IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v17y2025i18p8317-d1750994.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Why Nobody Measures the Scope 4 (Avoided) Emissions? Let’s Get It Started!

Author

Listed:
  • Pietro De Giovanni

    (Strategy and Operations Knowledge Area and DIR—Claudio Dematté Research Division, Sustainable Operations and Supply Chain Monitor, 20136 Milan, Italy)

Abstract

As the urgency of climate action intensifies, organizations are increasingly required not only to reduce their instantaneous internal emissions (Scopes 1 and 2) and their value chain impacts (Scope 3), but also to demonstrate their overall contribution to climate change. Therefore, this paper introduces and formalizes the concept of Scope 4 emissions, defined as avoided emissions enabled by a company’s products, services, or business models, representing the fourth strategic pillar in corporate climate accounting. The paper proposes how to quantify the Scope 4 emissions through the decarbonization plan, using a stadium decarbonization plan as an illustrative example to show how Scope 1–3 reductions can be complemented by cumulative Scope 4 impacts, the advantages of undertaking proactive approaches toward sustainability and proposing the concept of relative carbon neutrality. Finally, the paper connects the Scope 4 emissions with ESG factors, highlights possible risks and challenges associated with its computation, and inviting regulators and policy makers to devise new Scope 4-based policies and incentives needed when considering the directives’ dynamics (e.g., the Omnibus Package).

Suggested Citation

  • Pietro De Giovanni, 2025. "Why Nobody Measures the Scope 4 (Avoided) Emissions? Let’s Get It Started!," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(18), pages 1-27, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:18:p:8317-:d:1750994
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/18/8317/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/18/8317/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Pomponi, Francesco & Moncaster, Alice, 2018. "Scrutinising embodied carbon in buildings: The next performance gap made manifest," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 81(P2), pages 2431-2442.
    2. Erickson, Peter & Lazarus, Michael & Spalding-Fecher, Randall, 2014. "Net climate change mitigation of the Clean Development Mechanism," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 146-154.
    3. Maleki Vishkaei, Behzad & De Giovanni, Pietro, 2025. "A smart mobility game with blockchain and hardware oracles," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 282(C).
    4. John Downie & Wendy Stubbs, 2012. "Corporate Carbon Strategies and Greenhouse Gas Emission Assessments: The Implications of Scope 3 Emission Factor Selection," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(6), pages 412-422, September.
    5. Erin M. Reid & Michael W. Toffel, 2009. "Responding to public and private politics: corporate disclosure of climate change strategies," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(11), pages 1157-1178, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ozgur Isil & Rose Sebastianelli, 2020. "Arcs of carbon awareness in the value chain and their antecedents," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(2), pages 503-518, February.
    2. Chen, Yuan & Feng, Yunting & Lai, Kee-Hung & Zhu, Qinghua, 2025. "Value of blockchain for scope 3 carbon disclosure: The moderating role of data processing technologies," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 279(C).
    3. Caroline Flammer & Michael W. Toffel & Kala Viswanathan, 2021. "Shareholder activism and firms' voluntary disclosure of climate change risks," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(10), pages 1850-1879, October.
    4. Olivier Boiral & Marie‐Christine Brotherton & Léo Rivaud & David Talbot, 2022. "Comparing the uncomparable? An investigation of car manufacturers' climate performance," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(5), pages 2213-2229, July.
    5. Binh Hoang Duc & Khang Do Ba, 2017. "Business responses to climate change: strategies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in Vietnam," Asia Pacific Business Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(4), pages 596-620, August.
    6. Zhang, Cui, 2017. "Political connections and corporate environmental responsibility: Adopting or escaping?," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 539-547.
    7. Andreas Wagner & Denise Fischer‐Kreer, 2024. "The role of CEO regulatory focus in increasing or reducing corporate carbon emissions," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(2), pages 1051-1065, February.
    8. Jaraitė, Jūratė & Kurtyka, Oliwia & Ollivier, Hélène, 2022. "Take a ride on the (not so) green side: How do CDM projects affect Indian manufacturing firms’ environmental performance?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    9. Yuchen Shen & Mohammad Tazul Islam & Michiyuki Yagi & Katsuhiko Kokubu, 2015. "How do firms' climate-related management and strategy affect climate change risks and opportunities awareness?," Discussion Papers 2015-26, Kobe University, Graduate School of Business Administration.
    10. Y. Sekou Bermiss & Benjamin L. Hallen & Rory McDonald & Emily C. Pahnke, 2017. "Entrepreneurial beacons: The Yale endowment, run‐ups, and the growth of venture capital," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(3), pages 545-565, March.
    11. Marco A. Hernandez Vega & Eduardo Martínez González, 2025. "Do climate policies incentivize firms to commit to setting a GHG emissions target?," Working Papers 2025-08, Banco de México.
    12. Pete Tashman & Jorge Rivera, 2016. "Ecological uncertainty, adaptation, and mitigation in the U.S. ski resort industry: Managing resource dependence and institutional pressures," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(7), pages 1507-1525, July.
    13. Karthik Balasubramanian & David F. Drake, 2015. "Service Quality, Inventory and Competition: An Empirical Analysis of Mobile Money Agents in Africa," Harvard Business School Working Papers 15-059, Harvard Business School, revised Oct 2015.
    14. Anthony Goerzen & Ari Assche & James X. Zhan & Lifang Zhang, 2025. "From the editors: Global sustainability reporting standards and the future of international business," Journal of International Business Policy, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(2), pages 125-136, June.
    15. Agnieszka Karman, 2022. "The Homogenization of Carbon Management Practices: How Organizations Response to Isomorphic Pressures to Reduce GHG Emissions," European Research Studies Journal, European Research Studies Journal, vol. 0(1), pages 148-173.
    16. Isabel‐Maria García‐Sánchez & Nazim Hussain & Sana Akbar Khan & Jennifer Martínez‐Ferrero, 2020. "Managerial entrenchment, corporate social responsibility, and earnings management," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(4), pages 1818-1833, July.
    17. Lyon, Thomas & Lu, Yao & Shi, Xinzheng & Yin, Qie, 2013. "How do investors respond to Green Company Awards in China?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 1-8.
    18. Timo Busch & Nils Lehmann & Volker H. Hoffmann, 2012. "Corporate Social Responsibility, Negative Externalities, and Financial Risk: The Case of Climate Change," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 12-102/IV/DSF40, Tinbergen Institute.
    19. Michaela Rankin & Carolyn Windsor & Dina Wahyuni, 2011. "An investigation of voluntary corporate greenhouse gas emissions reporting in a market governance system," Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 24(8), pages 1037-1070, October.
    20. Wei, Xuecheng & Hu, Weihua, 2023. "Revisiting resources curse hypothesis in China: Exploring the asymmetric effect of green investment and green innovation," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(PB).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:18:p:8317-:d:1750994. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.