Aller à l’essentiel de l’information
Gratuit · Membres de la Community
＋ Afficher 5 de plus− Afficher moins
＋ Afficher 7 de plus− Afficher moins
Rapports réels publiés
Ouvrir le rapport →
Ouvrir le rapport →
Ouvrir le rapport →
✓ Assistant IA LRA · Supervision humaine
Ouvrir la source officielle →
Explore the California course →
California SB 253: Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act·Disclosure SB253-METHODOLOGY
GHG Protocol methodology and reporting basis
Guide pratique pour préparer cette information. Utilisez cette fiche pour identifier les données à préparer, vérifier les affirmations et organiser les preuves. Pour les exigences exactes, reportez-vous toujours à la source officielle CARB.
Passeport publié
Révision en attente
···
En cours de révision
Révision éditoriale en cours
Élaboré à partir des sources officielles et de preuves issues de rapports publiés. Aucun approbateur n’est encore enregistré : cette page ne porte donc pas de signature.
Utilisez-la avec la source officielle CARB tant que cette révision est en cours.
Norme
California SB 253: Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act
Disclosure SB253-METHODOLOGY · 2026-initial-regulation-as-amended-sb219
Dernière révision
—
Support pédagogique LRA · Non publié ni approuvé par CARB
Pour préparer cette information
Objet de l’information
This disclosure asks an organisation to explain the greenhouse gas accounting approach it uses and the basis on which it prepares its emissions figures. In practice, that means being clear about the framework, boundaries and assumptions behind the numbers so a reader can understand what is included, what is left out, and how the reported totals were built.
The practical focus is on comparability and coverage: whether the reporting covers the organisation’s full operations or only selected parts, and how emissions are treated across the relevant sources and activities. The aim is to make the reported data understandable and traceable, rather than presenting headline figures without the method behind them.
Ce support pédagogique LRA aide à préparer l’information. Pour les exigences exactes, reportez-vous toujours à la source officielle CARB.
Avant de commencer
Avant de commencer
Une courte liste de contrôle avant de préparer cette information — cochez chaque point une fois réglé.
Préparation
Informations clés à préparer
| Champ à préparer | Ce qu’il faut recueillir | Indice de preuve | Responsable |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reference year | State which earlier reporting year is being used as the comparison point or base for the current disclosure. | Prior-year emissions schedule, reporting pack, or methodology note showing the chosen reference year. | Sustainability reporting / ESG data owner |
| Corporate accounting standard | Confirm the named corporate emissions accounting framework used to prepare the organisation-wide inventory. | Methodology document, reporting policy, or assurance pack naming the framework used for the corporate inventory. | Sustainability reporting / ESG data owner |
| Protocol alignment check | Record whether the reporting approach follows the relevant emissions protocol and guidance, and capture the yes/no position used for disclosure. | Methodology memo, internal sign-off, or assurance checklist confirming the stated alignment position. | Sustainability reporting / ESG data owner |
| Method changes | Describe any changes in calculation approach, data sources, boundary treatment, or assumptions compared with the last report. | Change log, methodology comparison note, or prior-year reporting pack with tracked updates. | Sustainability reporting / ESG data owner |
| Operational boundary | Explain how the reporting perimeter is set for activities and emissions sources included in the inventory. | Boundary memo, control assessment, or reporting policy showing how included operations are determined. | Sustainability reporting / ESG data owner |
| Group boundary method | Set out the rule used to decide which entities or interests are counted within the organisation for reporting. | Consolidation policy, legal entity list, or group structure paper showing the boundary rule applied. | Finance / consolidation team |
| Scope 3 framework | Confirm the value-chain emissions framework used for indirect emissions outside the organisation’s direct operations. | Methodology note, inventory workbook, or assurance pack naming the scope 3 framework used. | Sustainability reporting / ESG data owner |
＋ Afficher les sous-éléments de SB253-METHODOLOGY (liste de travail LRA)
State whether your greenhouse-gas reporting follows the GHG Protocol guidance and standards.
Name the GHG Protocol corporate emissions accounting and reporting framework you applied.
