Editing IPCC:AR6/WGIII/Chapter-11 (section)

==== 11.6.4.3 GHG Content Certifications ====

<div id="h3-19-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

The development of GHG labels corresponds to a growing demand from consumers desiring information about the climate impacts of their consumption ( [[#Darnall--2012|Darnall et al. 2012]] ; [[#Tan--2014|Tan et al. 2014]] ; [[#Feucht--2018|Feucht and Zander 2018]] ). GHG labels fill this information gap by empowering consumers’ purchasing decisions and creating higher value for low-GHG products and materials ( [[#Vanclay--2011|Vanclay et al. 2011]] ; [[#Cohen--2012|Cohen and Vandenbergh 2012]] ). The willingness to pay for lower-GHG products has been found to be positive but to depend on socio-economic consumer characteristics, cultural preferences and the product considered ( [[#Shuai--2014|Shuai et al. 2014]] ; [[#de-Magistris--2016|de-Magistris and Gracia 2016]] ; [[#Tait--2016|Tait et al. 2016]] ; Li et al. 2017; [[#Feucht--2018|Feucht and Zander 2018]] ). Companies and governments that favour low-GHG products and who are seeking to achieve environmental, social, and governance (ESG) goals also need readily available and reliable information about the GHG content of products and materials they purchase and produce ( [[#Long--2016|Long and Young 2016]] ; [[#Munasinghe--2016|Munasinghe et al. 2016]] ).

Numerous methodologies have been developed by public and private organisations to meet the needs for credible and comparable environmental metrics at the product and organisation levels. Most follow lifecycle assessment standards as described in ISO 14040 and ISO 14044, ISO 14067 for climate change footprint only and ISO 14025 (2006) for environmental product declarations (EPD), but the way system boundaries are applied in practice varies ( [[#Wu--2014|Wu et al. 2014]] ; [[#Liu--2016|Liu et al. 2016]] ). Adoption has been challenged by the complexity and the profusion of applications which contribute to confuse stakeholders ( [[#Gadema--2011|Gadema and Oglethorpe 2011]] ; [[#Guenther--2012|Guenther et al. 2012]] ; [[#Brécard--2014|Brécard 2014]] ). The options of applying different system boundaries and allocation principles involve value judgements that in turn influence the results ( [[#Tanaka--2008|Tanaka 2008]] ; [[#Finnveden--2009|Finnveden et al. 2009]] ; [[#McManus--2015|McManus et al. 2015]] ; [[#Overland--2019|Overland 2019]] ). A more systematic and coordinated international approach based on transparent and reliable data and methodologies is needed to induce global low-GHG market development ( [[#Pandey--2011|Pandey et al. 2011]] ; [[#Darnall--2012|Darnall et al. 2012]] ; [[#Tan--2014|Tan et al. 2014]] ).

Within the context of GHG content certifications and EPD development, more transparency is needed to increase international comparability and to validate claims to meet consumers demand for low-GHG material and products ( [[#Rangelov--2021|Rangelov et al. 2021]] ). Greater automation, publicly available reference databases, benchmarking systems and increased stakeholder collaboration can also support the important role of conveying credible emissions information between producers, traders and consumers.

<div id="11.6.4.4" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="performance-standards-and-codes"></span>