Framework overlap

Does BSI IT-Grundschutz cover GHG Protocol?

You hold BSI IT-Grundschutz and have been told to do GHG Protocol. Here is how much overlaps, control by control.

17% of GHG Protocol you already have

BSI IT-Grundschutz already covers about 17% of GHG Protocol, leaving 10 of 12 controls as genuinely new work.

Already covered 1 Likely covered 1 New work 10

What is genuinely new work

Nothing in BSI IT-Grundschutz reaches these. This is the list to scope.

GHG-Boundaries-BaseYear-Recalc
Organisational + Operational Boundaries, Base Year and Recalculation
GHG-Coord-EU-Taxonomy-CSDDD-EU-ETS
Coordination with EU Taxonomy, CSDDD, EU ETS and Other Climate Regulatory Frameworks
GHG-Coord-SBTi-CDP-CSRD-ISSB
Coordination with SBTi, CDP, CSRD/ESRS E1, ISSB IFRS S2, ISO 14064 and Climate Frameworks
GHG-Crosswalk-ISO-14064-PCAF-Sectoral
Crosswalk to ISO 14064-1/2/3, PCAF, Sectoral Standards and Climate Disclosure Frameworks
GHG-DataQuality-Verification-Disclosure
Data Quality, Uncertainty, External Verification and Public Disclosure
GHG-Implementation-Roadmap-Inventory
GHG Protocol Implementation - Inventory Process, Organizational Roles and Tooling
GHG-Scope1-Direct
Scope 1 Direct Emissions - Stationary + Mobile Combustion + Process + Fugitive
GHG-Scope2-Dual-Reporting
Scope 2 Indirect Energy Emissions - Location-Based + Market-Based Dual Reporting (2015 Guidance)
GHG-Status-2024-2025-Update-AI-Land
Status, 2024-2025 Update Pipeline, AI/ML Emissions, Land Sector + Removals Guidance 2025
GHG-Status-Adoption-Sectoral
GHG Protocol Adoption Status and Sectoral Application 2024-2025
Show the 2 you already have
GHG-Suite-Corporate-Principles
GHG Protocol Suite, Corporate Standard and 5 Reporting Principles
GHG-Scope3-Value-Chain-15Categories
Scope 3 Value Chain Emissions - 15 Categories (8 Upstream + 7 Downstream)

How this is calculated

Already covered means a mapping runs from a control in BSI IT-Grundschutz to that control. Likely covered means no direct mapping exists but both frameworks map to the same control in a third standard. New work means neither. We keep those separate rather than adding them into one friendlier number, because blending them would present a two-hop inference as a verified fact.

Coverage is not symmetric. Run it the other way and you will get a different number; both are correct.

From 332,959 cross-framework control mappings across 723 frameworks, 531 of them verified against their source documents. It does not tell you that you are compliant: a mapped control means the two standards ask for the same thing, not that you have done it.

Try another pair ยท Today's edition