Name the GHG Protocol value-chain emissions framework you applied for Scope 3.
Explain any changes in method compared with the previous report.
Describe how you set the operational boundary for the inventory.
Describe how you set the organisational boundary for the inventory.
Identify the prior reporting year or the base year you used.
Comment le préparer
Set the reporting year first, and note the earlier year or base year you will compare against. Keep that reference point consistent across the rest of the calculation pack.
Choose and record the company boundary approach you used, then separately set out the method for the parts of the business you include in the emissions inventory. Make sure both choices are clear enough for someone else to follow.
Confirm which GHG Protocol materials you relied on for the main inventory and, where relevant, for value-chain emissions. Keep evidence that shows the selected framework was actually used, not just intended.
Gather the source records and working papers that support the figures or narrative you will report. This should let a reviewer trace the numbers back to the underlying evidence.
Explain any changes from the previous report, including shifts in method, boundary approach, or other calculation choices. If something was left out or treated differently, describe that clearly so the comparison remains understandable.
Check the final disclosure against the official source before filing, to confirm the selected year, methods, framework use, and any changes are all captured consistently and without gaps.
Demander les données
Request the emissions method and reporting basis pack
Traduisez l’information en une question métier interne, puis adaptez-la au vocabulaire de votre organisation.
Which emissions method, boundary choices, and comparison basis were used for the latest inventory, and what changed from the prior submission?
Use your organisation’s own terms first, then map them to the reporting labels in the pack. For example, if your team says ‘inventory year’, ‘group boundary’, or ‘value chain method’, keep that language in the request and only translate it at the end for reporting review. This is a possible LRA training template; adapt it to your organisation and check the source material before sign-off.
Demande faible
Please provide the GHG Protocol methodology, organisational boundary, operational boundary, Scope 3 standard use, and conformance statement for the disclosure.
Pourquoi elle échoue : This is too close to framework language and does not tell the owner what practical records to pull. It also mixes reporting labels without anchoring them to the team’s own working terms, which makes it harder to answer quickly and consistently.
Meilleure demande
Please send the emissions method pack for [period]: the comparison year or base year, how the group boundary was set, how the operational boundary was set, the method used for value chain emissions, whether the inventory follows the GHG Protocol standards and guidance, whether the corporate accounting and reporting standard was used, and what changed since the last report. Use your team’s normal wording in the first pass, then we will map it for reporting review.
Modèle d’e-mail formel
Subject: Request for emissions method and reporting basis details Hi [Name], Could you please send over the evidence pack for the latest emissions inventory, including the method used, the boundary approach, the comparison year or base year, and any changes since the last submission? Please include: - the reporting period covered - the comparison year or base year used - the approach used to define the group boundary - the approach used to define the operational boundary - the method used for value chain emissions - whether the inventory follows the GHG Protocol standards and guidance - whether the corporate accounting and reporting standard was used - any changes made since the prior report - the source file or system reference Please use your team’s usual wording where helpful, then we can map it for reporting review. This is a possible LRA training template, so please adapt it to your organisation and check the source material before sign-off. Thanks, [Your name]
Version courte pour Teams / Slack
Hi [Name] — could you share the emissions method pack for [period]? Please include the comparison year/base year, boundary approach, value chain method, any changes since last time, and the source file/system. Use your team’s usual terms first; we can map them for reporting review. Please adapt to your organisation and check the source material before sign-off.
Exemples sectoriels
Manufacturing
Contexte. A plant-based group with central sustainability reporting and local EHS input.
Demande adaptée. Hi [Name] — for [period], please share the inventory method pack for the plants and shared sites: the comparison year/base year, how the group boundary was set, how the site boundary was set, the method used for supplier and downstream estimates, any changes since last year, and the source workbook or system. Please use your normal site and group terms first, then we can map them for reporting review. This is a possible LRA training template; adapt it to your organisation and check the source material before sign-off.
Exemple de réponse. We used FY2023 as the comparison year. Group boundary was set using the control approach. Site boundary covered owned and operated facilities plus leased warehouses. Value chain emissions used a screening method with supplier estimates. Changes since last year: updated electricity and freight factors. Source: Inventory_Master_FY2024.xlsx.
