Carbon data

Scope 3 carbon data: quality, reliability and decisions

Useful data has transparent boundaries, understandable evidence and a clear purpose.

More primary data is valuable when people know what they can trust. Before using a number, buyers need to understand how it was produced, what it covers and what the evidence supports.

Supplier-specific data can bring a company closer to the activities behind its footprint. Its usefulness still depends on the underlying methods, completeness and supporting evidence. The evidence should be as easy to find as the number.

At EcoVadis, Carbon Data Reliability Levels and the Carbon Data Network address these questions. Quentin Fornezzo and I coauthored the methodology whitepaper. Our wider aim is to bring supplier evidence into the systems companies use for carbon accounting and action.

Start with the question the number must answer

A supplier’s organisation-wide inventory and a product carbon footprint describe different boundaries. A product comparison also needs compatible methods and scope. Decide whether the task is screening a supply base, accounting for purchased goods or evaluating a purchasing choice before requesting more information.

Make uncertainty visible

Ask what period the data covers, which activities are included, how estimates were made and what evidence can be examined. Record the limitations beside the result. A precise-looking number should not conceal an unclear boundary or an unsupported assumption.

Improve the data that changes the decision

The most useful next data request is one with a clear consequence. It might resolve a material gap, make two options comparable or show whether a supplier action is reflected in the inventory. Connect the improvement to that purpose and keep a record of methodological changes over time.

For the distinction between corporate value-chain accounting and product accounting, see the GHG Protocol’s Scope 3 standard.

Questions for leadership

  1. What evidence supports the number?
  2. Are the boundaries and methods appropriate to this decision?
  3. Which improvement would make this data materially more useful?

The evidence behind the discussion

This perspective draws on my programme leadership, partnerships and published work. The sources above provide the evidence and context.

More writing
& conversations

Browse the archive