The name “Market Based Measures” refers to the spectrum of credible and traceable low procurement pathways in the modern decarbonization toolbelt. A purely physical accounting and reporting approach doesn’t reflect the complex, modern logistics ecosystem and second, its rigidity may hinder decarbonization. A system that reliably traces the low emission attributes of a fuel separately from the physical fuel or service enables a company to procure and take responsibility for purposeful transport choices rather than be limited to attributes of products where they have physical access.

Simply put, SFC’s MBM provides the language and methodology to account and report logistics decarbonization where it may be impossible to trace the actual vessel, fuel, and emissions associated with a consignment. This approach enables more varied procurement, investment, accounting, and reporting for low emission transportation and helps jumpstart sector decarbonization, despite being an optional approach today in addition to physical reporting.

Saying “MBM” not just “book and claim” provides the freedom to talk about other chain of custody models like “mass balance” where attributes may be disproportionately allocated but have some level of physical traceability. The term also borrows precedent from “market-based” GHG emissions accounting in the electricity sector, language used by the GHG Protocol to guide flexible electricity attribute procurement where such an approach is currently allowed.

The GLEC Framework and ISO 14083 help with physical accounting. The GLEC Framework is the guidance, and ISO 14083 is the standard. You can use either or both to set up your standard operating procedure (SOP), and then you'd work with a verifier to certify according to ISO 14083 (the standard).

To complement your transportation emissions inventory approach, you can then use the MBM Framework to inform and guide how to take a market-based approach for a subset of your transportation procurement (guidance). Then when you're ready to verify your inventory, a part of your inventory, or B2B market-based reporting, you and your verifier would use the MBM Specification (auditable standard) for this assurance engagement.

A LETS refers to a transportation service generated from use of a low emission “Solution” (e.g., fuel)—not only via book and claim. So, even when not taking a simple, physical approach to emissions accounting (when using a biofuel, for example), a carrier is generating a “LETS”. The logic of a transportation service follows standard transportation accounting from GLEC and ISO 14083. Carriers procure solutions and generate LETS. Logistics Service Providers (LSPs) and cargo owners (Shippers) procure services, which we name LETS when generated from use of a low emission solution.

The term LETS is unit-agnostic and is not the same as a "book and claim unit” (BCU). A BCU is a term, similar to an “EAC” (Environmental Attribute Certificate) that represents the right to claim a unique set of sustainability benefits from a chain of custody system. Different stakeholders use different units on their certificates and hence may have a different “unit” measure as part of their BCU or EAC—e.g., kg of fuel, tonne kilometers (tkm). See Book and Claim Community education page for more on “Units”.

The SFC MBM Framework provides the accounting rules for the GHG profile of the service (the LETS), while the unit is the instrument that is registered, transferred, and retired within a specific registry system. The MBM Specification is used to verify related reporting.

No, the SFC term Low Emission Transportation Service (LETS) is not used only with book and claim or MBM scenarios.

A LETS refers to any transportation service generated using a low emission “Solution” (e.g., fuel)—via any chain of custody. So, even when taking a classic approach to emissions accounting, a carrier is generating a “LETS” when they conduct transportation with a biofuel, for example. The logic of a transportation service follows standard transportation accounting and reporting convention from GLEC and ISO 14083.

Similar to a LETS, a solution is a term that can be widely applied to any chain of custody. A “solution” refers to a product that decarbonizes heavy transport. One example of a solution is a low emission fuel. Another example of a solution is a low emission transportation asset like an electric truck.

Yes! The MBM Framework provides language to describe and report all chain of custody models. A mass balance chain of custody model allows for mixing of products with specified characteristics, such as low emission fuels in a pipeline or fuel farm and is one of the more-common delivery models given shared fueling infrastructure. Fuel is semi-fungible within the system and may be “disproportionately” attributed to one entity who is connected to this infrastructure, provided the remaining recipients receive the “residual mix”. When a low emission solution such as a fuel is subsequently used to conduct transportation activity by a carrier, it is also considered a “LETS”.

When verifying mass balance delivery under the MBM Specification, users document standard elements of a mass balance chain of custody, such as the physical boundary of the system, the chain of custody model description, as well as underlying methods such as the balancing period (time) and the possibility of physical presence (see MBM Specification 6.3).

For more information on mass balance in the MBM approach, see here.

Yes, not all “double-counting” is erroneous. Transportation GHG emissions accounting includes the possibility for simultaneous claims for emissions linked to a specific product or activity in different categories, representing actors at different points in the value chain.

For example, a shipper hires an LSP to secure advanced biofuel-based low emission transportation services for its cargo. The LSP purchases the emission profile of a low emission transportation service from a carrier and allocates that emission profile to the shipper. The emission profile of the LETS purchased by the LSP is associated with the supply chain of both the LSP and the shipper and can be reported accordingly, generally Scope 3.4 for upstream transport. The same emissions are also associated with the carrier’s operations, as they were the entity who burned the fuel, and are reported in Scope 1 (TTW Emissions) as well as Scope 3.3 (WTT Emissions). Furthermore, these emissions are associated with the Solution Provider’s “use-phase” of sold products, reported in their Scope 3.11. Thus, the responsibility for the emission profile overlap, shared by all associated parties.

Note, variations apply. Please consult a standard and your verifier.