Financial services
Contexte. A corporate reporting team coordinating with operations, procurement, and a data platform team.
Demande adaptée. Hi [Name] — please send the emissions method pack for [period] covering the group boundary, operational boundary, comparison year/base year, and the method used for financed and other value chain categories in the inventory model. Also include any changes from the prior report and the source model or data extract. Use your team’s usual wording first, then we can map it for reporting review. This is a possible LRA training template; adapt it to your organisation and check the source material before sign-off.
Exemple de réponse. Comparison year: FY2023. Group boundary: control approach. Operational boundary: direct operations and selected leased assets. Value chain method: portfolio screening plus supplier estimates where available. Changes: revised data source for purchased services. Source: GHG_Model_Q4_2024.
Rédigez votre information
Des notes qui transforment les données en information publiée
Modèles pédagogiques LRA — adaptez-les à votre organisation et vérifiez la source officielle avant validation.
Note méthodologique
State the reference year, the accounting approach used, the boundary choices applied to the organisation and operations, the framework used for the main inventory and the separate framework used for value-chain emissions, and whether the approach follows the relevant guidance.
Note de contexte
Explain that these settings define the basis on which the emissions figures were prepared, so readers can understand what the numbers cover and how they should be compared with earlier reporting.
Déclaration sur les variations
If the figures move because the reporting approach changed, say which parts of the method were updated and note that the shift may affect comparability with the prior period.
Entrée de l’index de contenu
SB253-METHODOLOGY GHG Protocol methodology and reporting basis — [location / page] / [notes]Centre de téléchargement
Outils et formulaires de préparation
Outils de préparation professionnels pour SB253-METHODOLOGY — gratuits avec l’adhésion à LRA Community. Inscrivez-vous une fois (c’est gratuit) et tous les téléchargements se débloquent, avec la Bibliothèque des informations, les modèles et l’assistant IA LRA.
01XLSClasseur préparation et assurancePoints de données, risques, preuves à vérifier, responsable et dossier de preuves.Obtenir gratuitement ↧
02XLSPack de demande de donnéesE-mail de demande, modèle de message, champs de réponse et structure de validation.Obtenir gratuitement ↧
03PDFFiche de bibliothèqueRésumé imprimable d’une page de cette fiche d’information.Obtenir gratuitement ↧
Préparation à l’assurance
Pour chaque affirmation, vérifiez les preuves
| Affirmation | Risque | Preuves à vérifier |
|---|---|---|
| We used the immediately preceding financial year as the reference period for the figure. | The assurer will check whether the period is the correct one, whether it is clearly identified, and whether the same period is used consistently across the disclosure. | Board or management-approved reporting timetable; draft and final disclosure showing the named period; internal reporting pack or inventory file covering that period; sign-off notes confirming the period choice. |
| We prepared the disclosure using the company-wide emissions accounting framework we say we follow. | The assurer will probe whether the named framework was actually applied, whether the team understood it, and whether the disclosure is not relying on an informal or partial approach. | Methodology memo; inventory procedures; working papers showing application of the framework; reviewer sign-off; any gap log where the framework was mapped to internal data processes. |
| We have stated that our approach follows the relevant greenhouse gas protocol guidance. | The assurer will test whether the claim of alignment is supported by the actual calculation approach, source data treatment, and any departures or limitations. | Cross-reference matrix between the disclosure and the protocol guidance used internally; calculation files; documented judgments; exception log; evidence of review by the preparer and checker. |
| Where our approach changed from the earlier report, we documented the differences before publication. | The assurer will look for whether changes were identified, whether their effect on the figure was considered, and whether the disclosure explains the change clearly enough to avoid misleading comparisons. | Change log versus the prior submission; version history; comparison of old and new methods; internal approval notes; reconciliation showing the effect of the change, if any. |
| We set out the boundary approach we used so readers can see what was included in the inventory. | The assurer will check whether the boundary choice is explicit, applied consistently, and supported by the underlying consolidation or control logic. | Boundary policy; group structure chart; list of included and excluded entities or operations; control assessment papers; working papers showing how the boundary was applied. |
| We also explained how we defined the reporting group for the inventory. | The assurer will probe whether the organisational perimeter is coherent, consistently applied, and aligned to the data collected for the disclosed figure. | Entity inclusion schedule; ownership or control analysis; consolidation memo; legal entity register; evidence that the same perimeter was used in the calculations. |
Dossier de preuves à préparer
Lacunes fréquentes dans les rapports
The information is presented without a date or as-at point.
