint, the essentials are in the first three.

The 15 Scope 3 categories look daunting on paper, but in practice 3 to 5 categories account for 80 to 90% of a given company's emissions. The upstream categories (the first 8) cover what the company buys and consumes: purchased goods and services, capital goods, energy, upstream transportation, waste, business travel, commuting and leased assets. The downstream categories (the following 7) cover what the company sells and the indirect emissions that follow: downstream transportation, processing, use and end of life of sold products, franchises and investments. For a French manufacturer, the heaviest categories are almost always the same: purchases, upstream freight and, in some sectors, the use of sold products.

The strength of the GHG Protocol is its status as the de facto standard. More than 90% of Fortune 500 companies that publish their emissions use this format, and CDP, SBTi, ISSB and ESRS E1 all rely on it. Even the major recent climate lawsuits (the Shell, TotalEnergies and Suncor cases) centre on these categories. It has become the language of corporate climate action.

Bilan Carbone®, the French reference method

Bilan Carbone® was developed between 2002 and 2004 by Jean-Marc Jancovici for ADEME and entrusted to ABC in 2011. More than 30,000 people have been trained in the method since it was launched. The current version, V9, published in July 2024 and applicable since 2025, is the one that matters today. It has three maturity levels (Initial, Standard, Advanced), a stronger treatment of uncertainty and an explicit alignment with the CSRD and the GHG Protocol.

The main strength of Bilan Carbone® is the density of its ecosystem in France. The Base Empreinte of ADEME, with around 5,000 emission factors, updated every year and free to access, is one of the few public national databases in the world at this level of detail. Diag Décarbon'Action funds 40% of a first carbon footprint for eligible companies, and ADEME's platform for greenhouse gas emissions reports centralises the regulatory publications. Above all, thousands of ABC-certified providers operate across France, with a fairly uniform level of competence because certification sets a common baseline.

One point is often misunderstood: Bilan Carbone® goes beyond a nomenclature. It comes with its own extensions: Bilan Carbone®+ to build a transition plan, the ACT module to test the consistency of reduction commitments, and native compatibility with Act Pas à Pas to structure the approach over time. It is a complete toolkit for steering a climate strategy as well as a counting format.

ISO 14064, the verification framework

A question that often comes up at scoping: "is ISO 14064 a third method?" It is not. ISO 14064-1 is the international standard for quantifying emissions at organisation level, and the GHG Protocol and Bilan Carbone® are both applications of that same standard. ISO 14064-3, by contrast, covers verification by an independent third party (the main firms in the sector are Bureau Veritas, SGS, DNV and LRQA). It is an external audit that certifies that your carbon footprint has been carried out properly.

This verification is not always necessary. It is requested in specific contexts: tenders that require a "verified" carbon footprint, requests from investors or banks, regulated markets and certain stricter CSRD obligations for large groups. It is not an alternative method: it sits on top of the GHG Protocol or Bilan Carbone® and does not replace them.

6Key takeaways

The old opposition between Bilan Carbone® and the GHG Protocol belongs to the past. Both methods apply the same ISO 14064 standard with the same scopes and the same principles, and V9 of Bilan Carbone® (July 2024) completed the convergence by providing a direct mapping to the 15 GHG Protocol categories. What remains are differences of format, ecosystem and regulatory framework, which matter according to your context and are settled at the scoping stage rather than through a methodological trade-off. The key points follow.

• Same science, same data collection, convertible results. Both methods cover the seven greenhouse gases and the three scopes and deliver a result in tCO2e. Data collection, which accounts for 60 to 70% of the budget of a carbon footprint, is identical, and a deliverable converts from one format to the other without fresh data collection.
• Five differences, and no more: how emission categories are organised (11 for Bilan Carbone® vs 15 for the GHG Protocol), reference emission factors (Base Empreinte vs multiple sources), treatment of Scope 2 (location-based vs dual reporting), practitioner certification (ABC vs open) and the ecosystem around the method (ADEME vs CDP/SBTi/ISSB). Any other difference is folklore.
• The regulatory framework dictates the output format: the BEGES accepts both, the CSRD points towards the GHG Protocol through ESRS E1, and CDP, SBTi and ISSB require the GHG Protocol, with no alternative. Since the French law of 30 April 2025, companies subject to the CSRD have been exempt from the BEGES if their sustainability statement contains their emissions inventory and their transition plan.
• Three profiles, three decisions: for a French SME with no international dimension, Bilan Carbone® under Diag Décarbon'Action; for an exporting mid-cap company, a dual deliverable; for a group subsidiary or a company subject to the CSRD, the GHG Protocol as the main output. The net cost of a first carbon footprint under Diag Décarbon'Action is €6k excl. VAT.
• ISO 14064 is not a third method. It is the normative framework for quantification (ISO 14064-1) and for verification by a third party (ISO 14064-3), and it sits on top of the method chosen.
• The provider matters more than the methodology. A good consultant is fluent in both formats and adapts the deliverable to your context at the scoping stage, in less than an hour of discussion.

The question to ask at scoping is therefore "who am I talking to, and what am I being asked for?" rather than "which method?". Once that is settled, the rest follows. If your provider starts arguing for one method over the other without asking that question first, look for another provider.

