Comparative analysis of GHG calculation methodologies in aviation
航空業界におけるGHG算定手法の比較分析 (AI 翻訳)
Yury Erofeev, Stefan Majer, D. Thrän
🤖 gxceed AI 要約
日本語
本論文は、欧州サステナビリティ報告基準（ESRS）に対応するための航空GHG算定手法を比較。簡易ツールからライフサイクル包括的手法までを対象に、短・中・長距離の標準プロファイルで計算し、境界設定、非CO2処理、データ粒度、文書化・監査可能性、報告整合性を多基準分析で評価。結果として、放射強制力指数（RFI）とWell-to-Wake（WTW）を組み込む手法が長距離で有意に高いCO2eを報告し、ESRS対応にはエネルギー範囲の明示と非CO2処理の文書化が最小要件と提案する。
English
This paper compares aviation GHG methodologies for ESRS compliance, from simple factor tools to lifecycle-inclusive approaches. Using controlled computations for standard flight profiles and a multi-criteria analysis (boundary clarity, non-CO2 treatment, granularity, auditability, reporting alignment), it finds that methods incorporating radiative forcing indices (RFI) and well-to-wake (WTW) factors report systematically higher CO2e for long-haul. It proposes a minimum-viable ESRS-ready approach: explicit energy scope declaration and documented non-CO2 treatment.
Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.
📝 gxceed 編集解説 — Why this matters
日本のGX文脈において
日本ではSSBJが気候関連開示基準を策定中であり、航空業界においても国際線を中心にGHG算定の透明性と比較可能性が求められている。本論文の手法比較は、邦航空会社がESRSやISSB基準に対応する際の実務指針として有用である。
In the global GX context
As ESRS and ISSB push for comparable GHG disclosures, this paper provides a structured comparison of aviation methodologies, highlighting the impact of non-CO2 factors and system boundaries. It offers a practical framework for selecting or improving calculation tools, directly relevant to global reporting standards and airline disclosure practices.
👥 読者別の含意
🔬研究者:Researchers can use the multi-criteria scoring framework and sensitivity analysis to extend methodology comparisons to other sectors or refine aviation GHG models.
🏢実務担当者:Corporate sustainability teams in aviation can use the findings to select or audit their GHG calculation tools for ESRS-readiness and to document methodological choices.
🏛政策担当者:Policymakers can reference the proposed minimum-viable approach when setting or harmonizing GHG reporting requirements for aviation under regional standards.
📄 Abstract（原文）
: The aviation sector faces mounting pressure to deliver transparent, comparable greenhouse-gas (GHG) disclosures under European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS). We provide a comparison of aviation GHG methodologies spanning simple factor tools and flight-specific, lifecycle-inclusive approaches. Our approach combines a structured documentation review (retaining calculators that publish or allow derivation of emission intensity per passenger-kilometre), controlled computations for standardized short-, medium, and long-haul profiles under each method’s native assumptions (energy scope, class/cargo allocation, distance modelling, non-CO2 handling), and a documentation-based multi-criteria analysis (0–3 rubric) on boundary clarity, non-CO2 treatment, data granularity, documentation/auditability, and reporting alignment; we also record standards applicability with a binary (0/1) screen and test sensitivity to weights and thresholds. Results show modest dispersion at short haul but pronounced divergence at long haul, driven chiefly by inclusion of radiative forcing indices (RFIs) and well-to-wake (WTW) factors; methods applying RFI+WTW report systematically higher CO2e than tank-to-wake calculators. High-scoring, well-documented frameworks and European factor sets emphasizing WTW and transparent assumptions are best positioned for ESRS-style disclosures, while some tools remain useful for screening if omissions are made explicit. We find no universal monotonic link between score and emissions; the long-haul association is mechanistic (scope completeness and non-CO2 inclusion). We propose a minimum-viable ESRS-ready approach: explicit energy scope declaration, documented non-CO2 treatment with RFI
🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース
- semanticscholar https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clpl.2026.100155first seen 2026-07-27 05:53:38
🔔 こうした論文の新着を逃したくない方は キーワードアラート に登録（無料・3キーワードまで）。
gxceed は公開メタデータに基づく研究支援データセットです。要約・翻訳・解説は AI 支援で生成されています。 最終的な解釈・検証は利用者が原典資料に基づいて行うことを前提とします。