The scope or boundary of the statement is left undefined.
Key terms are used inconsistently across the report.
Material changes since the previous period are not disclosed.
Assertions are made without supporting detail or a source record.
Boilerplate is used that does not actually answer what is asked.
Lacunes fréquentes
Erreurs à éviter lors de la collecte des données
Wrong owner for the evidenceThe team asks a framework lead instead of the business owner who actually holds the source records, so the answer comes back in the wrong language and cannot be traced to the original files.
Boundary not fixed before collectionPeople start gathering data before agreeing which parts of the business and which activities sit inside the reporting set, so later figures cannot be compared on the same basis.
Wrong time basisThe collector uses a different reporting period or reference year from the one used elsewhere, which makes the methodology note inconsistent with the numbers it supports.
Mixed counting basisInputs are pulled from different counting approaches and then merged, so the final evidence pack no longer shows one clear basis for how the figures were built.
Source labels get stripped outOriginal file names, system tags, or extract notes are removed during handling, leaving no way to show where each figure came from.
Separate populations are mergedData for different business groups, sites, or activity sets is combined into one file even though they should stay distinct, which hides differences that matter for the method note.
Evidence metadata is missingThe pack contains numbers but not the supporting context such as source date, owner, or extraction point, so reviewers cannot test whether the data is fit for use.
No sign-off trailThe draft is passed along without a recorded review or approval step, so no one can show who checked the basis before it was used in reporting.
Là où un jugement professionnel est souvent nécessaire
Set the opening year and keep it consistentChoose one comparison year for the emissions baseline and explain it clearly, especially if a later report switches to a different year for practical reasons.
Explain any change in the group of entities coveredIf acquisitions, disposals or restructurings change what sits inside the reporting perimeter, describe what moved in or out and how you treated the numbers for the affected period.
State how you drew the company boundarySet out the rule used to decide which businesses, sites or interests are counted, and note any judgement where local legal structures or ownership patterns make the decision less straightforward.
Clarify the scope of day-to-day operations includedDescribe the approach used to decide which activities are treated as part of operations, including any borderline cases where control, influence or practical responsibility is shared.
Explain how you handled mixed or inconsistent country dataWhere local records, units or definitions differ across countries, say how you converted them into one reporting basis and which source took priority when figures did not align.
Disclose whether figures are measured or estimatedState where readings came from direct records and where you used estimates, including the main assumptions, proxies or calculation methods used for the estimated share.
Describe timing choices for the reporting periodIf data were collected on a different cut-off, lagged basis or rolling timetable, explain the timing rule used so readers can see how the period was aligned.
Show how you treated small or borderline populationsExplain the rule used for people, assets, sites or transactions near the edge of the reporting scope, including any threshold or practical cut-off applied.
Explain any privacy-driven grouping or maskingIf individual-level information could not be shown, describe the aggregation or anonymisation approach used and confirm that the reported totals still reflect the underlying activity.
Note any rounding or presentation conventionsState the rounding rule used for totals and sub-totals, and make clear that any small differences are due to presentation rather than a change in the underlying calculation.
Exemples
Exemples illustratifs
Synthétiques, rédigés par LRA — ils ne proviennent ni d’un rapport d’entreprise ni du texte d’une norme.
