ThemisIQ · Methodologies

How ThemisIQ calculates,
classifies and reports.

Last updated: 30 October 2026

Every number ThemisIQ produces is grounded in a recognised international standard or regulatory framework. We don't invent methodologies. We implement the ones that matter, correctly, and keep them current.

GHG ProtocolIPCC AR6TCFDIFRS S2CSRD ESRSEU AI ActNIST CSF 2.0PCAF-alignedCS3DCBAM
Emission factors and regulatory mappings are reviewed and updated annually, or immediately when a material regulatory change occurs. Last reviewed: October 2026.
Module methodology
GHG Inventory: Scope 1 & 2
GHG Protocol Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard
Primary standard
ThemisIQ follows the GHG Protocol Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard, the most widely used GHG accounting framework globally, required by SB 253, CDP, ESRS E1, GRI 305, and IFRS S2.
Global Warming Potentials (GWP)
ThemisIQ applies IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) 100-year GWP values, the latest published IPCC set, for every framework it exports: SB 253, CDP, ESRS E1, GRI 305, EcoVadis and IFRS S2. SB 253 was reported on IPCC AR4 values until June 2026, for consistency with CARB's AB 32 / Mandatory Reporting Regulation program; since then it uses AR6 like the other frameworks. AR6 distinguishes fossil from non-fossil (biogenic) methane (fossil CH₄ GWP 29.8, non-fossil 27.0, N₂O 273). Where a publisher issues factors with the gases already combined on its own GWP basis (DEFRA/DESNZ, DCCEEW and NZ MfE), those factors are applied as published and the workings row says so. The GWP basis is stamped on every export.
Emission factors

Combustion factors come from the publisher for the location's country: the US EPA GHG Emission Factors Hub for the United States; Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC), Emission factors and reference values v3.0, for Canada, with natural gas applied per province; the UK DEFRA/DESNZ Greenhouse Gas Conversion Factors for Company Reporting for the United Kingdom; the EU Monitoring and Reporting Regulation (Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/2066), Annex VI Table 1, with the IPCC 2006 Guidelines defaults it carries, for EU member states; the DCCEEW National Greenhouse Accounts Factors for Australia; and the Ministry for the Environment's Measuring Emissions guide for New Zealand, where the commercial or industrial use class that applied is shown on each row. We never use another country's emission factor. A location in a country we do not hold factors for is not priced: it is left out of every total and named as excluded wherever the figures appear. A location with no country set is not priced either, and the inventory cannot be exported until a country is chosen.

Each emission factor is applied only to quantities in the units its publisher uses, or converted to them by an exact conversion such as US gallons to litres or therms to gigajoules (NIST Special Publication 811). Cubic metres and cubic feet of gas are converted exactly, without adjusting for reference temperature or pressure. If a conversion needs a density or energy content, we use the publisher's own figure where it publishes one, and otherwise a figure from a named official or standards source, shown beside the calculation. Where a natural gas factor is published on a net calorific basis and the bill states gross energy, we apply the IPCC 2006 Guidelines' ratio (net is 90% of gross for natural gas), stated on the row. If no such figure exists, the line is not counted and the inventory cannot be exported until it is entered in a unit we can price.

Some countries need more than the bill. Canadian natural gas needs the province. A Canadian gas bill in gigajoules is converted to cubic metres at ECCC's national gross heat content from the National Inventory Report edition the reporting year takes: 38.59 MJ/m³ (1990 to 2023, Part 2, Table A4-2) or 38.52 MJ/m³ (1990 to 2024, Table A4-2), because ECCC does not publish a provincial value; the row says which. In the EU, diesel, petrol and heavy fuel oil in litres use densities from the EU Joint Research Centre's JEC Well-to-Tank report v5 (832, 743 and 970 kg/m³). Heating oil and LPG are accepted by mass (kilograms or tonnes), because no cited density exists for them, and EU natural gas is accepted in kWh as billed, because the reference conditions behind a billed cubic metre vary by country. EU factors are 100% fossil and exclude any biofuel-blend adjustment. Propane is priced by mass only where the publisher prints a per-mass factor (the UK, the EU and New Zealand). UK factors are applied on DEFRA's published basis, including its fixed GWP basis, so UK figures reconcile directly to DEFRA for SECR assurance.

Fuel used in vehicles is entered by vehicle type: light vehicles, heavy vehicles and non-road equipment. Each is priced with the publisher's own mobile combustion factors for carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide; a stationary factor is never used for a vehicle unless the publisher says its factor covers both, as DEFRA does for the UK. In the EU, carbon dioxide uses the EU Monitoring and Reporting Regulation's factor, and methane and nitrous oxide use the IPCC 2006 Guidelines' mobile defaults, because the Regulation publishes none.

Where a publisher splits a vehicle type further, by model year, emission-control technology, emission standard, engine or equipment type, we use the row that matches what you tell us, and otherwise the published row with the highest methane and nitrous oxide for that type (combined on fixed AR5 values), and the row says so. For a model year later than the publisher's latest row, the latest row is used. In the United States and the EU, where the publisher's non-road factors differ by equipment type, non-road equipment is priced only once you choose its equipment type. In the United States, EPA publishes methane and nitrous oxide for road vehicles per mile, so they are counted when miles are entered and otherwise shown as not counted.

In Australia, non-road equipment uses NGA's stationary factors, because the NGER Measurement Determination treats fuel not used for transport by vehicles registered for road use, rail, water or air as stationary energy; in New Zealand, non-road equipment uses MfE's transport fuel factors, because MfE classes fuel used to move a vehicle as transport. IPCC's default off-road factors, used for EU non-road equipment, carry a high nitrous oxide value for diesel, so methane and nitrous oxide are a larger share of those lines than in other countries. A vehicle fuel figure recorded before vehicle types were asked is not counted, and the inventory cannot be exported, until you choose the vehicles it was used in.

