> For the complete documentation index, see [llms.txt](https://www.bilancarbone-conformite.com/llms.txt). Markdown versions of documentation pages are available by appending `.md` to page URLs; this page is available as [Markdown](https://www.bilancarbone-conformite.com/compliance-framework/compliance-referentials/chapitre-a-cadre-technique-et-methodologique/critere-a.7-agregation-des-resultats.md).

# Criterion A.7 - Aggregation of results

From one organization to another, internal operations and working methods can vary greatly. Projects, teams, sites, activities — having GHG data at these scales is more than useful for tracking emissions associated with the internal specificities of an organization. Beyond this "micro" monitoring, it is also essential that this GHG data can be consolidated at a broader scale to assess the overall GHG emissions of an organization. This is why this criterion analyzes the possibility of aggregating results at different scales, similar to what the "multi-site" utility of the Bilan Carbone® method can do.

However, this consolidation of GHG data at different scales may not be of interest in certain business approaches.

#### Criterion

<table data-header-hidden><thead><tr><th width="132"></th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><mark style="color:red;"><strong>Mandatory</strong></mark></td><td><strong>Criterion A.7 - Results Aggregation</strong></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Question</strong></td><td>Does the candidate tool allow GHG emissions to be aggregated at the project, team, activity, site, etc. level? Does it also allow these different GHG assessments to be consolidated in order to evaluate the impact of the entire organization (similar to the "multi-site" utility of the Bilan Carbone® method)?</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Answer</strong></td><td><ul><li><mark style="color:green;"><strong>Yes, the tool aligns with the analytical carbon accounting method and users are made aware of the principle of double-counting risk</strong></mark></li><li><mark style="color:green;"><strong>Yes, the tool allows by default the consolidation of emissions at least at the site level and users are made aware of the principle of double-counting risk</strong></mark></li><li><mark style="color:green;"><strong>Yes, the tool allows by default the consolidation of emissions at least at the site level</strong></mark></li><li><mark style="color:red;"><strong>No, the tool does not allow the consolidation of emissions at the site level</strong></mark></li></ul></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Implementation guidance</strong></td><td>Try within the candidate tool to define (if it allows) teams, sites, activities in order to verify whether GHG aggregations at these scales are possible<br><br>Look for the presence of a tagging system in the tool. Look for a system allowing the tool to implement an analytical carbon accounting approach.</td></tr></tbody></table>


---

# Agent Instructions
This documentation is published with GitBook. GitBook is the documentation platform designed so that both humans and AI agents can read, navigate, and reason over technical content effectively. Learn more at gitbook.com.

## Querying This Documentation
If you need additional information that is not directly available in this page, you can query the documentation dynamically by asking a question.

Perform an HTTP GET request on the current page URL with the `ask` query parameter:

```
GET https://www.bilancarbone-conformite.com/compliance-framework/compliance-referentials/chapitre-a-cadre-technique-et-methodologique/critere-a.7-agregation-des-resultats.md?ask=<question>
```

The question should be specific, self-contained, and written in natural language.
The response will contain a direct answer to the question and relevant excerpts and sources from the documentation.

Use this mechanism when the answer is not explicitly present in the current page, you need clarification or additional context, or you want to retrieve related documentation sections.