Criterion A.10 - Consistency of emission factors and data source versions

The Bilan Carbone® method is a general methodology applicable to all sectors of activity. As such, the emission factors are generic factors suited to the broadest possible audience, but not tailored to the specificities of a particular activity, sector, project, or product.

However, where specific and consistent data are available, it is important to use that data in place of generic data. The data used in a tool may therefore come from very different sources and, consequently, be of very different quality. For this reason, it is necessary to verify the reliability and currency (transparency being addressed in the dedicated chapter) of data sources.

Given the potentially very large number of EFs to review, the analysis will be based on a sample of up to around twenty emission factors. This sample will aim to cover all of the emission categories that the candidate tool can assess.

Reliability: EF development methodology

The reliability analysis will involve examining the emission factors, the data (energy consumption, material breakdown, production processes, etc.) and the assumptions underlying them. Without prejudging the quality of the assumptions made (which fall within the remit of sector-specific expertise), it is nonetheless essential that the development of emission factors respects certain key principles:

• Integration of the same greenhouse gases with the same Global Warming Potentials as those used for the Bilan Carbone®;
• Integration of all necessary life cycle stages (i.e., no overly restrictive cut-off boundary);
• Exclusion of avoided, offset, and sequestered emissions (except for an acceptable justification regarding the latter point).

In cases where "conventional" EF databases are used (Base Carbone®, Base INIES, Base Impacts®, Ecoinvent, etc.), methodological reliability will be deemed satisfactory and will therefore not be analysed.

Currency: data source versions

It will also be verified that the candidate tool is up to date with the versions of the EF databases it uses and that EFs are used "correctly" (i.e., that the correct emission factor "points" to the correct activity data).

Transparency: use of non-traditional databases

If the candidate tool incorporates non-traditional databases, it will also be verified that these databases are presented and that their methodological differences are explicitly described, for example in a critical note.

This will help ensure that the choice to use these non-traditional databases is relevant and justified in the context of carrying out a Bilan Carbone®.

Criterion

Mandatory	Criterion A.10 - Consistency of EFs and data source versions
Question	Is the calculation methodology for EFs (not derived from "traditional" EF databases such as Base Carbone®, INIES, Ecoinvent, etc.) consistent with the Bilan Carbone® method? Is their use justified? Are the versions of the databases used up to date? Are the emission factors consistent with the activity data they "point" to?
Response	Yes, the tool only uses traditional databases and they are kept up to date Yes, the tool uses traditional and/or non-traditional databases that are kept up to date. The tool includes a critical note justifying the value of using non-traditional databases as well as the related methodological considerations. No, the calculation methodology for the EFs used is not clearly accessible, or the database versions are not up to date
Implementation guidance	Analyse the construction of EFs not derived from "traditional" EF databases using the criteria listed above. Look for the presence of a document presenting the databases used, their methodological considerations (if any) with respect to the Bilan Carbone® method, and the versions used. Analyse which operational data the emission factors (or technical data) "point" to.