Purchased steam and district heat use the publisher's factor where one exists (US EPA and UK DEFRA). Canada, Australia and New Zealand publish none, and we hold no factor for EU member states, so we estimate it by the GHG Protocol Scope 2 Guidance method (Appendix A): the country's own natural gas factor divided by an 80% generation efficiency, the assumption US EPA states for its own steam factor. Each such row is labelled as an estimate, notes that it excludes distribution losses and may overstate a low-carbon network, and is replaced by your provider's figure when you enter it.

Electricity factors are location-based and country-matched: US EPA eGRID 2023 (US states), ECCC Emission factors and reference values v3.0 and v4.0 (Canadian provinces, by the National Inventory Report data year), DEFRA/DESNZ (UK, by reporting year), European Environment Agency generation intensities for data years 2023 and 2024 (EU member states), DCCEEW National Greenhouse Accounts Factors (Australian states) and the Ministry for the Environment (New Zealand). Every factor is versioned, cited on its row and in exports. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0.

Each factor comes from the edition its publisher's rule assigns to the reporting year and its year end, and every row names that edition. For the United Kingdom a reporting year takes the DEFRA/DESNZ edition for its calendar year, its April to March year or its July to June year, as DESNZ guidance states. ThemisIQ holds the DEFRA/DESNZ 2023 edition (version 1.1, as updated on 28 June 2023), the 2024 edition (version 1.1, as corrected on 30 October 2024), the 2025 edition and the 2026 edition. US EPA Emission Factors Hub editions are read as intended for the activity year that carries their number, which is our reading since EPA does not state it; the 2023, 2024 and 2025 editions are held. DCCEEW National Greenhouse Accounts Factors edition N covers 1 July N to 30 June N+1; the 2023 to 2026 editions are held. Where the edition a reporting year needs has not yet been published (for the United States in 2026, when we checked on 8 October 2026), the line is priced on the newest published edition and the row is labelled provisional, saying which edition was used and that the one the year needs has not been published yet. For New Zealand the Ministry for the Environment's 2023, 2024, 2025 (release 2025.3) and 2026 (release 2026.2) editions are held, and its grid electricity and transmission and distribution loss series rows for 2023 to 2025, as printed in the 2026 workbook. For Canada, grid electricity is ECCC Emission factors and reference values Tables 5.1 to 5.4, keyed by the National Inventory Report data year each cites (2021 to 2024), and vehicle fuel and the natural gas heat content come from the National Inventory Report 1990 to 2023 or 1990 to 2024. In the EU, location-based grid intensities are the European Environment Agency's for data years 2023 and 2024, data year 2023 as revised in the final inventory published on 6 November 2025, and market-based residual mixes are AIB's for data years 2023, 2024 and 2025. For data published some years after the period it describes (eGRID, Green-e, AIB, EEA, the ECCC grid intensities and the New Zealand grid and transmission loss series), we use the edition whose data year is the reporting year where one exists, and otherwise the newest edition published when the inventory was first prepared. That choice is saved with the inventory, with the date it was made, and kept on every later save; it is made again only if the reporting year or its year end changes. We never substitute another year's factors: where the edition a year needs is published but not loaded, the line is not counted and the inventory cannot be exported until it is.

Scope 2 accounting
ThemisIQ supports both location-based and market-based Scope 2 accounting, following the GHG Protocol Scope 2 Guidance dual-reporting requirement (ESRS E1 and GRI 305). Location-based figures use grid-average emission factors. Market-based figures apply a residual-mix emission factor to the electricity NOT covered by a contractual instrument (PPAs, RECs, green tariffs). Contracted volumes are not deducted from the grid average, so emissions attributable to untracked supply are not understated. Residual-mix factors are sourced from the Association of Issuing Bodies (AIB) European Residual Mixes 2023, 2024 and 2025 (by data year) for EU member states, from Green-e (2025 residual mix, 2023 data) combined with US EPA eGRID2023 for US locations, keyed by eGRID subregion, and from the DCCEEW National Greenhouse Accounts Factors 2025 national Residual Mix Factor for Australia (the 2024 edition's for a year that takes it). For full-disclosure jurisdictions where no residual mix is published (e.g. Austria, and the Netherlands for 2025), the location-based factor is applied with that treatment disclosed. Where no residual mix is loaded for a country (currently the United Kingdom, Canada and New Zealand), the market-based figure uses the location-based grid average for electricity not covered by a contractual instrument, and the row says so. Every market-based factor is vintage-stamped and cited in exports.
Assurance readiness
All calculation workings are documented per emission source with factor citations, unit conversions, and GWP references, aligned with ISO 14064-3 and ISAE 3410 limited assurance requirements.
Comparability between reporting years

ISO 14064-3:2019 clause 6.3.1.5 requires a verifier to determine whether changes from prior periods that make those periods incomparable have been disclosed by the reporting organisation.

A year whose total omits a location is not comparable with a year that includes it. ThemisIQ therefore does not present such a year as a lower figure. The year is carried through as unknown: no value is plotted, no line is drawn across it, and year-on-year and baseline comparisons that would span it return no result rather than a number.

Two states are distinguished. Excluded means the stored workings record which location was left out and why. Unverifiable means a location cannot be priced today, but the composition of the saved total is unknown. Both withhold the figure; only the first can say what is missing.

Methodology changes

7 October 2026. Fuel used in vehicles is entered by vehicle type and priced with each publisher's mobile combustion factors.

7 October 2026. Australian Category 3 gas and electricity use NGA 2025 Scope 3 factors by state; gas also by metro or non-metro area, asked per site. The upstream electricity factor includes grid losses, so there is no separate transmission and distribution line.

7 October 2026. Emission factors are now applied only through the publisher's own units, exact conversions or cited properties; no other country's factor is used. EU litre factors use JEC densities; EU natural gas is accepted in kWh, and heating oil and LPG by mass. Canadian gas in gigajoules is accepted at ECCC's national heat content. Propane by mass uses per-mass factors only. Steam and district heat without a published factor are estimated and labelled. Lines that cannot be priced are shown as not counted and block export.

