Although responsible for 10% of global greenhouse gas emissions, Latin America faces disproportionate vulnerability to climate-related events, making the need for clear, transparent, and rigorous action critically urgent. Corporate disclosure practices across the region show high variability in transparency and methodological consistency, posing a substantial obstacle in evidence-based measures against climate change. This study provides the first multi-country assessment of the quality and rigor of carbon footprint disclosures in the Latin American context, analyzing 103 company reports across five countries (Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico, and Peru) with the Carbon Integrity Index, a 10-indicator standardized metric quantifying the transparency of Scopes 1, 2, and 3 and uncertainty disclosures. Three distinct patterns emerged from the analysis. Although 83.5% of companies disclose some value-chain emission data, Scope 3 disclosure quality remains a systemic deficiency across the region (average 0.19–0.31) with uncertainty quantification nearly absent (94% non-disclosure). Median scores for all five countries cluster narrowly (2.65–4.20), independently of heterogenous governance frameworks. Finally, disclosure deficiencies appear uniform across sectors, suggesting structural rather than industry-specific barriers. These findings suggest that voluntary or international frameworks produce regional convergence at low quality levels, whereas adequate transparency requires differentiated capacity-building initiatives and national enforcement frameworks in emerging market contexts.

The environmental implications of linear infrastructure —such as roads, railways, and pipelines— require robust tools for assessing impacts and benefits. This study presents a systematic review of tools and methods used in high-impact publications between 2021 and 2024, focusing on case studies that evaluate environmental performance across the entire infrastructure project life cycle: planning, design, construction, operation, maintenance, and end-of-life. The review analyzes 102 peer-reviewed articles and strategic documents. Tools are classified by type (e.g., solutions, services, corporate frameworks), life cycle coverage, goal definition, system boundaries, data quality, and assessment methodology. Results show a fragmented but evolving landscape. Impact assessments are heavily concentrated in construction (69%) and operation phases (78%), while maintenance (53%) and end-of-life stages (37%) remain underrepresented. Spatial modeling, ecological indicators, and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) are among the most frequently applied approaches (45%, 32% and 27%, respectively). However, structured evaluation of environmental benefits is rare: 70% of studies include no assessment of ecological gains, and none incorporate economic valuation. Comparative evidence indicates that many of these limitations —particularly methodological fragmentation, weak life cycle coverage, and the lack of integration between spatial and technical approaches— have persisted for more than a decade, despite sustained attention in the literature.

The methodology used to attribute greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to nations profoundly influences perceived climate action burdens, raising critical questions about equity in global climate governance. This study systematically evaluates current production-based accounting (PBA) by comparing it with three alternative frameworks: consumption-based accounting (CBA), historical cumulative-based accounting (HBA), and per capita-based accounting (PCBA). We conducted a comprehensive SWOT analysis using multi-stream evidence synthesis, analyzing 23 major emitting countries representing over 80% of global emissions. Data sources included UNFCCC documents, historical emission datasets, consumption-based emission data, and World Bank population estimates. Results reveal dramatic redistributions of national positioning across frameworks, with countries experiencing extreme ranking volatility—India dropped 19 places from 4th under PBA to 23rd under PCBA, while Saudi Arabia rose from 11th to 1st. Our analysis demonstrates that while accounting frameworks provide factual measurements of different emissions dimensions, their selection for policy purposes constitutes a normative choice with distributional consequences. We explicitly map each framework to the responsibility principles it operationalizes, revealing that current over-reliance on PBA creates systematic blind spots in the policy context and climate governance.