When reporting carbon emission, what do I count and how?

THE PROCESS begins with understanding Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions. The Greenhouse Gas Protocol categorises emissions according to the different aspects of the business and has defined Scopes 1, 2 and 3. Accurately measuring and reporting emissions across these three scopes gives businesses a better understanding of their environmental impact. 

Scopes 1 and 2 are those emissions controlled by the company. Scope 1 covers those emissions released directly from a company’s controlled assets. This could be combustion of fuels for heating or company vehicles, or it could be the emissions released from industrial processes onsite. Scope 2 emissions are those released indirectly from the company, for example through the purchasing of electricity for office spaces. Finally, Scope 3 emission are indirect emissions and account for around 70% of a business’ carbon footprint. These emissions occur in the value chain, including both upstream and downstream. Examples of upstream emission origins are purchased goods and services, waste management, and transportation and distribution from suppliers. Downstream emissions can originate from transportation and distribution to customers, leased assets, and end-of-life of sold goods.

Our members can find plenty of information about Scopes 1, 2 and 3 on the internet and elsewhere but it’s much less clear about what to count and how. Who in the supply chain is responsible for calculating and counting which emission? What sits with the manufacturer, distributor or end user? Is it a problem if the same carbon emissions are counted by more than one organisation? What’s the right methodology to use for the calculations? Can the carbon emissions of different products from one manufacturer be compared? Can the emissions of a product from one manufacturer be compared with product from another?

The key is to go back to basics and remember the purpose of carbon reporting. In the drive towards Net Zero, the primary goal for any organization counting their emissions to reduce them. It is the direction of travel that matters, not establishing some sort of absolute total of the quantity of carbon emissions. This means it does not matter if some emissions are counted by more than one organization. For example, when it comes to the emissions involved in transporting product from the manufacturer to the distributor it is more useful thatboth count them and so have the data they need to look for reductions.

The plethora or methodologies makes it impossible to compare products from different organisations. There is no consistency between what and how they count so one product sourced internationally might appear to have lower emissions when compared to something manufactured in the UK. Drill down, though, and you could quickly find that the transport from overseas has not been included so the comparison is false. Comparing products from one organization is likely to be valid because it’s reasonable to assume the methodology used by that organization is consistent across all its products.

At the CHSA, we do not advocate one methodology over another. Instead, as always, our goal is to advocate an ethical approach. We are supporting our members to genuinely cut their carbon emissions and be transparent in the approach they are taking in the process. This philosophy aligns to our Code of Practice and Ethical Marketing Commitment. Signed by every member, they require them to be open and honest in their business conduct and for statements and claims to be truthful and supported by evidence. This philosophy is at the heart of all we do.

Lorcan Mekitarian is chair of the Cleaning & Hygiene Suppliers Association

For more information, visit www.CHSA.co.uk