Calculate your Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions free → No account needed to start. Create a free account to keep your results.
Module methodology
Scope 3: Full Value Chain
GHG Protocol Corporate Value Chain (Scope 3) Standard
Primary standard
ThemisIQ works to the GHG Protocol Corporate Value Chain (Scope 3) Accounting and Reporting Standard across the fifteen upstream and downstream categories. All 15 categories recorded and reported. 9 calculated by a named method, 6 reported from your own figures.
Calculation hierarchy

Each Scope 3 category is calculated by one of the methods below, and every export names the method used for each category in that inventory. For Categories 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14 and 15, a figure entered directly is used instead of any estimate. Categories 5, 6, 7 and 12 take no entered figure: they are calculated only from the data their method asks for.

Categories 1, 2 and 4 (purchased goods and services; capital goods; upstream transportation and distribution): Spend-based, priced from EXIOBASE 3 version 3.8.2 (EXIOBASE consortium, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0) through the active factor edition, using the factor recorded for that category (an EXIOBASE industry or product, whichever the category is priced against) in the EXIOBASE region the inventory's country of supply belongs to. For Category 1, supplier-specific figures, where entered, are used instead.

Category 3 (fuel- and energy-related activities): Activity-based, and derived rather than entered: the fuel, electricity and purchased heat or steam already recorded for each location in the bound GHG inventory, re-priced on the upstream factor for that energy. Fuels take the well-to-tank (WTT) factor published for the fuel and the unit entered. Electricity and heat take three separate published rows, the WTT of generation, the transmission and distribution (T&D) loss, and the WTT of that loss, which is how the sheets direct they be reported. Every row excludes combustion, which stays in Scope 1 or Scope 2. Factors are UK DEFRA/DESNZ GHG Conversion Factors for Company Reporting (full set, the WTT- fuels, WTT- UK electricity, Transmission and distribution and WTT- heat and steam sheets, AR5 GWPs), the edition the reporting year requires (2023, 2024, 2025 or 2026), published for the United Kingdom: a location in another country is priced from them as a stand-in and its line says so. At an Australian location, natural gas and electricity are not priced from these: they take the DCCEEW National Greenhouse Accounts Factors Scope 3 factors of the edition the reporting window's activity year requires (2023, 2024, 2025 or 2026) for the site's state, Table 1 for electricity as one line that includes the electricity lost in the grid, with no separate transmission and distribution line, and Table 6 for natural gas, by the site's metro or non-metro gas area, converted to gigajoules at NGA's own energy content (Table 5). Other Australian fuels and purchased heat use the UK factors as a stand-in. Electricity is taken on the location-based Scope 2 figure, which the GHG Protocol Scope 2 Guidance (section 1.10, p. 10) requires a company to disclose. Where the GHG inventory already prices a location's transmission and distribution loss on its own national factor, that figure is used and its source is named on the line. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0.

Category 5 (waste generated in operations): Activity-based: tonnes of waste by material and treatment route, each multiplied by the kg CO2e per tonne published for that pair in UK DEFRA/DESNZ GHG Conversion Factors for Company Reporting (full set, Waste disposal sheet, AR5 GWPs), the edition the reporting year requires (2023, 2024, 2025 or 2026). Only the routes published for a material are offered; re-use is not a disposal route and has no factor. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0.

Category 12 (end-of-life treatment of sold products): Activity-based, per material: the tonnes of sold products and packaging reaching end of life, split by the customer across the treatment routes the sheet publishes for that material, each route's tonnes multiplied by the kg CO2e per tonne published for that material and route in UK DEFRA/DESNZ GHG Conversion Factors for Company Reporting (full set, Waste disposal sheet, AR5 GWPs), the edition the reporting year requires (2023, 2024, 2025 or 2026). This is finer than formula [12.1] of the GHG Protocol's Technical Guidance for Calculating Scope 3 Emissions, which applies one average factor per treatment method. The split and its source are the customer's assumption. The figure is the expected end-of-life emissions of all products sold in the reporting year, most of which have not yet occurred. These are UK factors, applied wherever the products are sold. Re-use is not a treatment route and has no factor. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0.

Category 6 (business travel): Activity-based, per flight leg and rail journey: passenger-km (the direct one-way distance times the passengers or trips) multiplied by the kg CO2e per passenger-km published in UK DEFRA/DESNZ GHG Conversion Factors for Company Reporting (full set, Business travel- air and Business travel- land sheets, AR5 GWPs), the edition the reporting year requires (2023, 2024, 2025 or 2026), with well-to-tank emissions from the matching well-to-tank sheets added. Each flight leg takes one of the sheet's categories: domestic when both ends are in the UK; the haul the Haul definition sheet gives the other end when one end is; and, when neither end is, domestic under 482.8032 km, short-haul from 482.8032 km to under 3,701.4912 km and long-haul from 3,701.4912 km, which departs from the sheet's guidance to use its international average for flights between non-UK countries (Business travel- air A56) and follows the distance bands of the US EPA GHG Emission Factors Hub (2025), cited as the precedent for banding only, with no EPA figure used. Radiative forcing is included unless the inventory turns it off, using DEFRA's With RF flight factors, which increase the CO2 component by 70% to account for radiative forcing (Business travel- air A11), and the setting is recorded with each inventory. The sheet's flight factors include a distance uplift of 8% for indirect routing (Business travel- air A49), so each leg's distance is the direct distance with no uplift added. They are for direct (non-stop) flights (Business travel- air A53), so a journey with a stop is entered as one leg per flight. Rail journeys are priced from the sheet's rail factors and their well-to-tank factors, which are UK figures; for a journey outside the UK they are used as a stand-in, and the journey is flagged. Hotel stays are not included: they are optional under the GHG Protocol Scope 3 Standard, and the licence for the published hotel factors has not been confirmed. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0.

