Advantages

Carbon accounting and footprinting raise awareness about the environmental impact of various activities, products and processes. This awareness can lead to more informed choices and behaviours that reduce emissions.
Organisations can make more informed decisions about resource allocation, energy sources and operational practices based on the emissions data. This can lead to more efficient and sustainable practices.
Carbon accounting provides a foundation for setting emission reduction targets and tracking progress toward those targets. Organisations can assess the effectiveness of their strategies and make adjustments as needed.
Carbon footprinting helps organisations understand the emissions associated with their supply chains. This insight enables better supply chain management, including identifying high-impact areas and working with suppliers to reduce emissions.
Transparent reporting of emissions data enhances accountability and builds trust with stakeholders, including customers, investors and regulators.
The need to reduce emissions can drive innovation in technologies, processes products that have lower environmental impacts.
Carbon footprinting allows for comparisons between products, services, or organisations, encouraging healthy competition for sustainability improvements.

Disadvantages

Carbon accounting requires accurate and comprehensive data collection, which can be challenging due to the complexity of operations and supply chains. Data quality and availability can vary.
In some cases, emissions data may need to be estimated or based on assumptions, leading to potential inaccuracies. This is especially true for indirect emissions that come from complex supply chains.
Proper carbon accounting and footprinting demand time, effort and resources. Smaller organisations or individuals may find it challenging to allocate these resources.
Calculating emissions can be complex and some emissions sources might be overlooked or difficult to quantify accurately. This could lead to an incomplete understanding of the total carbon impact.
The same emissions level might have different implications depending on the industry, region, or scale of the organisation. Comparing emissions without considering these factors can lead to misleading conclusions.
Emission factors and conversion values can change as scientific knowledge evolves. This can affect the accuracy of historical comparisons and tracking progress over time.
Third-party verification of emissions data can be resource-intensive and may not be feasible for all organisations, potentially affecting the credibility of reported data.
Focusing solely on reducing emissions in one area might lead to unintended negative impacts in another area. For example, a switch to biofuels might lead to deforestation for biofuel production.
Double accounting in carbon reporting occurs when the same emission reduction is claimed by multiple entities, distorting data and hindering effective climate change mitigation. Standardised protocols and clear communication are crucial to mitigate this risk and ensure transparent carbon accounting practices.

In summary, while carbon accounting and footprinting provide valuable tools for understanding and addressing climate change, they also come with challenges related to data accuracy, complexity and potential unintended consequences.

Overcoming these challenges requires continuous improvement, accurate data collection and a holistic perspective on sustainability.