Illustrative (synthetic) example — Manufacturing
We set our reporting against the 2023 fiscal year as the base period, and we say our approach follows the GHG Protocol corporate reporting framework and its value-chain companion guidance. Our boundary approach is operational control, and we confirm that our method is aligned with those GHG Protocol materials; compared with the prior filing, we changed only the way we allocate a small number of leased assets, with no change to the overall boundary approach or the base year. - Prior period used for comparison: 2023 fiscal year; - Main reporting framework applied: GHG Protocol corporate reporting standard; - Value-chain emissions guidance applied: GHG Protocol Scope 3 guidance; - Alignment statement: yes, we say our method is consistent with the GHG Protocol materials; - Boundary choices: operational control for the company boundary; - Changes since last report: a limited update to leased-asset allocation, with the rest unchanged.
Synthetic example for practitioner review only. It shows how a company might describe its base period, framework use, alignment statement, boundary choices, and any changes from the previous report without naming the organisation.
Illustrative (synthetic) example — Retail
Our comparison year is 2022, and we prepared the disclosure using the GHG Protocol corporate reporting framework together with the value-chain emissions guidance. We apply a financial-control boundary for the group, and we state that our reporting is consistent with the GHG Protocol materials; since the last report, we revised the treatment of a small set of franchised sites, while keeping the comparison year and the overall method in place. - Reference year: 2022; - Framework for company emissions: GHG Protocol corporate reporting standard; - Value-chain emissions guidance: GHG Protocol Scope 3 guidance; - Consistency statement: yes; - Boundary approach: financial control; - Method updates since the prior filing: revised treatment of a limited number of franchised sites only.
Synthetic example for practitioner review only. It demonstrates a different sector, a different base year, a different boundary approach, and a different kind of methodology update while still covering the same required datapoints.
Rapports d’entreprises
Comment les entreprises publient SB253-METHODOLOGY en pratique
Exemples de pratiques de publication complètes et partielles. Ce sont des analyses fondées sur des preuves, non des modèles à recopier.
Ingersoll Rand Inc.
Electrical Equipment and Machinery · United States · 2024
Ingersoll Rand’s 2024 Sustainability Report references use of the GHG Protocol Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard (p.26) and the Greenhouse Gas Protocol Corporate Value Chain (Scope 3) Accounting and Reporting Standard (p.32) for its emissions accounting. The report provides Scope 3 emissions data for 2020–2024 with specific metric ton CO2e values and targets (p.32), and notes progress towards Scopes 1 and 2 reduction goals (p.74). However, the report does not clearly disclose the base year or prior year methodology, nor does it provide explicit details on organizational or operational boundary methods or any methodology changes.
Bank of America
None · United States · 2025
Bank of America's 2025 sustainability report provides GHG emissions data with a baseline year of 2010, showing Scope 1 direct emissions figures for subsequent years (p.20). The report states that the Greenhouse Gas Protocol Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard was used to calculate Scopes 1, 2, and 3 emissions (p.18). However, the report lacks clear information on conformance with the GHG protocol, details on the operational and organizational boundary methods, and the specific standard used for Scope 3 emissions, while methodology changes are only partially described (p.3).
C.H. Robinson
Air Freight Transportation and Logistics · United States · 2025
C.H. Robinson’s 2025 Sustainability Report provides specific data on greenhouse gas emissions, including direct emissions from stationary and mobile combustion sources (p.20) and detailed figures for Scope 3 emissions, with totals reported for multiple years (p.62). The report includes updated 2024 emissions data, indicating ongoing tracking and revision of GHG figures (p.62). However, the report lacks clear information on the methodology used for emissions accounting, such as the corporate standards applied, base year selection, GHG protocol conformance, and boundary definitions, as no quotable evidence was found for these aspects.
Interrogez l’assistant IA de Study Studio sur cette information
Obtenez des réponses concrètes pour votre contexte de reporting. Les deux premières réponses sont gratuites — rejoignez gratuitement LRA Community pour continuer sans limite.
Essayez
Comment préparer SB253-METHODOLOGY ?
Quelles données dois-je collecter ?
Où voir un exemple issu d’un rapport réel ?
Quelles erreurs éviter ?
2 réponses gratuites
Vérifiez votre compréhension
Scénarios à travailler
A group prepares its first California emissions filing after a merger completed mid-year. The team has one consolidated ledger for the new group, but the prior year figures sit in two legacy systems and were not restated.