Category 7 (employee commuting): Activity-based, per group of employees who commute the same way: employees times the one-way distance times 2, times the days commuted per week, times the weeks per year, multiplied by the kg CO2e published in UK DEFRA/DESNZ GHG Conversion Factors for Company Reporting (full set, Business travel- land sheet, AR5 GWPs), the edition the reporting year requires (2023, 2024, 2025 or 2026) with well-to-tank emissions from the matching sheet added. Car and motorbike factors are per vehicle-km and are divided by the occupancy the customer enters; walking and cycling count as zero. These are UK factors. For a group commuting outside the UK they are used as a stand-in, and the row is flagged. Homeworking is optional under the GHG Protocol Scope 3 Standard (p. 46). Where entered, it is priced from the Homeworking sheet’s combined office equipment and heating factor per FTE working hour (Homeworking C24), for employees in the UK only: the factor is a UK average (Homeworking A11), mostly heating, with no cooling component. The workbook does not state whether it counts only the additional energy of working from home, which the GHG Protocol’s Technical Guidance asks for (p. 90). Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0.

Category 15 (investments): PCAF-aligned financed emissions. A known total, where entered, replaces the holding-level figures. Otherwise each holding's figure is the investee's emissions as entered by the customer, multiplied by the outstanding amount over the value its PCAF asset class attributes on, capped at 100%. Investee emissions are used on whatever GWP basis each investee reported, not re-based, and ThemisIQ does not record which basis that was. A holding missing its emissions, outstanding amount or attribution value withholds the category figure. A portfolio value multiplied by a spend factor does not measure emissions, so ThemisIQ does not estimate this category that way.

Categories 8, 9, 10, 11, 13 and 14 (upstream leased assets; downstream transportation and distribution; processing of sold products; use of sold products; downstream leased assets; franchises): Not calculated by ThemisIQ: no emission factor is applied and no estimate is produced. A figure entered directly is used as given, and is reported as primary data.

