Same intent, different heritage. Pick the one your buyer names in the contract.
Runs on your public disclosures. Nothing from you.
You are the Product Manager or Head of Sustainability at a manufacturer whose customer references GHG Protocol by name. A US-based customer asked for a product-level GHG number under the WBCSD/WRI Product Standard. You reply with ISO 14067 and get pushed back.
The GHG Protocol Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting Standard (2011) is the WBCSD/WRI-published methodology for quantifying the GHG emissions associated with a specific product. It is one of the two dominant product-level accounting standards, the other being ISO 14067. Both use Life Cycle Assessment as the foundation. Both cover cradle-to-grave by default with cradle-to-gate as an allowed subset. They are compatible; contracts sometimes name one specifically.
The scope is one product studied along its full life cycle. Every stage (material acquisition, production, distribution, use, end-of-life) is quantified in CO2 equivalent per functional unit.
The Product Standard sits under the GHG Protocol umbrella alongside the Corporate Standard (for organisation-level accounting) and the Scope 3 Standard. It is designed to feed both product-level buyer disclosures and Scope 3 Category 11 (use of sold products) calculations.
Third-party verification is optional in the standard. In practice, US buyers and Fortune 500 customers request it when the product number goes into their own Scope 3 reporting.
US-domiciled corporates now include GHG Protocol Product Standard references in their supplier data requests as they build out Scope 3 disclosures under ISSB S2 and SEC climate rules. A number under one standard translates to the other with methodological notes.
Three failure modes we see on every GHG Product Standard scan.
Buyer names GHG Protocol Product Standard. Supplier delivers under ISO 14067 without a reconciliation note. Buyer procurement rejects.
The use phase and end-of-life stages skipped in the calculation. The Product Standard requires cradle-to-grave unless a cradle-to-gate cut is justified.
The Product Standard requires a data-quality assessment per input. Missing assessment gets a review request.
Carbon-OS builds the product footprint once, tagged to either standard. Whichever the buyer names, the delivery matches.
Cradle-to-grave by default, cradle-to-gate as an explicit choice with justification captured in the report.
Every input carries a data-quality tag (representativeness, completeness, temporal alignment). The buyer sees the assessment, not just the number.
Do the one your buyer specifies. If neither is named, ISO 14067 is safer internationally. GHG Protocol Product Standard is safer for US-domiciled buyer relationships.
They give near-identical numbers on the same product with the same data. Minor methodological differences exist in allocation and end-of-life treatment. Reconciliation is straightforward.
Optional under both standards. Required in practice whenever the number gets used for public claims or in supplier Scope 3 accounting.
A product-level number is the input to Scope 3 Category 1 (upstream, for the buyer) and Category 11 (use of sold products, for you). Do the product number, and both Scope 3 categories fill in.
Bill of materials, energy use in production, transport distances, packaging materials, use-phase energy or fuel, and end-of-life route. Suppliers provide their upstream numbers.