(To explore more, see the Book and Claim Community’s Principles & Best Practices, principles #4, “Prevent Erroneous Double-Counting”, and #6, “Enable distinct claims for the same voluntary interventions”.)

The production date for SAF and similar low emission solutions can be the date of issuance of the fuel’s Certificate of Analysis (CoA), Certificate of Quality (CoQ), or Refinery Certificate of Quality (RCQ). As such, the solution provider would document and consistently select the CoA date, CoQ date, or RCQ date as the production date in their standard operating procedure (SOP).

Accounting for GHG emissions in each part of a supply chain—even when entities are owned by the same parent organization—will follow the same categories utilized when the organization follows a purely physical delivery model (i.e., no book and claim) and will be consistent across reporting years.

According to the GHG Protocol, once an organizational boundary is chosen, all levels of the organization and its subsidiaries follow the same approach to allow for consistent reporting. For example, if the parent organization uses the operational control approach, they will use this same approach for a subsidiary. Following the same principle, accounting and reporting for market-based transactions follow the appropriate organizational boundaries selected by the parent company for reporting their GHG emissions in previous years and ensures no one doubles-up on the emissions associated with a subsidiary.

See Blog Post: "Three Ways You Can Apply Book and Claim in GHG Emissions Inventories for Transportation" to review examples of how a parent organization might manage accounting and reporting across their suite of MBM-based activities, then roll it up into an end-of-year inventory.

No. An organization can apply the emission profile of a low emission fuel or low emission transport service to that organization’s emission footprint, to the extent that this fuel or transportation service could have been used to conduct the organization’s actual transport activity (by mode) for the reporting period. An organization cannot apply the profile of more fuel or transportation service than the organization could have used in conducting transportation activity for that organization. If an organization is purchasing the profile of a fuel or transportation service that generates emissions (i.e., is not a zero emission fuel or service), that organization may not over-purchase the emission profile of the fuel or service to claim a net zero transportation footprint.

For an inventory (attributional) accounting approach according to ISO 14083 and GLEC Framework, the emission reporter shall use attributional GHG emissions data. In many cases, negative CI arises from consequential accounting methods—e.g., avoided diffuse CH4 and N2O emissions in agriculture through bio-methane production from manure.

Some regulations permit consequential accounting methods in the interest of promoting alternative fuel processing pathways. If granular data is not available, the reporter should cap negative CI emission factor input data to zero and avoid reporting negative emissions.

However, the use of negative factors is not strictly prohibited but requires robust documentation and invites close scrutiny. For further clarification on regional applications and auditing such emissions intensities via the MBM Specification, please refer to our Public Interpretation #2 here.

(i.e., the fossil transportation, to which I will apply the claimed emissions profile, predates the production date of the Solution or predates the LETS generation date)?

This is a common scenario when an Emission Reporter is coming to the end of the year but wants to procure a solution profile or LETS emission profile and apply it to transportation that happened earlier in the year. While it’s often easier to procure an integrated service as you go (i.e., during the year), enabling such an end-of-year procurement is important provided it still adheres to certain quality principles—in this case, time. We call this a “Reporting Year Allocation” and do allow stakeholders to back-allocate within their reporting year, provided they follow other vintage rules. We describe this allocation in Public Interpretation #4 here.

The MBM Specification translates elements of the guidance provided in the MBM Framework into an auditable standard that an emission reporter uses for quality and transparent reporting. The MBM Specification uses standard language and unambiguous requirements and specifies the requirements for reporting of market-based approaches such as book and claim under the MBM Specification “scope” of the SFC Conformity Assessment Scheme (SFC CAS).

(Note: a scheme may have multiple scopes—SFC’s has one scope for good ISO 14083 application and another for MBM).

The MBM Specification does not change any provisions of the MBM Framework, but in some cases contains clearer definitions and supplementary notes to aid a user’s disclosure practices in the “MBM Reports” (e.g., B2B report of services; GHG emission inventory) or documentation practices in their “Monitoring Plan”. The MBM Framework remains valid as a guidance document.

If you are looking for a normative document, download the MBM Specification. If you are looking for guidance, including examples, education, and more-detailed explanations of rules, download the MBM Framework. You can find both in our library.

Yes. This framework may be applied globally. The principles and methods described in the framework are not bound to a specific region or country. The framework was prepared as a tool that could be used by organizations across their global transportation activities.

GHGP and SBTi continue to assess how market-based approaches to transport greenhouse gas emissions may be addressed in their accounting standards and target setting tools. Current convention does not accept market-based reporting for either organization’s purposes—in a GHGP-compliant inventory or towards an SBT—requiring organizations to employ some sort of “dual-reporting” to be compliant and include MBM in reporting. However, both organizations are reviewing practices, with results expected in 2026 (SBTi) and by 2028 (GHGP).

Especially given that such dual-reporting is the current practice, high-quality underlying transportation reporting, verified to ISO 14083 and the MBM Specification is highly recommended, as are consistent an quality Monitoring Plans and SOPs in order to strengthen claims for all stakeholders.

Organizations interested in coordinating with each other in engaging with the GHGP and/or SBTi around market-based accounting for transport emissions are encouraged to connect with their respective consultative processes. Another option is to sync up with the Book and Claim Community newsletter.