An emissions-intensity statement needs its denominator. Readers examining SPG’s greenhouse-gas reporting should keep the reported ratio separate from total emissions and check whether the comparison uses a consistent organisational and time boundary.
SPG’s sustainability material includes a statement about greenhouse-gas emissions intensity. Read the source.
Separate the numerator, denominator and boundary
Ask what emissions are counted, what activity or financial measure forms the denominator and which period is being compared. A ratio can change for more than one reason. Its direction alone does not establish the direction of the underlying total or the cause of the change.
The GHG Protocol’s corporate standard provides general context for emissions inventories. It should not be cited as proof that a particular SPG figure has been independently checked. For that question, the reader needs the company’s method, boundary and any assurance statement applicable to the reported measure.
Questions to put in the file
- Which emissions are included in the numerator?
- What exact denominator is used?
- Are the baseline and later boundaries comparable?
- What supporting calculation or assurance information is available?
A practical evidence worksheet
| Field | What to retain |
|---|---|
| Numerator | Included emissions and period |
| Denominator | Defined output or financial measure |
| Comparison | Consistent boundary and supporting record |
Worked example
A reader sees an intensity reduction and wants to infer a reduction in total emissions. The responsible next step is to obtain the absolute totals and denominator values for the same periods. If those are not available, the file should state the limitation. It should not invent a total or claim that the reported ratio proves a different metric.
What the record can establish
Read a ratio as a ratio. Total emissions, intensity and explanations for change are related but distinct questions.
Sources and scope
Public sources reviewed November 1, 2026. Company statements remain attributed descriptions, not independent certification. Examples are hypothetical. No private files, original interviews or authenticated leaks were used for this explainer. Technical or legal decisions require the relevant records and qualified review.
