Whistleblowers Expose Secrecy and Bias in Leading Climate Standards Group

The Greenhouse Gas Protocol, a nonprofit organization, is the backbone of global greenhouse gas emissions reporting. In 2025, more than 22,100 companies—worth over half the global stock market—voluntarily disclosed their emissions data using its standards. Yet, critics argue that these standards often allow companies to appear more environmentally responsible on paper than in reality.

The Protocol’s central challenge is balancing credibility with feasibility in emissions accounting. Accurate methods may be impractical, while simpler approaches can yield wildly inaccurate results. In 2022, the group launched a governance overhaul to address these concerns, introducing an Independent Standards Board to oversee updates to its accounting rules. Technical working groups were formed to refine methods for electricity use and supply chain emissions, submitting proposals to the board for approval. A steering committee then reviewed the board’s decisions to ensure alignment with the Protocol’s principles.

The overhaul aimed to bolster the credibility and integrity of the standards, especially as governments like the European Union and California adopted them for mandatory climate disclosure rules. However, whistleblowers and participants now describe the process as riddled with secrecy and bias.

Systemic Issues Exposed by Whistleblowers

Critics allege that the revised structure pits scientists against industry representatives, with key documents—including proposals and voting records—kept confidential. Decisions made behind closed doors are undocumented and undisclosed, even from working group members who contribute unpaid time to strengthen the standards.

The concerns are exemplified by the experience of Kate Dooley, a political scientist and lecturer at the University of Melbourne’s School of Geography, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences. Dooley, who has worked on forest carbon accounting for nearly two decades, joined the Protocol’s 17-person technical working group in December 2024. The group’s mission was to resolve a contentious debate over how companies that own or control forests should account for their carbon emissions.

Dooley and other participants describe a process where transparency and accountability have eroded. Proposals and decisions are shielded from public view, undermining the very principles the overhaul aimed to restore. The secrecy has sparked frustration among experts who dedicated significant time to improving the standards, only to find their efforts sidelined by opaque decision-making.