Carbon has the clarity of the GHG protocol providing scopes 1 2 3 for direct, indirect, purchased
Other impact dimensions like Water might need something similar. Hopefully some form of clear standard exists for each dimension, but in lieu of that we might need to create some form of proxy of direct, indirect, purchased?
If we don't have this then attempting to classify everything under the universal DIST taxonomy (that was designed initially against Carbon) might run into issues when we need to break this out in the same way carbon does due to GHG?
Alternatively we abandon the universal/default taxonomy and have it change as much as needed for the different impact dimensions? Even potentially to the point where we might have difference impact categories for dimensions where needed.
Possibly overthinking this one but wanted to capture it so others are aware it might be an issue in the future.
Carbon has the clarity of the GHG protocol providing scopes 1 2 3 for direct, indirect, purchased
Other impact dimensions like Water might need something similar. Hopefully some form of clear standard exists for each dimension, but in lieu of that we might need to create some form of proxy of direct, indirect, purchased?
If we don't have this then attempting to classify everything under the universal DIST taxonomy (that was designed initially against Carbon) might run into issues when we need to break this out in the same way carbon does due to GHG?
Alternatively we abandon the universal/default taxonomy and have it change as much as needed for the different impact dimensions? Even potentially to the point where we might have difference impact categories for dimensions where needed.
Possibly overthinking this one but wanted to capture it so others are aware it might be an issue in the future.