Publication Details |
| Category | Text Publication |
| Reference Category | Journals |
| DOI | 10.1016/j.clpl.2026.100155 |
Licence  |
|
| Title (Primary) | Comparative analysis of GHG calculation methodologies in aviation |
| Author | Erofeev, Y.; Majer, S.; Thrän, D.
|
| Source Titel | Cleaner Production Letters |
| Year | 2026 |
| Department | SANA |
| Volume | 11 |
| Page From | art. 100155 |
| Language | englisch |
| Topic | T5 Future Landscapes |
| Supplements | Supplement 1 Supplement 2 Supplement 3 |
| Keywords | Aviation emissions; Greenhouse gas accounting; Scope 3 emissions; Business travel; Non-CO2 climate effects; Sustainability reporting |
| Abstract | Aviation
accounts for roughly two to three percent of global carbon dioxide
emissions, and its full climate impact—including high-altitude effects
such as contrail-induced cirrus and nitrogen oxide chemistry—may be
substantially larger. As mandatory sustainability disclosure expands
across major economies—through European Union reporting requirements,
the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) climate
baseline, the GHG Protocol, and international aviation schemes such as
CORSIA—organisations face a practical problem: the proliferation of
calculation methodologies produces materially different emissions
estimates for the same flight, undermining comparability and
auditability. This study asks which aviation greenhouse gas
methodologies best support transparent, assurance-oriented corporate
disclosure, and what drives the divergence in reported results. We
assess ten widely used or policy-relevant methodologies through a
three-part design: a structured documentation review with explicit
version locking; controlled computations over standardised short-,
medium-, and long-haul flight profiles under each method's native
assumptions for the eight methodologies with publicly reproducible
factors; and a documentation-based multi-criteria analysis scoring
transparency, boundary clarity, non-carbon-dioxide treatment, data
granularity, and auditability on a four-point ordinal scale, with a
double-coded protocol and sensitivity analysis. Estimates converge at
short range but diverge markedly beyond about five thousand kilometres,
driven primarily by lifecycle boundary choice (tank-to-wake versus
well-to-wake) and by how non-carbon-dioxide effects are represented;
methods including upstream fuel-chain emissions and a radiative forcing
multiplier report systematically higher totals. The analysis reveals no
universal link between documentation quality and emission level: higher
scores coincide with higher estimates only when driven by boundary
completeness. We therefore propose a minimum-viable reporting
schema—explicit energy-scope declaration, documented non-carbon-dioxide
treatment with sensitivity disclosure, versioned emission factors, and
traceable allocation rules—enabling comparability without mandating a
single tool. We do not claim physical accuracy: some implementations are
partly proprietary, and airline fuel-burn ground truth is unavailable. |
| Erofeev, Y., Majer, S., Thrän, D. (2026): Comparative analysis of GHG calculation methodologies in aviation Clean. Prod. Lett. 11 , art. 100155 10.1016/j.clpl.2026.100155 |
|