Category 15: Financed emissions
Category 15 financed emissions are calculated with a PCAF-aligned method (Partnership for Carbon Accounting Financials) for six asset classes: listed equity and corporate bonds, business loans and unlisted equity, project finance, commercial real estate, mortgages, and motor vehicle loans. Sovereign debt is not supported. For each holding, the investee’s emissions as entered by the customer are multiplied by the outstanding amount over the value PCAF attributes on for that asset class: enterprise value including cash, total equity plus debt, or property or vehicle value at origination. Attribution is capped at 100%. Investee emissions are used on whatever GWP basis each investee reported, not re-based, and ThemisIQ does not record which basis that was. Each holding is scored on PCAF’s data-quality scale, 1 where the customer marks the investee’s figure as verified and 2 otherwise, and the portfolio score is weighted by emissions. If any holding is missing its emissions, outstanding amount or attribution value, the category produces no figure and is reported as not yet calculated. A known total may be entered instead; it is scored 2 and replaces the holding-level figures entirely. ThemisIQ does not estimate this category from a portfolio’s total value multiplied by a sector spend factor: a balance is a position at a date and a spend factor is an intensity per year of activity, so their product does not measure emissions. ThemisIQ is not a PCAF signatory and is not accredited by PCAF.
Relevance
Which Scope 3 categories are relevant is the customer’s decision, made against the GHG Protocol’s relevance criteria: size, influence, risk, stakeholder interest, outsourcing and sector guidance. ThemisIQ records each decision. A category marked not relevant is kept out of the total with the customer’s reason where one is given, and every export counts the exclusions made without one.
Module methodology
CBAM: Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism
Regulation (EU) 2023/956 · IR (EU) 2025/2547 · 2025/2620 · 2025/2621 · 2025/2546 · DR (EU) 2025/2551 (EN ISO/IEC 14065)
What it computes
CBAM requires an EU importer to declare the embedded emissions of each imported good, under the CBAM Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2023/956). ThemisIQ produces the Specific Embedded Emissions (SEE), the emissions intensity per tonne of a CBAM good that the importer carries into their annual CBAM declaration. Following the embedded-emissions methodology of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2547, SEE is the sum of direct and indirect embedded emissions divided by the net production of the good, expressed in tonnes of CO₂e per tonne: SEE = (direct embedded emissions + indirect embedded emissions) / net production.
Direct & indirect emissions
Direct process emissions are always included. Indirect (electricity) emissions are included only where the regulation requires: for Annex II goods such as iron, steel and aluminium, indirect emissions are reported but excluded from the CBAM certificate obligation, so the certificate-relevant figure is direct-only. For complex goods, the embedded emissions of precursors carry into the finished good's SEE.
Data basis
SEE is computed from installation-level actual data. Where you attach a source document to a figure, that link is carried through to the verifier's view. Under Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2023/956, as amended by Regulation (EU) 2025/2083, the importer may declare either verified actual values or the default values published in Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2621. Defaults carry a mark-up on top of the country figure (10% for 2026, 20% for 2027 and 30% from 2028 for iron and steel, aluminium, cement and hydrogen; 1% for fertilisers), accounting for installations whose emissions exceed the average for their producer country.
Free allocation & benchmarks
The free-allocation adjustment applies production-route benchmarks set out in Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2620.
Verification
All declared embedded emissions require independent third-party verification by an accredited verifier under Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2546. Verifier accreditation is governed by Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/2551, to EN ISO/IEC 14065.
Sector coverage
Available now for iron & steel and aluminium; further CBAM sectors (cement, fertilisers, hydrogen) in active development.
Module methodology
Climate Risk Screening
TCFD · IPCC AR6 · IFRS S2 · ESRS E1
Scenario framework
ThemisIQ supports climate risk assessment across recognised IPCC-aligned warming pathways. IFRS S2 requires scenario analysis to assess climate resilience, and asks whether a diverse range of scenarios and a Paris-aligned scenario were used. Under ESRS, scenario analysis is optional; where it is used, ESRS (2026) E1-2 asks whether a high-emission scenario was used for physical risks and a 1.5 °C scenario with no or limited overshoot for transition risks. See the Climate Risk Screening methodology below for the scenarios the screening uses.
Physical risk data
Hazard intensities are ThemisIQ starter values on a 0 to 3 scale, informed by the IPCC AR6 Working Group I regional assessments and not yet transcribed from a named source. Transcription from the World Bank Climate Change Knowledge Portal, WRI Aqueduct and other open datasets is in progress. Hazards follow the IPCC climatic impact-driver categories. Permafrost and ground instability is the exception: each region's intensity is banded from the share of its land underlain by permafrost (Obu et al. 2019, Earth-Science Reviews), from 3 where it is a quarter or more to 0 where it is under half a per cent, and five sectors that build on frozen ground carry a sensitivity to it: energy and utilities, mining and metals, and transport at 3, real estate at 2, and construction at 1, set from published assessments of thaw damage to pipelines, roads, railways, buildings and industrial sites (Hjort et al. 2018; Streletskiy et al. 2023; Langer et al. 2023). Permafrost confined to mountains, such as in the Alps, reads as nil at region level, so a site on mountain permafrost needs its own check.
Transition risk data
Transition risk is scored across the four TCFD transition-risk categories: policy and legal, technology, market, and reputation. Each category combines the sector's carbon exposure with a per-sector weighting for that category; policy and legal is additionally scaled by the policy intensity of the jurisdictions selected, since transition exposure follows which regulatory regimes apply rather than where assets sit. The selected scenario and time horizon then scale each category with its own transition multiplier, so transition pressure rises under rapid-policy futures and falls under high-warming ones. Policy intensity is scored 0 to 3 for each jurisdiction with a published rubric. It is 0 where no compulsory carbon price is in force. It is 1 where one is in force but covers less than a fifth of the jurisdiction's emissions or is priced below US$10 a tonne; 2 where it covers at least a fifth at US$10 up to US$40; and 3 where it covers at least a fifth at US$40 or more. The price is that of the compulsory instrument with the highest price among those that each cover at least a fifth of emissions; where no market price exists yet, the lowest price at which the instrument can be complied with. The facts behind each score are recorded with the jurisdiction, with their sources and dates. Carbon price facts refreshed 29 Oct 2026; no policy-intensity score changed. The per-sector weightings, the rubric's thresholds, the rules that turn NGFS figures into transition multipliers and the reputation multiplier are ThemisIQ methodological choices; the carbon prices and energy shares are NGFS's. Each report identifies the platform reference values in its data-lineage and provenance sections. Transition multipliers are derived from the NGFS Climate Scenarios Data Set, Phase 5, version 5.1 (Richters, O. et al., 2026, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17901363): carbon prices and low-carbon energy shares from the GCAM, MESSAGEix-GLOBIOM and REMIND-MAgPIE models, converted by ThemisIQ into scenario multipliers. The data are licensed under the NGFS Scenarios licence, adapted from CC BY 4.0, which includes a disclaimer of warranties (https://data.ene.iiasa.ac.at/ngfs/#/license). NGFS does not endorse ThemisIQ or this analysis.
Disclosure alignment
The output supports the strategy and resilience disclosures of IFRS S2 (paragraphs 10 to 22) and ESRS (2026) E1-2 and E1-3. Governance, risk management, and metrics and targets are outside this module.
Module methodology
Climate Risk Screening
IFRS S2 single materiality · CSRD ESRS double materiality · IPCC AR6 · TCFD
Primary standards
ThemisIQ supports two distinct materiality determination modes kept architecturally separate because they answer fundamentally different questions. IFRS S2 single (financial) materiality asks how climate-related risks affect the entity's enterprise value, cash flows and access to finance. CSRD ESRS double materiality retains that financial axis and adds impact materiality (how the entity affects people and the environment). Double materiality is operationalised as the union of the two axes: a topic is reportable if material on either.
Risk model
Material climate risk is modelled as the product of four factors. Physical risk = industry sensitivity × IPCC AR6 regional hazard exposure × the scenario's warming at the time horizon. Transition risk = industry carbon exposure × jurisdictional policy intensity × the scenario's transition multiplier for that driver at the time horizon. Physical and transition geographies are deliberately distinct: physical exposure depends on where assets are; transition exposure depends on which regulatory regimes apply. A risk is flagged only where industry sensitivity intersects with real regional or jurisdictional exposure, preventing common false-positives.
Scenario framework
Scenarios are the IPCC Shared Socioeconomic Pathways. The resilience analysis runs four: SSP1-1.9, the one pathway that limits warming to 1.5 °C with no or limited overshoot; SSP1-2.6; SSP2-4.5; and SSP5-8.5. Physical pressure follows each pathway's best-estimate warming at the chosen horizon, from IPCC AR6 Working Group I Table SPM.1, relative to SSP2-4.5 warming at 2040. Today's level is never scaled down; it rises with warming above SSP2-4.5's mid-century level. The short horizon (to 2030) is read at 2030, the centre of 2021 to 2040; the long horizon (to 2050 and beyond) at 2050, the centre of 2041 to 2060; and the medium horizon (to 2040) halfway between. Near-term warming differs little between pathways, so the pathways differ little at the short horizon and most at the long one. Transition pressure comes from NGFS Phase 5.1: each pathway is paired with the NGFS scenario of similar policy ambition (SSP1-1.9 with Net Zero 2050, SSP1-2.6 with Below 2°C, SSP2-4.5 with Nationally Determined Contributions, SSP5-8.5 with Current Policies), and read at the horizon year (2030, 2040 or 2050) against the NDC scenario at 2040, using the median of three models. Carbon pricing follows the world carbon price, each tenfold price moving the score by one band; market and demand shift follows the low-carbon share of primary energy; technology displacement the low-carbon share of electricity; reputation, by ThemisIQ judgement, the geometric mean of those two. Under current policies the carbon price stays low while low-carbon energy keeps growing, so the market and technology drivers do not fall as far as carbon pricing. Current Policies warms less than SSP5-8.5; it is paired for its policy ambition. Testing both ends shows how resilient a strategy is. The choice of scenarios, and the reason for it, is disclosed under IFRS S2, and under ESRS where scenario analysis is used.
Geographic and topic frameworks
Physical-risk geography uses the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) Working Group I reference regions (Iturbide et al., 2020): public, climate-science-defined land regions, not country borders. Transition risks use the TCFD four-category classification. The impact-materiality axis (CSRD mode) uses the ten ESRS topical standards: E1–E5 environmental, S1–S4 social, G1 governance.
Scoring scheme
All factor scores are held on simple ordinal scales and combined multiplicatively, then mapped to a 0–10 materiality score and a high/medium/low band. The scheme is intentionally transparent: any flagged risk or material topic can be traced to its inputs. Scoring values are ThemisIQ starter values, informed by the public frameworks listed and not yet transcribed from a named source, and pending entity-specific calibration. Calibration is an ongoing process; the model version active at run time is stamped on every report so users can trace outputs to the specific version that produced them.
Independent derivation
No input layer reproduces or is structured to mirror any licensed proprietary classification. Every value records whether it is a starter value, an expert judgement or a sourced figure, and the report counts each. This is a deliberate design choice.
The free screening, model 2.0: what changed from model 1.5, and why

