Not a SINE partner — a landscape institution, profiled here because it published a source the wiki cites. Three nested things, easily confused:
| What it is | |
|---|---|
| ICC (International Chamber of Commerce) | The publisher and copyright holder. “The institutional representative of more than 45 million companies in over 170 countries”; mission “to make business work for everyone, every day, everywhere”, through “a unique mix of advocacy, solutions and standard setting”. Seat: 33-43 avenue du Président Wilson, 75116 Paris. |
| Carbon Measures | The initiative. “A global coalition representing major businesses from diverse industries committed to establishing a more accurate carbon accounting framework and driving market-based solutions to reduce emissions at the lowest cost.” |
| Technical Expert Panel on Carbon Accounting | The working body. Its Secretariat authored the Landscape Review; the Panel itself is deliberating and has published no conclusions. |
All three per The Carbon Accounting Landscape Review (2026). Named coalition members, governance, funding and panel composition are not disclosed in that source and are not otherwise in the wiki.
The mission statement
The Panel’s Mission, Opportunity, and Principles statement is quoted in the Review as:
“to develop a widely applicable ledger-based carbon accounting framework that enables faithful representations of product-level emissions to facilitate emissions reduction while supporting economic growth and development”
Seven of the Review’s eight criteria are that statement’s guiding
principles, “adopted here in that statement’s order and wording”; only
Operability is the Secretariat’s own addition. See
Decision-grade carbon-data criteria.
The statement itself is a separate document at
iccwbo.org/global-insights/carbon-strategies/carbon-expert-panel/ and is
not yet in sources/ — a known gap, since the criteria the wiki now
records are secondhand from the Review’s restatement of it.
What kind of actor this is
⟨Inference: the following is my reading, not the source’s self-description.⟩
ICC is a standard-setter with a pre-committed answer. The Review’s premise section states that the initiative “was established on the premise that a ledger-based approach to carbon accounting is a critical tool” — the conclusion precedes the analysis, and the document is candid about it. What follows is best read as an argument for a framework the coalition already intends to build, not as a neutral survey. It is a good argument, and the transparency about its own premise is unusual. But every “what remains open” verdict in it is relative to that target.
That has a direct consequence for how the wiki treats the PACT assessment: the Review is simultaneously the most substantive external critique of PACT on record and an interested party’s account of why a competing architecture is needed. Both are true.
Positioning relative to WBCSD/PACT. Two business coalitions, overlapping constituencies, different layers: WBCSD/PACT holds the exchange layer and a working network; ICC/Carbon Measures claims the accounting layer above it. The Review’s framing is complementary rather than displacing — “designed for interoperability with existing architectures”, “strengthens, rather than displaces, the entity-level reporting the market already relies on”. Whether that holds in practice, or whether an accounting framework eventually absorbs the exchange layer, is open.
Bodies the Review leans on
- E-Ledgers Institute — the E-liability proto-standard (Robert Kaplan,
Karthik Ramanna; “Accounting for Climate Change”, Harvard Business
Review 99/6, Nov–Dec 2021). Pilots at
e-ledgers.institute/pilot-adoption. - EFI Foundation (Energy Futures Initiative) — Carbon Accounting Framework (2025), Integrated Product- and Entity-Level Carbon Accounting (Oct 2025), Towards Harmonized Carbon Accounting (Mar 2026, the source of the Review’s counting-vs-accounting table).
- CASI (Carbon Accounting Standards Initiative) — Integrated Corporate Carbon Accounting, Whitepapers No. 1 and No. 2 (2025).
None of these has its own page yet; see Ledger-based carbon accounting for how they differ.
Cross-references
- The Carbon Accounting Landscape Review (2026) — the ingested source
- WBCSD · Pathfinder Network
- Ledger-based carbon accounting
- Decision-grade carbon-data criteria
- Product-level carbon regulation
Sources
sources/whitepapers/2026-08-17-icc-carbon-accounting-landscape-review/2026-08-17-icc-carbon-accounting-landscape-review.md(“About this study”, §4.1, §4.2, §5.4, Appendix A, “About the International Chamber of Commerce”, “About Carbon Measures”)