What’s Missing in Emissions Reporting: NGER vs. GHG Protocol and the AASB S2 Shift
As Australia transitions to mandatory climate reporting through AASB S2, many companies are relying solely on NGER data for GHG disclosures. But here's the catch: NGER reporting does not fully align with the GHG Protocol, which is the required standard under AASB S2.
To meet the AASB S2 requirements, companies must go beyond NGER. This means companies must:
Adopt the GHG Protocol methodology, not just NGER.
Use consistent emissions boundaries across reporting.
Disclose emissions that are material to financial performance, not just those required by local regulation.
Ensure data is audit-ready and investor-relevant.
Scope 1 emissions: NGER vs. GHG Protocol
Scope 1 emissions, defined as direct emissions from owned or controlled sources, may seem straightforward, but how emissions are defined, measured, and reported varies between frameworks.
For example:
NGER may exclude sources that fall under reporting thresholds or occur outside registered facilities.
GHG Protocol includes all direct emissions under operational or equity control, regardless of where they occur or how they’re classified under local law.
Relying on NGER data alone? You could be omitting material Scope 1 emissions – a compliance risk under AASB S2.
How Greenbase Can Help You Bridge the Gap
At Greenbase, we’ve developed tools to help clients move from NGER-focused reporting to comprehensive, GHG Protocol-aligned disclosures that are ready for AASB S2.
Our approach includes:
Emissions mapping: Aligning NGER and GHG Protocol emission sources.
Gap analysis and emissions inventories: Identifying and estimating emissions missed in NGER reporting.
Boundary alignment: Ensuring consistency across climate and financial reporting.
Ready for AASB S2?
Don’t let incomplete data put your reporting at risk. Contact us today and speak to one of our Environmental Consultants on how we can get your reporting strategy ahead of the curve.
Greenbase. Makes Sense.