Model 2.0 makes the free screening read the same datasets, with the same rules and the same words, as the IFRS S2 Report, so the two never contradict each other. Model 1.5 scored physical risk from IPCC AR6 regions and asset profiles, with ThemisIQ starter intensities scaled by each scenario's warming. Model 2.0 reads each country you operate in from the report's hazard datasets, summarised by where people live, and scores it with the report's sensitivity for each kind of site. Where a dataset projects the hazard, each scenario is read directly; where it does not, today's level is shown with the scenario's warming beside it (interpolated from IPCC AR6 Table SPM.1), and no multiplier is applied.

Transition carbon exposure now comes from your industry's greenhouse gas emissions per dollar, including its suppliers', as in the report, rather than from your sector.

Opportunities linked to physical change are no longer scaled by warming: their level is today's in every scenario, with the scenario's warming beside it. Opportunities linked to the energy transition keep the NGFS multiplier for their driver.

Screenings saved under model 1.5 keep model 1.5: each saved screening and its PDF name the model they were run on.

Weighting by population

A country's band is the highest band that a quarter or more of its people live at or above (the population-weighted upper quartile), on 0.25-degree cells, using the GHS-POP 2020 population grid. The share of people at that band is printed beside it. Weighting by people rather than land keeps empty land, such as the Arctic or a desert interior, from setting a country's figure.

Flooding, shown as shares

River and coastal flooding are shown as the share of people where the 100-year flood is 0.5 m or deeper (JRC's river flood maps; WRI's coastal flood maps, on the 50 km coastal strip), and are not scored. A country share cannot say whether your sites are in the flood extent; the IFRS S2 Report reads flood depth at each site.

Water stress beside a large lake or river

Aqueduct's water stress compares the water withdrawn in a river catchment with the water it counts as available there. Where a catchment's main public water supply is confirmed to be a large lake or river in or beside it, whose published flow is at least three times Aqueduct's figure, water stress is not scored there, and the screening and the report say why. For a river supply, this applies only where no government finding of water scarcity applies to it. Aqueduct's numbers are never changed; the list of catchments is versioned, and each entry names its sources.

What is returned and what is used up

Beside water stress, the screening shows the share of people in catchments where most of the water withdrawn is returned after use, and where much of it is used up, from Aqueduct's water depletion, as the report does at each site. High stress where most water is returned, for example as cooling water, is a different exposure from high stress where water is used up.

Wildfire weather

Bands count extreme fire-weather days against this place's own 1850-1900 climate, when it had about 18 such days a year: band 1 from 1.5 times as many, band 2 from twice, band 3 from three times.

The cut points are a ThemisIQ judgement, anchored to how ETH Zurich and the IPCC report change in fire weather: as a multiple of the baseline number of days.

What the screening cannot tell you

The screening reads countries, not sites. It cannot tell where in a country your sites are, so it cannot say whether a site is in a flood extent, near the coast, in a stressed catchment or in a fire-prone area. The IFRS S2 Report reads each site at its own location.

Model 2.0: sources

Population weighting (GHS-POP R2023A, epoch 2020): Schiavina, Marcello; Freire, Sergio; Alessandra Carioli; MacManus, Kytt (2023): GHS-POP R2023A - GHS population grid multitemporal (1975-2030). European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC) [Dataset] doi: 10.2905/2FF68A52-5B5B-4A22-8F40-C41DA8332CFE PID: http://data.europa.eu/89h/2ff68a52-5b5b-4a22-8f40-c41da8332cfe

Heat and drought: World Bank Group, Climate Change Knowledge Portal, CMIP6 0.25-degree downscaled data, licensed under CC BY 4.0.

Water stress, water depletion, and river flooding where JRC does not cover: Kuzma, S., M.F.P. Bierkens, S. Lakshman, T. Luo, L. Saccoccia, E. H. Sutanudjaja, and R. Van Beek. 2023. 'Aqueduct 4.0: Updated decision-relevant global water risk indicators.' Technical Note. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. doi.org/10.46830/writn.23.00061. Catchments: Lehner, B., and G. Grill. 2013. Global River Hydrography and Network Routing. Hydrological Processes 27 (15).

River flooding (100-year depth): Baugh, C., Colonese, J., D'Angelo, C., Dottori, F., Neal, J., Prudhomme, C., Salamon, P. (2024): Global river flood hazard maps, version 2.1.2. European Commission, Joint Research Centre [Dataset]. doi:10.2905/JRC.VD32YWG.

Coastal flooding (100-year depth): Ward, P.J., H.C. Winsemius, S. Kuzma, M.F.P. Bierkens, A. Bouwman, H. de Moel, A. Díaz Loaiza, et al. 2020. Aqueduct Floods Methodology. Technical Note. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. Aqueduct Floods hazard maps, Version 2, CC BY 4.0.