Further resources

Frequently asked questions

1Do Bilan Carbone® and the GHG Protocol count the same greenhouse gases?

Yes. Both cover the seven reference greenhouse gases: the six gases of the Kyoto Protocol (CO₂, CH₄, N₂O, SF₆, HFC, PFC) plus NF₃, which was added later. Everything is converted into CO2 equivalent using the global warming potentials published by the IPCC (AR6 since 2023). The idea that Bilan Carbone® counts only CO2 comes from its name and does not reflect any methodological limitation.

2Can one carbon footprint be reported in both Bilan Carbone® and GHG Protocol formats?

Yes, and this is recommended for exporting mid-cap companies and for subsidiaries of international groups. Data collection and calculation are identical; only the formatting of the deliverable changes. A competent provider produces the results in Bilan Carbone® format (11 emission categories, BEGES compatibility) and in GHG Protocol format (15 categories, compatibility with CDP, SBTi and the CSRD) at no significant extra cost: a few hours of formatting work.

3Does the BEGES require the Bilan Carbone® method?

No. The BEGES requires you to quantify Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions, plus Scope 3 for public entities and for companies subject to the CSRD that are not exempt from it, but it prescribes no specific methodology. Bilan Carbone® is the most widely used method (directly compatible with ADEME's publication platform and with the Base Empreinte), but a GHG Protocol deliverable is acceptable. The ADEME format can be produced at the end of the engagement from a GHG Protocol calculation, without fresh data collection.

4Does the CSRD require the GHG Protocol?

ESRS E1 refers explicitly to the GHG Protocol for the structure of the 15 Scope 3 categories and for dual reporting of Scope 2 (location-based and market-based). A well-run Bilan Carbone® V9 meets the requirements of ESRS E1, since V9 was designed for that, but the reporting format that speaks to CSRD auditors is the GHG Protocol. Since the French law of 30 April 2025, companies subject to the CSRD have been exempt from the BEGES obligation when their sustainability statement contains their emissions inventory and their transition plan.

5Does the choice of method change the cost of a carbon footprint?

No. The cost depends on the size of the company, the complexity of the boundary and the maturity of the data, not on the method chosen. Allow €10,000 to €15,000 excl. VAT for a single-site SME and €15,000 to €30,000 excl. VAT for a multi-site mid-cap company, and more for large groups. Diag Décarbon'Action (in French) *(in French)* brings the net cost of a first carbon footprint at an eligible SME down to €6,000 excl. VAT.

6Do you need to be certified to carry out a Bilan Carbone®?

Your provider does, yes. Certification is awarded by the Association pour la transition Bas Carbone (ABC), the French low-carbon transition association, after a qualifying training course, and it is a mandatory prerequisite for Diag Décarbon'Action. The GHG Protocol is an open standard with no official certification: good international providers go through recognised training routes (the GHG Management Institute, GRI, CDP Accredited Solutions Provider), but none is legally required. In every case, check references.

7What is the difference between Bilan Carbone® and the GHG Protocol?

The 2 methods apply the same ISO 14064-1 standard and cover the same gases and the same scopes, and their results convert from one to the other without fresh data collection. They differ in 5 areas: how emission categories are organised (11 for Bilan Carbone® V9, 15 Scope 3 categories for the GHG Protocol), emission factor databases (ADEME's Base Empreinte on one side, multiple sources on the other), the treatment of Scope 2, practitioner certification (by ABC for Bilan Carbone®, with no equivalent for the GHG Protocol) and the ecosystem (ADEME and the BEGES in France; CDP, SBTi and ISSB internationally).

8Which ISO standard covers Bilan Carbone® and the GHG Protocol?

ISO 14064-1, the standard for quantifying and reporting greenhouse gas emissions at organisation level. Bilan Carbone® and the GHG Protocol are 2 methodologies for applying it, with the same principles (relevance, completeness, consistency, transparency, accuracy) and the same breakdown into scopes. ISO 14064-3 covers verification of a carbon footprint by an independent third party: it sits on top of the method chosen and comes into play when a tender, an investor or a bank asks for a verified carbon footprint.

9Does the SBTi accept a Bilan Carbone® V9?

Not as it stands: the SBTi assesses applications on the basis of an inventory in GHG Protocol format. A Bilan Carbone® V9 does not have to be redone, however: V9 provides a direct mapping to the 15 Scope 3 categories of the GHG Protocol, so conversion is a formatting task with no fresh data collection or recalculation. For a company planning an SBTi process, the simplest approach is to ask at the scoping stage for a deliverable in the 2 formats. Validation of the targets remains a separate procedure, carried out directly with the SBTi.

10When should you choose Bilan Carbone® rather than the GHG Protocol?

Bilan Carbone® is the natural choice for a French company with no international counterparts, especially one eligible for Diag Décarbon'Action, which requires a provider certified by ABC and brings the net cost of a first carbon footprint down to €6,000 excl. VAT. It is also the most direct route for the BEGES (ADEME's publication platform, Base Empreinte). The GHG Protocol becomes the main format for the subsidiary of an international group or for a company committed to CDP, the SBTi or the ISSB. An exporting mid-cap company should ask for a deliverable in the 2 formats.

Ask Alexandre your questionA personal reply within 24 working hours

Send my questionor: [email protected]