ISO 14060 and the future of climate accountability

An interview with Dan Krekelberg, climate strategy director at EcoEngineers, an LRQA company 

How can ISO 14060 help food businesses measure and verify net zero progress across complex supply chains? This was a question for Dan Krekelberg at EcoEngineers. In an interview with Dairy Industries International, he explored the challenge for food supply chains, the role of ISO 14060 and why robust data matters for meeting regulatory expectations.

Q. How is the ISO standard affecting how companies ensure their supply chain is compliant?

The ISO 14060 standard for Net Zero Aligned Organizations is designed to create greater consistency in greenhouse-gas measurement and reporting by reducing the variation that currently exists between different corporate and regional methodologies. For dairy companies, this reinforces the need for farm-level and feed-supplier data aligned with recognised standards to enable consistent verification and transparent reporting.

While businesses globally have pledged to reach net zero emissions, there is currently no international agreement defining how to measure, report, and verify progress. ISO 14060 introduces a uniform, verifiable framework for GHG quantification, linking emissions accounting to established methodologies such as ISO 14064 and the GHG Protocol. This allows companies to integrate supplier-level data and mitigation planning into management systems, enhancing supply-chain accountability without duplicating previous approaches.

Q. What is the timescale for it, from when a company first begins looking at it?

The new proposed ISO standard, launched in 2024 and currently in the committee-draft stage, will establish how targets are set, measured and delivered, align with the Paris Agreement, build on existing ISO frameworks, focus on organisational claims, and be verifiable, globally applicable and sector-agnostic.

Organisations are advised to begin preparation now. The next few years provide a readiness period to strengthen data systems, pilot measurement approaches, and align governance structures ahead of formal publication. LRQA outlines five priority actions:

1. improve emissions-data quality
2. align disclosures with ISO 14064 and the GHG Protocol
3. review targets for transparency and measurability
4. map mitigation pathways
5. assign internal ownership for net-zero strategy and verification.

Early preparation will position food and dairy companies to adopt the standard more efficiently once formalised. Becoming familiar with conformity assessment processes under ISO, such as the verification and validation of GHG emissions at the organization and project level may allow companies to successfully support and track progress toward net-zero claims at various stages under the forthcoming standard.

Q. What do you find the most challenging for data collection in food companies? Where are the weak points?

The main challenge is the reliability and completeness of upstream data. Supply chains in the food sector are long, multi-tiered, and cross-border, often operating under varying reporting requirements. This frequently results in inconsistencies that can weaken the credibility of GHG inventories. An LRQA survey found only one in five organisations feel they have credible climate-reporting data, while Net Zero Tracker identified that about four per cent of corporate targets meet minimum robustness criteria.

In dairy, the greatest weak point is farm-level emissions data. Enteric methane, manure management, and feed production account for the majority of emissions, yet data is often fragmented and non-standardised. Addressing this requires structured upstream programmes with measurement tools, training, and verification to ensure organisational claims are robust.

Q. What is a key issue for data and progress tracking?

There are several. Harmonising the structure of ISO standards – terminology, format, and reporting expectations – remains important. The 2024 climate-change amendment integrates biodiversity and lifecycle considerations into environmental management and sets new expectations for leadership, external communication, planning, and value-chain engagement.

A central issue is establishing transparent governance and verification systems that show how climate-related risks and supply-chain emissions are incorporated into operational controls. By embedding these processes, companies can track progress, particularly for Scope 3, with greater credibility.

Q. What about items specific to the dairy sector?

There are several unique variables in the dairy sector which impact annual GHG emissions and mitigation approaches. A system comprised of animals, crops, waste, energy use, and logistics that all contribute to emissions of GHG, particularly those gases with high global warming potential like methane and nitrous oxide. While the combination of these factors can make for a heavy carbon footprint, it also creates many levers for decarbonization, or reducing emissions at various points of the supply chain.

For the dairy sector, most emissions occur upstream at the farm level, making farm-gate data quality essential for credible climate disclosure. Methane, manure management, and feed production dominate the emissions profile, requiring monitoring and reporting beyond generic corporate tools.

Additional challenges include a large number of smallholders, variability in data availability, and the need for traceable information across feed and livestock systems. Regulatory frameworks such as the EU’s CSRD and emerging US state-level climate disclosure laws are increasing expectations for supplier engagement, data traceability, and verification of emissions reductions.

Progress in the dairy sector builds on upstream improvements, integrating farm-level data into organisational frameworks aligned with ISO 14060 and ISO 14064.

Q. What do you think has changed most over the last five years (food insecurity, global instability)?

Five years ago, we were still just a few years beyond the Paris Agreement being signed and the publication of the IPCC Special Report on 1.5ºC, both calling for increased global ambition on climate action. At the time, companies reacting to these policies did not have much guidance on how to set carbon neutrality or net zero emissions targets. But over time, stakeholder developed standards and guidance began to emerge such as ISO 14068-1 for Carbon Neutrality, ISO IWA 42 Net Zero Guidelines, and the Science Based Targets Initiative (SBTi).

With ISO 14060, an international group of net zero experts is revisiting the question of net zero target setting in the current era where we are now nearly a decade from the Paris Agreement, and the physical an economic impacts of climate change are being more widely felt, with many lessons learned about targets driving corporate sustainability.

There has been a clear shift toward greater consistency in climate-reporting standards and a move from voluntary commitments to regulated disclosure requirements. This is reflected in the EU’s CSRD, emerging US state-level climate legislation, and climate risk mandates in many countries based on the ISSB Standards.

Investor scrutiny, global instability and heightened expectations around transparency have moved climate accountability from a sustainability exercise into a core component of corporate governance and risk management, particularly in sectors dependent on complex agricultural supply chains.

Q. Anything else you’d like to discuss?

ISO 14060 is expected to become central to allowing material Scope 3 reporting to support quantifiable value chain emissions reductions, particularly for dairy organisations where the majority of emissions originate upstream. By harmonising principles for GHG quantification and verification and aligning closely with ISO 14064 and the GHG Protocol, the standard strengthens expectations for auditable, decision-ready data from farm to processor.

The 14060 standard is not only applicable to large companies, but also small and medium size businesses, cooperatives, and local government agencies – allowing compatibility at all tiers of supply chains. And as with other environmental management standards there may be further opportunity for practitioners to develop supplemental guidance and protocols, in order to apply the standard to voluntary reporting schemes, internal management processes, or supplier codes of conduct.

COP30 emphasised implementation and credible progress measurement over target-setting. The alignment of ISO 14060 with these objectives will increase expectations for measurable Scope 3 reductions, robust farm-level data systems, and enhanced third-party assurance across