Wildfire weather: Quilcaille, Y., Batibeniz, F., Ribeiro, A.F.S., Padrón, R.S., and Seneviratne, S.I. (2022). Fire weather index data under historical and SSP projections in CMIP6 from 1850 to 2100. ETH Zurich Research Collection. doi:10.3929/ethz-b-000583391

Tropical cyclone wind: Meiler, S., Lee, C.-Y., Sobel, A., Camargo, S. (2025). Global coastal wind hazard maps from the CHAZ tropical cyclone model [Dataset]. Dryad. doi:10.5061/dryad.qfttdz0vz. Paper: Meiler, S., Lee, C.-Y., Camargo, S. J., Sobel, A. H. (2026), Scientific Data 13, 136, doi:10.1038/s41597-025-06452-0.

Permafrost: Westermann, S., Barboux, C., Bartsch, A., et al. (2024). ESA Permafrost Climate Change Initiative (Permafrost_cci): Permafrost active layer thickness for the Northern Hemisphere, v4.0. NERC EDS Centre for Environmental Data Analysis. doi:10.5285/d34330ce3f604e368c06d76de1987ce5. Attribution, all three parts required: the ESA Climate Change Initiative; the Permafrost_cci project; the data providers (University of Oslo, producer of this file).

Sea-level rise: Garner, G. G., Hermans, T., Kopp, R. E., et al. (2021). IPCC AR6 Sea Level Projections. Version 20210809. doi:10.5281/zenodo.6382554. Required with it: Fox-Kemper, B., et al. (2021), Ocean, Cryosphere and Sea Level Change, IPCC AR6 WG1 Chapter 9, doi:10.1017/9781009157896.011; Kopp, R. E., et al. (2023), The Framework for Assessing Changes To Sea-Level (FACTS) v1.0, Geoscientific Model Development 16, 7461-7489, doi:10.5194/gmd-16-7461-2023. Acknowledgement: We thank the projection authors for developing and making the sea-level rise projections available, multiple funding agencies for supporting the development of the projections, and the NASA Sea Level Change Team for developing and hosting the IPCC AR6 Sea Level Projection Tool.

Country outlines and the coastline: Made with Natural Earth. Free vector and raster map data @ naturalearthdata.com.

Industry carbon exposure: Ingwersen, W., and Young, B. (2025). Supply Chain Greenhouse Gas Emission Factors v1.4 by NAICS-6. Cornerstone Sustainability Data Initiative. doi:10.5281/zenodo.17202747. Licensed under CC BY 4.0. Banded by ThemisIQ.

Industry codes: Industry codes matched with the US Census Bureau's 2022 to 2017 NAICS concordance.

Transition multipliers by scenario, driver and horizon: Transition multipliers are derived from the NGFS Climate Scenarios Data Set, Phase 5, version 5.1 (Richters, O. et al., 2026, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17901363): carbon prices and low-carbon energy shares from the GCAM, MESSAGEix-GLOBIOM and REMIND-MAgPIE models, converted by ThemisIQ into scenario multipliers. The data are licensed under the NGFS Scenarios licence, adapted from CC BY 4.0, which includes a disclaimer of warranties (https://data.ene.iiasa.ac.at/ngfs/#/license). NGFS does not endorse ThemisIQ or this analysis.

What changed in model 1.5 (25 October 2026)
Today's level is never scaled down; it rises with warming above SSP2-4.5's mid-century level. Under model 1.4 the physical multiplier was each pathway's warming relative to SSP2-4.5 at 2040, so a period with less warming than that (every short horizon, and SSP1-1.9 and SSP1-2.6 at every horizon) scaled today's regional hazard level down. From model 1.5 the multiplier is that ratio or 1, whichever is higher. Opportunities linked to physical change take the same multiplier. The scenario values themselves (IPCC AR6 Table SPM.1) are unchanged. A report keeps the model it was run on, and names it.
Limitations
The Climate Risk Screening is a structured first pass intended to scope and support a formal IFRS S2 disclosure or CSRD double-materiality assessment. A fully compliant ESRS assessment additionally requires (a) a defined materiality threshold agreed by the entity's governance body, and (b) stakeholder engagement informing the impact-materiality axis. The tool produces the prioritisation structure but does not replace either requirement, and outputs are not a substitute for independent professional review prior to publication.
Module methodology
Supply Chain & Sustainable Procurement
GHG Protocol Scope 3 · CS3D · EcoVadis Framework
Supplier risk scoring
Supplier risk scores combine country-level ESG risk (using World Bank governance indicators and climate vulnerability indices), sector risk (based on GHG Protocol Scope 3 emission intensity and CS3D high-risk sector classifications), and spend-weighted exposure.
Questionnaire frameworks
ThemisIQ questionnaire templates are aligned with EcoVadis assessment methodology (Environment, Labour & Human Rights, Ethics, Sustainable Procurement), the GHG Protocol Scope 3 Category 1 data collection requirements, CS3D Human Rights Due Diligence requirements, and the UK and Australian Modern Slavery Acts.
Scope 3 Category 1

The supplier register estimates Category 1 for a supplier only where its own fixed table holds a factor for that supplier's sector. Those factors are recorded with no published source, year or region, and supplier sectors are now recorded as EXIOBASE industries that the table does not cover, so in practice no supplier is priced there. While any supplier is unpriced, no total is shown.

In the Scope 3 calculator, Category 1 is spend-based, priced from EXIOBASE 3 version 3.8.2 (EXIOBASE consortium, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0) through the active factor edition, using the factor recorded for that category (an EXIOBASE industry or product, whichever the category is priced against) in the EXIOBASE region the inventory's country of supply belongs to.

Figures pulled from the Supplier Portal use each supplier's own allocated emissions where the supplier provided them. A supplier without one is estimated from its recorded spend at 0.5 kg CO2e per US dollar, one factor for every sector, recorded with no published source, no year and no region; spend in any other currency is flagged and left out. The buyer reviews the result before applying it to Category 1.