QHow should the preparer decide what period to name as the comparison basis, and what should they do if the current method differs from the earlier filing?
Afficher la réponse type →Masquer la réponse ↑
They should identify the prior fiscal year or another chosen base year clearly, then explain any change in approach from the earlier report in plain terms. If the merger changed how the group is put together for reporting, the explanation should make that shift understandable rather than leaving the reader to infer it.
Pourquoi c’est important · State the comparison year clearly and explain any change in approach so users can follow the trend line.
A sustainability team has been using a market-based emissions tool built for internal dashboards, but the California filing needs a method that aligns with the GHG Protocol corporate accounting and reporting framework. The draft currently says only that the numbers are “prepared using internal methodology.”
QWhat should the preparer check before sign-off, and how should the method be described in the disclosure?
Afficher la réponse type →Masquer la réponse ↑
They should confirm that the reporting basis is the GHG Protocol corporate accounting and reporting framework, not just an internal calculation tool. The disclosure should say the group used that corporate-level framework and, if relevant, note any practical adjustments in wording that do not change the underlying basis.
Pourquoi c’est important · Use a recognised corporate emissions framework and describe it in a way that matches the actual reporting basis.
A company has always reported under an equity-share approach, but this year it changed to a control-based approach because it now manages most operating decisions in its subsidiaries. The draft filing mentions the new approach but does not say whether the change affects comparability with last year.
QWhat should the preparer do about the boundary method and the change from the previous report?
Afficher la réponse type →Masquer la réponse ↑
They should name the organisational boundary approach actually used this year and explain that it differs from the prior report if that is the case. The explanation should be enough for a reader to understand that the year-on-year figures may not be directly comparable without that context.
Pourquoi c’est important · Be explicit about the group boundary approach and flag any switch from the earlier reporting basis.
A preparer is compiling Scope 3 data from suppliers, logistics providers and product-use estimates. The team has a general emissions policy, but the draft does not say whether the value-chain standard was used or whether the calculations follow the same recognised guidance throughout.
QWhat judgement should the preparer make before finalising the filing?
Afficher la réponse type →Masquer la réponse ↑
They should check whether the value-chain emissions work was prepared using the GHG Protocol Scope 3 framework and whether the overall reporting follows the same recognised guidance consistently. If it does, that should be stated plainly; if not, the team should not imply that it does.
Pourquoi c’est important · For value-chain emissions, confirm the framework used and avoid overstating consistency with recognised guidance.
Références au référentiel
Exigences California applicables et informations connexes
Références disponibles du référentiel et informations voisines utiles à la préparation de cette exigence.
California
SB253-METHODOLOGY
au sein de California SB 253 : Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act
Connexes et exploration
Reporting entity applicability →Third-party assurance → FichePublic disclosure, reporting organization, and fees →Reporting timeline and filing status → FicheScope 1 greenhouse gas emissions → Fiche
Parcourir toutes les informations →
Plus dans California SB 253 → Parcourir le catalogue complet → Accueil de la Bibliothèque des informations → Rechercher dans toutes les informations →
FAQ
Questions auxquelles cette page répond
For SB253-METHODOLOGY, what data points do I need to gather before I start drafting the disclosure?+−
The page says to prepare seven core datapoints: reference year, corporate accounting standard, protocol alignment check, method changes, operational boundary, group boundary method, and the Scope 3 framework. Use those as your starting checklist before you draft anything.
How do I use the SB253-METHODOLOGY step-by-step preparation section in practice?+−
Use it as a working sequence for getting the disclosure ready rather than as a final answer key. The page is designed to help you move from scoping and data collection through to a draft output and an evidence pack.
What should I check for the corporate accounting standard and protocol alignment in SB253-METHODOLOGY?+−
The page flags both items as datapoints to prepare, so you should confirm which accounting standard you are using and whether your reporting approach aligns with the relevant protocol. Keep the check documented so the method is clear in the draft and in the evidence pack.
