# On market-based vs. location-based reporting **URL:** \ **Category:** Greenhouse Gas Protocol\ **Created:** [8 February 2024 12:44 UTC](https://community.carbonaltdelete.eu/t/on-market-based-vs-location-based-reporting/56 "2024-02-08T12:44:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![carbonaltdelete](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex013/user_avatar/community.carbonaltdelete.eu/carbonaltdelete/32/1_2.png) [@carbonaltdelete](https://community.carbonaltdelete.eu/u/carbonaltdelete)\ **Post date:** [8 February 2024 12:44 UTC](https://community.carbonaltdelete.eu/t/on-market-based-vs-location-based-reporting/56/1 "2024-02-08T12:44:09Z")
This post is a summary of the Q&A on a Carbon+Alt+Delete webinar. Q: Could you de-construct the basic criteria used to determine whether to use location- / market-based approach? _A: You should always report both on market-based & location-based._ Q: In which chapter of the GHG Reporting Standard can I find “Scope 2 dual reporting”? _A: All the details on dual reporting are in the "_ [_scope 2 guidance_](https://ghgprotocol.org/scope_2_guidance)_"._ Q: Are AiB emission factors divided in scope 2 and 3 cat 3? _A: No, unfortunately AiB only gives scope 2 emissions._ Q: When using market-based approach: what emission factor should be used in countries that do not calculate their residual factor? _A: You should use the location-based as a default in the absence of residual mix factor._ Q: Regarding purchased heat emissions (district heating)- will they also be calculated using both location and market-based emission factors? _A:_ _Yes (however there we see that mostly the same EF is used for MB and LB)._ Q: Are AiB countries and the US/Canada the only allowed regions/countries to exchange energy attribute certificates to report lower scope 2 emissions? _A: No, in every country with some form of energy attribute certificates, companies should report both MB and LB._