Module methodology
People & Workforce
EU Pay Transparency Directive · ESRS S1 · GRI 405
Gender pay gap methodology
ThemisIQ calculates mean and median gender pay gap figures following the EU Pay Transparency Directive (2023/970/EU) methodology, comparing ordinary pay across gender, by job category, and across the organisation. Calculations align with UK Gender Pay Gap Reporting and California Pay Data Reporting requirements.
Disclosure frameworks
Workforce metrics are mapped to ESRS S1 (Own workforce), GRI 401-410 (Labour practices and decent work), SEC Item 101 human capital disclosure requirements, and ISO 45001 occupational health and safety indicators.
Module methodology
AI Governance
EU AI Act · NIST AI RMF · ISO 42001
Risk classification
AI system classification follows the EU AI Act (Regulation 2024/1689) risk taxonomy: Prohibited (Article 5), High-risk Annex III, Limited risk (transparency obligations), and Minimal risk. Classification logic reflects the European Commission's published guidance on Annex III interpretation.
Conformity assessment
High-risk AI system requirements follow EU AI Act Articles 8-15: risk management system, data governance, technical documentation (Article 11), transparency, human oversight, accuracy and robustness. ThemisIQ maps each requirement to specific evidence items.
NIST AI RMF alignment
Governance controls are cross-referenced to the NIST AI Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0) four functions: GOVERN, MAP, MEASURE, MANAGE. This enables dual EU/US framework compliance.
Regulatory status note
ThemisIQ monitors EU AI Act implementation guidance and updates its classification logic as Commission guidance evolves. Regulation (EU) 2026/1744 (published in the Official Journal on 24 July 2026 and in force from 27 July 2026) replaced Article 113(3)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689, deferring the high-risk obligations. They now apply from 2 December 2027 for stand-alone systems within Article 6(2) and Annex III, and from 2 August 2028 where the AI is a safety component of a product already covered by the EU product-safety instruments listed in Annex I (Article 6(1)). This supersedes the previous dates of 2 August 2026 and 2 August 2027. Nothing else in the application timetable moved: the Article 5 prohibitions have applied since 2 February 2025 (with the prohibitions added by Regulation (EU) 2026/1744 applying from 2 December 2026), general-purpose AI obligations since 2 August 2025, and the Article 50 transparency obligations retain their original schedule.
Module methodology
Cyber Governance
NIS2 · DORA · SEC Cyber · NIST CSF 2.0
NIS2 controls
Gap assessment is structured around NIS2 Directive (2022/2555/EU) Article 21 minimum security measures: risk management policies, incident handling, business continuity, supply chain security, network security, access control, cryptography, HR security, MFA, and secure communications.
DORA requirements
DORA (Regulation 2022/2554/EU) ICT risk management requirements are mapped across five pillars: ICT risk management framework, ICT-related incident management, digital operational resilience testing, ICT third-party risk management, and information sharing.
NIST CSF 2.0 alignment
All controls are cross-referenced to NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 six functions: GOVERN, IDENTIFY, PROTECT, DETECT, RESPOND, RECOVER. This provides a globally recognised control reference.
Module methodology
Forced Labour Reporting
Canada: Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act (S-211)
Applicability
The entity test follows section 2 of the Act: an entity listed on a stock exchange in Canada at any size, or one with a place of business, business or assets in Canada that meets at least two of three size conditions (CAD 20 million in assets, CAD 40 million in revenue, an average of 250 employees) in either of its two most recent financial years. Figures in another currency are converted to Canadian dollars at the dated ECB reference rate. Whether the entity must report then follows section 9, what it does with goods, with Public Safety Canada’s guidance on entities that only sell or distribute quoted beside the Act. The result is a screening, not legal advice.
Report content
The report is built in the order of section 11 of the Act, one section per requirement, from the user’s own answers. Each section shows the Act’s words and Public Safety Canada’s guidance, transcribed word for word from the source and dated. The summary of steps taken is drafted from the answers to the other sections and edited by the user; the report prints the user’s version.
Export checks
The PDF is produced only when every required section is complete and the attestation has no placeholder left. Before export the report text is checked for e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, street addresses and Social Insurance Number patterns, and for characters the report’s typeface cannot print. These are warnings for the user to review; the check cannot recognize names.
Module methodology
Transactions
TCFD · IFRS S2 · SFDR · SBTi
ESG risk screening
Transaction-level ESG risk screening combines sector-specific physical and transition climate risks (aligned with TCFD recommendations), regulatory compliance exposure by jurisdiction, and ESG governance factors, producing a weighted risk rating for investment decision support.
Compliance cost estimation
Compliance cost estimates are indicative ranges based on publicly available regulatory implementation cost data, published industry benchmarks, and ThemisIQ practitioner experience. They are not a substitute for professional legal or financial advice.
Framework alignment
Output supports IFRS S2 climate-related financial disclosure requirements, EU SFDR sustainability-related disclosure obligations, and SBTi portfolio coverage target methodologies.
Important note

This document and all outputs generated through the ThemisIQ platform are provided for informational, screening, planning, and prioritization purposes only. They do not constitute legal, regulatory, accounting, financial, assurance, investment, or other professional advice and do not, by themselves, satisfy any reporting, disclosure, filing, compliance, assurance, or certification obligation under IFRS, ISSB, CSRD, ESRS, SEC, California climate disclosure regulations, or any other framework or jurisdiction.

Platform outputs are dependent upon information provided by users and other third-party sources. ThemisIQ Compliance Inc. does not independently verify such information and makes no representation or warranty, express or implied, regarding the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability, or fitness for a particular purpose of any output.

Sustainability-related laws, regulations, standards, guidance, and interpretations continue to evolve. Users remain solely responsible for determining the applicability of regulatory requirements and for obtaining independent legal, accounting, assurance, and other professional advice where appropriate.

Use of the platform does not create a professional-client, advisory, assurance, accounting, consulting, fiduciary, or legal relationship with ThemisIQ Compliance Inc.

To the maximum extent permitted by law, ThemisIQ Compliance Inc., its directors, officers, employees, contractors, and affiliates shall not be liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, consequential, special, punitive, or economic damages arising from the use of, or reliance upon, any platform output.

ThemisIQ is a software platform and is not an accredited assurance provider, certification body, or regulatory authority.

Questions about our methodologies?
Our team includes practitioners who have applied these frameworks in real reporting contexts.
How we handle your data →See what you need to report →