How do I decide the operational boundary and group boundary method for SB253-METHODOLOGY?+−
The page treats both as method choices you need to set out before drafting. Record the boundary approach you used and keep the rationale in your working papers so the disclosure can be traced back to the source data.
What does the SB253-METHODOLOGY page expect me to do if my method changed from the prior year?+−
Method changes are one of the datapoints to prepare, so you should identify any changes and capture them clearly in the draft. The page also points you to the evidence pack, which is where you would keep support for those changes.
What evidence pack do I need for SB253-METHODOLOGY assurance readiness?+−
The page includes an evidence pack with five items to support assurance readiness. Use it to assemble the documents and working papers that back up the disclosure before review or assurance.
What are the six assurance claims to verify on the SB253-METHODOLOGY page?+−
The page says there are six assurance claims to verify, each with a claim, risk and evidence angle. Use that list to check what could go wrong and what proof you need before the disclosure is signed off.
How can I avoid the common reporting gaps and mistakes on SB253-METHODOLOGY?+−
The page includes a list of common reporting gaps and mistakes, so use it as a pre-submission check. It is there to help you spot missing method detail, weak evidence or other avoidable issues before the draft is finalised.
How do I turn the SB253-METHODOLOGY page into a draft disclosure?+−
The page has a draft-output section with visualisation ideas, narrative starters and a content-index line. Use those as building blocks to turn your prepared data and method notes into a first draft.
How should I use the SB253-METHODOLOGY workbook and printable library card?+−
The Download Centre provides a Prep & Assurance workbook in .xlsx format and a printable Library Card in .pdf format. Use the workbook to organise preparation and assurance work, and the PDF as a quick reference while you draft.
Can I reuse SB253-METHODOLOGY data for ESRS E1 (Climate Change)?+−
The page notes ESRS E1 (Climate Change) as the closest correspondence, so some data may be reusable across both. Treat that as a practical cross-reference, not as a statement that the requirements are identical.
Autres questions auxquelles cette page peut aider
SB253-METHODOLOGY checklist for reference year, accounting standard, boundary and Scope 3 frameworkHow to document method changes for SB253-METHODOLOGY disclosureWhat evidence should I keep for SB253-METHODOLOGY assurance readiness?SB253-METHODOLOGY common mistakes and reporting gaps to avoidHow to use the SB253-METHODOLOGY Prep & Assurance workbookSB253-METHODOLOGY draft disclosure narrative starters and content index lineSB253-METHODOLOGY synthetic example disclosure table how to read itWhere is the closest ESRS correspondence for SB253-METHODOLOGY?How do I assign ownership for SB253-METHODOLOGY data collection and review?What should an assurance reviewer look for in the SB253-METHODOLOGY evidence pack?How do I prepare SB253-METHODOLOGY if I am the HR or data owner?What is included in the SB253-METHODOLOGY from company reports table?
Aller plus loin · SB253-METHODOLOGY
Apprenez à préparer cette information de bout en bout
This guide covers one statutory requirement. The California Climate Regulation course walks SB 253 and SB 261 end to end — applicability, GHG inventories, climate-risk reporting and assurance — with exercises on your own data.
Available as Guided Flex, Live Cohort, 1:1 Expert Mentorship or Corporate Programme.
Comment cette bibliothèque est construite
312 rapports publiés indexés
63 171 pages avec citations au niveau de la page
272 fiches disclosure conçues par des praticiens
/fr/knowledge-hub/disclosure-cards/sb253-methodology/
Gratuit · LRA Community
Obtenez vos outils SB253-METHODOLOGY — gratuitement
Vos outils de préparation sont gratuits pour les membres de LRA Community et les étudiants. Inscrivez-vous une fois (c’est gratuit) et votre téléchargement démarre aussitôt — avec la Bibliothèque des informations, les modèles et l’assistant IA LRA.
✓
C’est fait — votre téléchargement démarre
Votre fichier est en cours de téléchargement. Votre Cabinet Community — avec la Bibliothèque des informations, les modèles et l’assistant IA LRA — est prêt lui aussi.
Ouvrir votre Cabinet →